Throughout "Shamela" one of Fielding's main criticisms of "Pamela" is that Richardson values words over actions. Pamela says one thing, but her actions don't necessarily back it up. However, doesn't Tom Jones do the same thing? For practically the entire book he professes his complete and utter love for Sophia while sleeping with other women. Sophia even points out the hypocrisy in this when she says to him: "After what passed at Upton, so soon to engage in a new amour with another woman, while I fancied, and you pretended, your heart was bleeding for me! -Indeed, you have acted strangely."
Now, personally I don't think there is a contradiction in what Jones does. I do honestly believe it is possible for someone to be completely in love with one person (who is unobtainable to them) while sleeping with another. However, I do see a contradiction within Fielding. To criticize something in one book and then do that exact same thing in another is the definition of hypocrisy. The only difference is that Tom is a man while Pamela is a woman. It's the same old double standard. The man can be promiscuous while still being a hero, but in order for the woman to be a heroine she must adorn herself with a chastity belt. Fielding's heroine (Sophia) even reinforces this idea.
In fact, Pamela and Sophia have much in common. They are unmatched in their beauty. Both fall in love with flawed men. They are beloved and blessed with a certain "air" and both posses the character trait of being outspoken. In the way that Pamela defies Mr. B, Sophia disobeys her father and her aunt. However, I'm not so sure if these similarities represent another possible contradiction in the writing of Fielding or if he's intentionally done this to jab at "Pamela" (or both).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Tom can only be defended on the grossest double standard. I don't think Fielding means to portray him as a hypocrite so much as an unthinking boy--he acts impulsively which leads him into huge and increasing contradictions. His character development, such as it is, is to learn to control his behavior so that it lives up to his professed values.
I like that you put Pamela and Sophia together. Interestingly, Richardson professed to be horrified by Sophia, and accused her of unfeminine indelicacy--he called her "that inn-going Sophia." He thought that Fielding was horribly vulgar, a sentiment Fielding returned. Richardson could think of no more tragic a situation than of a dutiful daughter pressured to marry a man she disliked. In the same situation, Fielding plays the father for comedy and has the daughter simply walk out of the house. Both depart from conventional heroines even as they borrow from them: Pamela in her class and outspokenness, and Sophia in her practical response to parental pressure--rather than turning into a sacrifice to her parent's ambition. (You would be amazed how many novels during the 18th C. featured that basic plot!)
Post a Comment