I enjoyed the experience of reading both "Pamela" and "Shamela." It wouldn't have seemed right reading just one and I honestly liked both books. While "Pamela" pulled me in more, "Shamela" was obviously funnier.
However, when it comes to the topic of realism there is no question in my mind that "Pamela" is a more realistic book (and that Pamela is a more realistic character than Shamela). Yes, there are women in this world that are self-centered, greedy and gold-diggers. Does that mean those are the only characteristics they have? NO! Imagining a person to be that flat is the equivalent of honestly believing your favorite actress is really the woman she plays in movies. Well, she isn't!
"Shamela" while hilarious, did not create characters with depth for me. They are all stereotypes or caricatures. Pamela is the gold-digger, Booby is the wealthy buffoon and Mr. Williams is the guy on the side. I can watch hundreds of movies with those same cliché characters.
"Pamela" on the other hand, created round characters. Is Pamela sometimes annoying and Richardson's preaching at the end of the book mind numbing? Yes. However, for most of the story Richardson created a heroine that is multifaceted. She has specific and sturdy morals, but also a suppressed sexuality. She wants to serve her master, but when confronted she is provocative and argumentative. Do I think Richardson did all of these things intentionally? I honestly don't know. It is possible he did and it's very possibly his subconscious helped these things slip into the story.
Ironically, though I preferred "Pamela" to "Shamela" I enjoyed one of Fielding's arguments more than anything Richardson put forth. His critique of Richardson for seemingly glorifying words over action is very astute. Pamela often says she is one thing, but her actions don't always coincide. If she were really that virtuous would her actions have been different? Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Leaving out reality for the moment, your point about flat vs. round gold-diggers perfectly illustrates some of the main contours of realistic representation. Gold-diggers are favorite targets of satire (and melodrama--think of soap operas, both daytime and nighttime). To give stereotyped character like this depth and complexity is to make a powerful realist move.
Your final point about words vs. actions points to what I think is one of the most serious and fundamental conflicts between the two authors. It goes to the heart of what each man thinks is moral, and how he believes people are encouraged to be virtuous. It is a real difference, and one that will have implications for novels throughout the rest of the century.
Post a Comment