At first I found Shamela to be very funny, I thought the introductory letters were hilarious, since I found the letters prefacing Pamela to be a tad excessive in it's praise (to put it mildly). As the novel progressed, however, the humor kind of dissipated for me. I'm not really sure why that is. I do get the author of Shamela's points, although I don't necessarily agree with all of them. For example, I don't really think that it was Richardson's intention to persuade gentlemen to marry their maids. I think Richardson's point was that the only way a poor person is comparable to a wealthy person, status wise, is in their image before God. Therefore, the only way a maid like Pamela could ever aspire to marry someone wealthy, is if she is as morally pure as Pamela. Not every virtuous person would be capable of marrying someone wealthy (unless you're as perfectly beautiful, talented, forgiving, and admired as Pamela, which is virtually impossible), but the only way you'd be worthy of it is if you were virtuous...that's the only thing that kept her from being Square B.'s mistress. If a gentleman can sleep with a maid without marriage no matter how great or beautiful she is, he would have absolutely no compulsion to throughly degrade himself by marrying her. I just think Richardson's point was that you should value your virtue, since it's the only thing a poor person has of any value.
Some of Fielding's other points carry more weight with me. Realistically, I think Shamela is a more authentic character, since I could more readily see someone behave as she does than as Pamela. However, to me, Mr. B. behaved more realistically in Pamela, than Mr. Booby in Shamela. Mr. Booby was just a stupid fool, (Shamela didn't even try hard to convince him) but perhaps that was Fielding's point; only a complete fool would marry a maid just because they claim they're innocent and virtuous.
I did enjoy though, how ironically, every virtuous and respectable character in Pamela was turned into morally deficient characters in Shamela; making Mrs. Jewkes the most respectable character in the book.
Some of Fielding's other points carry more weight with me. Realistically, I think Shamela is a more authentic character, since I could more readily see someone behave as she does than as Pamela. However, to me, Mr. B. behaved more realistically in Pamela, than Mr. Booby in Shamela. Mr. Booby was just a stupid fool, (Shamela didn't even try hard to convince him) but perhaps that was Fielding's point; only a complete fool would marry a maid just because they claim they're innocent and virtuous.
I did enjoy though, how ironically, every virtuous and respectable character in Pamela was turned into morally deficient characters in Shamela; making Mrs. Jewkes the most respectable character in the book.
2 comments:
I do think it can be difficult in our highly skeptical, even cynical, age, to really engage with a morally earnest writer like Richardson. I think you have succeeded admirably here, and given me and your classmates an excellent account of the serious argument to be made for the book: "I think Richardson's point was that the only way a poor person is comparable to a wealthy person, status wise, is in their image before God." His point deserves to be taken seriously, and his efforts measured accordingly. Even in the final section, while we may not believe that Richardson's methods are the most effective, we can perhaps find sympathy in the efforts of a novelist who was honestly searching for a way to make his readers more virtuous. I am not sure I think you are entirely fair to Fielding here, but I can tell you that it is much harder for most of us today to be fair to Richardson than to Fielding. I would only ask that you clarify for yourself what you think are the fair and unfair criticisms that Fielding makes of Pamela.
I believe that Fielding is telling us the reader that a pious person (Pamela) must show us her pousness by doing and mot by prayer. This is his direct attack on Richardson's view of what "God's grace" is. Not to be political here but it would be like the President not funding child care for poor children, criticizing the opposition to his veto, and not provididing a solution the problem. Richarson tells a reader to be religious by prayer,and not to concern yourself with the outward expression of religon (i.e. good deeds) and god will treat you will be just like if not better than Mother Theresa. Fielding feels that piousness along with action gets you farther than prayer. I may not be that religious, but I believe that you must pray and take action help the poor, nurture the sick, and stand up and take action to be a complete religious person and this is what I believe that Fielding was trying tell the reader in Shamela. Do you think is correct reading of Shamela let me what you think?
Post a Comment