In pondering Professor Nadell's lecture of last class, she gave me much pause for thought. Yes, I do believe that Richardson wrote Pamela with a clear intent of perpetuating what he sees as the epitome of the truly moral woman. And as his heavy-handedness leaves no room for any other construct, Pamela is but a further dictate as to what is demanded and expected of women (in mind and body) under the weight of a patriarchal stranglehold. As Richardson holds all women to one moral ideal and insists there is but one way (with piety to one particular religion) of perfecting morality, Pamela reeks of prejudice, narrow-mindedness and sexism.
But Fielding's Shamela is no better in its intent. If Richardson's ideas rile him, blasting back in satire chock full of irreverance in its treatment of women as well as religion pushes the boundaries of good taste and good sense. Therefore, Shamela, Fielding's novel as rebuttal to Richardson's self-serving, moralistic-in-tone Pamela leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Both men rage a battle of religious idealogy in print using women as fodder (in a mockery of female sexuality) as reminder of their societal, masculine superiority. Both Pamela and Shamela (as polar opposites) are held up to society as evidence that women are to feel shame in their sexuality. Thus, they must entirely surpress it or take it to a vulgar extreme. There is no middle ground here. Women are portrayed as hysterical (not in a funny way) in their sexuality. And Richardson and Fielding can agree on one thing; either way, it is the men who sit in judgement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think your points are powerful, and to a certain extent inarguable. Both men were strongly traditionalist in their way, and both upheld masculine prerogative, although not male superiority in either morals, good-nature, or intelligence.
Personally, when I view Pamela as specific girl, that is as a realistic character, she doesn't bother me so much. When I view her as a social ideal she pretty deeply offends me, much more so than Shamela. I think Fielding's humor about sexuality has a progressive side (just a side): he did not view female sexual desire as somehow unnatural or immoral--he focuses on the ways women have to disguise or manipulate it to get by society's restrictions. Richardson seemed to actually believe his own (hogwash) ideology of virginity, which strikes me as much more dangerous--especially as his views can seem more favorable to women, and because his views would in fact predominate for roughly 150 years.
Post a Comment