First, a few thoughts on the novel. I found Shamela to be a delightfully refreshing break fro m the ever-so-virtuous Pamela. I guess the preference just depends on which sort of character you find less annoying: the wholesomely virtuous or the wholly devious.
I also found that the letter scheme works here within the frame of a fast-paced novel because characters should exchange letters only when they have something of interest to convey rather than the boring ol’ “I’ve been a good dutiful daughter today…(day after day sort of thing)” Instead, Fielding wittily mocks the lengthy (and often tiresome) letters of Pamela in Shamela : “You will excuse the Shortness of this Scroll; for I have sprained my right Hand, boxing three new made Officers.—Tho’…I beat them all” (322). (I laughed at this, and most definitely agree.)
Fielding makes a complete mockery of virtue: ‘private sermons,’ “not so strictly innocent” evening activities, an ale-drinking, money-grubbing parson, and Shamela—who’d rather be spending her wealth on fancy dresses in London than giving some to charity on the countryside. It is apparent that Fielding views Pamela as a sham (haha, Fielding is punny)—for having far too much overt virtue, rather he believes that virtue within people’s hearts should speak loudest. It was important to note that Fielding rewarded Shamela with monetary wealth, to the same degree as Pamela was rewarded—the main difference being that Shamela is TOTALLY devoid of virtue. This may be his negation of the belief that virtue does not necessarily correlate with material wealth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As I said in class, I personally love Shamela, and almost cry laughing every time I read it. I particularly like your final comment that both characters are equally rewarded, one for being virtuous and the other for being completely without virtue. This gets at some of the problems Fielding has that I have had trouble articulating: is virtue frequently rewarded in real life? More often, arguably, selfishness is rewarded with wealth. There is something naive, even childish, in the way Richardson rewards Pamela; my own children demand toys and candy for being "good," with about the same level of sophistication. Also, Richardson does not seem aware that the extent of rewards makes some readers strongly suspect that she has been after the money all along; her constant professions otherwise make her seem even less reliable. I think I am not giving too much away when I say that Tom Jones does not end up impoverished in a gutter, but whatever rewards he is given have an artificial "fairy tale" quality that arguably signals Fielding's awareness that this is not the way things usually work out, nor should we count on the universe to shower wealth on those who most deserve it--certainly not as our primary motive for goodness--if so, where would we be?
I absolutely can see why Shamela is rewarded to the same degree as Pamela. Ultimately we value results over virtue and Shamela delivers, even if in a conniving way. I absolutely love that Shamela’s urge for survival is rewarded because even if we don't agree with her games, they are masterfully carried out to bring about a successful result. Shouldn't all accomplishments be rewarded regardless of the motives (that is the American way after all) :o)
Post a Comment