Shamela - More Believable Than Pamela

Thank God for Fielding's Shamela. It was such a relief to read after Pamela. What I could not comprehend was Pamela herself. Reading through it, I kept saying to myself, "O.K. Mr. B made some passes at you, has tried to rape you, twice, and you are not running away. You are procrastinating, either with his clothes or because of Mrs. Jervis. Go to the police or something." And what happens in the end? She marries the man, who, it must be repeated, attempted rape. Twice. You can imagine me screaming at the book at that point. Why, Pamela? I cannot understand you, and indeed question your sanity. It is the very lack of this question that makes Shamela so much more enjoyable than Pamela. I understand Shamela from the get-go because she is so upfront about everything. She enjoys Booby's advances very much. Everyone, not just Shamela, we can see clearly for who they really are. Why is it so important to keep one's virtue? According to Shamela, the longer you wait, the bigger the monetary payoff. I understood Pamela's protectiveness of her virtue, up until a point. She kept her virtue intact but ends up married to Mr. B at the end anyway. I think the importance of virtue was shattered in the end because she ends up with Mr. Rapist. What is great about both novels is how virtue is rewarded. Pamela moves up from poverty and gets riches, while Shamela does the same, but also with the important lesson that she has no love for the nobleman and prefers the priest in bed (that was so wonderfully humorous). There is no living among two worlds for Shamela either; she moves up and cannot go back, and shuns even being seen with her mother. Fielding condenses many pages of inane dialog into clear points and everything is so funny; from the priest who believes sins will be forgiven no matter how many times he drinks as long as he repents, to the mother who values virtue as long as money is involved. I could not understand Pamela loving such a detestable man as Mr. B, but I can understand Shamela manipulating Booby and getting rich off of him, knowing love is not even part of her equation.

Pamela v. Shamela Take 3

I found while reading Shamela that i tended to be a defender of Richardson, which was quite surprising because I did particularly enjoy Pamela. Additionally, the characters and their morals presented by Richardson were stuck in my head throughout the book leading me to disregard Fieldings views. As a result i tended to feel happy that Parson Williams and Pamela/Shamela were having their little affair and hurting Mr.B/Booby, for he was still evil. Perhaps this biased is because of something so simple as reading Pamela first and even with the questions about her action's she remained the person you rooted for. Furthermore ,as Feilding's Shamela exposes and plays on many of Richardson's annoying habits it begins to feel overdone and loses it laugh factor after the first couple of pages leaving you with a kinder view towards Richardson's work.

Shamela

I enjoyed Fielding's Shamela despite the fact that I liked parts of Pamela as well. I feel that Fielding did a superlative job mocking Richardson's work, and he definitely had a sense of humor. It is hilarious when Shamela mentions talking about her virtue until dinner, and that she can barely contain her laughter during certain moments. There were certain moments when I couldn't contain my own laughter. For example, when Shamela says quite bluntly that she intends to live an extravagant lifestyle at her master's expense because there is no point of having money if you don't spend it. I don't think that Shamela is really meant to be a realistic character, Fielding just satirically responds to some of the unrealistic elements that were within Richardson's work.

Shamela

Shamela v. Pamela

Although I was tired of Pamela's repetitive thoughts on her virute and innocence in Richardson's novel, I have to say that I preferred that over Fielding's rendition of a cruel and calculated Shamela. From the conspiracy of snagging a rich husband to the scandal of the affair with Parson Williams, Shamela's actions were not at all pleasing to read. However, that may be because of my preference for the good over the evil. True, Fielding's version was a sharper and fast-paced read and yet, I felt as if such a cool and calculative person could not possibly exist. I'd rather be blinded by innocence and virtue than tricked by the ingenuations of the lower class mindset. Pamela's thoughts and letters were sometimes a bother to read yet I felt that I was directly in her mind. Shamela's trickery and "evil" thoughts were not at all pleasant to read- and I didn't want to be in her mind at all.

Liking Pamela

Conceptually, I enjoyed Pamela. In practice, I found the epistolary form challenging. It is difficult, using letters, to sustain suspense while building a narrative and causes the reader to question the accuracy of the account. Perhaps it is this issue that presents the reader with the greatest challenge in determining the authenticity of Pamela. The argument against Pamela as an unrealistic, inaccessible character has merit. She is unwavering in her piety and virtuousness to a degree that most find not only unfathomable, but undesirable. These qualities make her less authentic and not the ‘every woman’ that, as a disadvantaged maid, one might anticipate her to be. Richardson presents these particular aspects of Pamela as an ideal, but succeeds more in making it difficult for the reader to root for her.
When the reader takes Pamela at Richardson’s face value, it becomes less problematic to identify with her and appreciate the psychological complexities in the novel. When the book begins, Pamela has lost a mother figure in Lady B and is put in the care of her son. From the beginning, her feelings for Mr. B are complex. For me, the fits she falls into when Mr. B makes advances seem a combination of being overwhelmed with a desire to protect the only possession of value she has, which is her virtue, and the internal struggle she faces when confronted with powerful sexual feelings. It is easier to faint than to identify desire within oneself.
Ultimately, the reader must decide the message of Richardson. It is clear that he intends to examine class as well as the possibility, or impossibility, within that society of upward mobility. He also challenges the idea of elite education (for Pamela has been exposed to and continues to pursue, on her own, knowledge) and romantic love over strategic alliances. Overall, I felt a sense of being transported into a time and place far removed from the conventions of modern society and I, surprising myself, enjoyed the ride.

Searching for Realamela

By making Shamela purely trashy, manipulative, and morally deficient, Fielding succeeded only in creating the same character in the reverse. Just as the exaggeration of Pamela's virtue made her less credible, the exaggeration of Shamela's immorality did the same for her character.
Fielding insults the lower class by insinuating that they aren't capable of a life of virtue, and that they are really no better than Shamela. Can't there be a realistic character somewhere in between these two? A Realamela perhaps?
What Fielding does with Parson Williams is hilarious. His mini-sermons to Shamela were as base as they could get! Was Fielding implying that the clergy were a bunch of fakes who take to things like drinking ale in their spare time?

I Have a prolem with Pamela.

I have a problem with Pamela. She is very religious, pious, and very obidient to her parents.
I find that her character is one of mass confussion. She does her work while she is with Mr. B, but while she is sent to live with Mrs. Jewkes she does no work, and all she does is write letters to her parents. I also have a major problem with the idea that after getting kicked out of the second house, she returns to her tormentor, Mr. B.. This make it sound like she asked for it. I also think that Richardson presensts a reader with Pamela's being idolized and pious too much that her tale becomes repetative and dull. Pamela becomes a victim of rape, not physically, but psychologically because Mr. B. takes something that she cherishes the most, her virtue. Thus, making a reader believe that her virtue came with a financial and material reward attached to it Do you think this assessment of Pamela's character is a correct one?

Pamela vs. Shamela

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.

Makin' It

Here are some of your choices for “makin’ it” stories:

Oliver Twist/ Harry Potter—both orphans who make good—picked on but stay nice
Babe—“overcomes farmyard prejudices, his own ignorance, and all expecations”
Christmas Carol—one of the classic redemption stories which reassures us that it is never too late to mend
It’s a Wonderful Life—George Bailey walks away from money his whole life, but is almost literally showered with it at the end.

African-American and immigrant versions:
The Jeffersons—“We’re moving on up”
Trading Places
American Tail

Sports:
Hoosiers--underdog sports story
Jerry Maguire—sports and getting rich


Cinderella: upward social mobility, wealth, reward for being “nice”;
Pride and Prejudice—19th century Cinderella
Pretty Woman—Cinderella for the 1990s
Story of Fantasia Burrino(?)—winner of American Idol—Cinderella for this decade
Devil Wears Prada (interesting twist in that she has an evil fairy god-mother and walks away from “success” at the end, choosing an ordinary guy prince Charming)

Survival against all odds:
Cast Away
City of God
novel about the Holocaust


Some remarks and quotes:

“We like underdog stories”
we feel like we could do it (whatever it is) too

“even though the story is a cliché, as corny as it sounds it inspires me every time”

“the story gives people a sense of hope”

“rags to riches”

“the story shows you can achieve anything”; the character “never gives up on himself”
the story gives the “assurance that every good deed and every good person will be rewarded in their lifetime”

“the Knight in shining armor’

“the correlation is simplified for children: tribulations ultimately lead to rewards”

she is rewarded for “being just who she was”

“Making it does not happen in one day. People need to work hard and be very determined in order to succeed” –this is clearly one very popular and powerful version of the story, and contrasts with the Fairy Godmother version in which the sweet person is magically rewarded for being so sweet (and pretty);

“he learned to survive on his own and is reunited with his family in the end”

“in American, anything can happen”—how many stories are based on that premise?

“I feel a true success story is when someone beats a stereotype and doesn’t let anyone affect them and their goals”—often the story of the working-class character who proves him or herself.

Several of you mentioned harrowing stories of survival against all odds, for example during the Holocaust, or Brazil’s favelas. These are stories of human survival and endurance—they emphasize the human ability to keep going and not give up, even in the face of the most devastating circumstances. Obviously, these are very different from fantasies of the “Pretty Woman” type.

Certain common elements: characters who are likeable, who remind us of ourselves—we identify with their problems, or feel like we could do what they do;

underdog stories; we care about their struggles and are happy when they finally succeed—and they seem to deserve their success;

Different ideas of what it means to be “rich”—spiritual vs. literal wealth—“a story of a man realizing that even without money, a man can be rich”


Stories where the child breaks away from the demands of the family, discovers and asserts his or her own desires, finds true self.



Final Comment raised by Pamela:
It is worth pondering if at least some of these stories emphasize reward after suffering in order to assert that the universe is fair or so that they can portray wealth and privilege as a reward—as a way of offsetting guilt over the unequal distribution of goods in the world.

Pamela's letters

I liked how Richardson wrote Pamela because it helps you get personal with the character. By writing in the forms letters you can see the emotion and thoughts she is going through during this novel. Although some of the letters are kind of dull and boring you can't help wonder what this girl is going to do next. When you read the letters you are put in that moment at that exact time which i think is pretty amazing. To be able to be put in a certain time frame and a different time in life where women did not have many choices helps you understand that lifestyle. The only bad thing about this is that you only see what Pamela wants you to see and nothing else. You do not get an idea of what the other characters are until she talks about them and descibes them how she sees them.
Pamela's letters are written to her parents at first and i feel bad that she can't talk to them everyday or even see them. But when she moves to the country house she feels like her parents aren't getting them and then she keeps them as a diary. I tired writing a diary once and it never worked out, plus my brother would have found it and that would have been the end of my life. I feel that Pamela had to write to someone who she knew would listen. When she got caught with the letters and was demanded to give them to her master she couldn't give them up. She put her heart and soul into them, just imagine being ripped apart by someone in a million pieces because thats what she would of felt like.

After reading Pamela I would have to say that I enjoyed, but also disliked certain parts of the book. The presentation of her intimate thoughts through personal letters was one of the things I liked. It was much more interesting and lively to understand the sequence of events through her jumbled thoughts rather than through a third person narrative. What delighted me the most was that throughout Vol. I and part of Vol. II she not only portrayed a virtuous and innocent young servant girl, but a fiery one who was able to stand up for her morals. Thus, her meek obedience and acceptance of her Master's love in the second half of the book brought a bad taste to my mouth. However, I admit that in the eighteenth century mindset, the so-called "reward of virtue" as in Pamela's case of a poor servant girl rising to noble status would be seen as a sensational and provocative read. I definitely did not agree with Pamela's marriage to her Master. It was as if an abused victim returned to her abusee, like there was something attractive and disturbing about the situation.

Pamela: In a Class of Her Own

Although it may be perceived as a love story to some, ultimately, Pamela is a novel about the disparity between the classes and the sexes. Richardson sets the stage from the onset, as the protagonist is a "lowly" maid sexually preyed upon by her antagonistical, upper class "master." Such is the notion of class ingrained in her, Pamela feels it her "duty" to stay and finish the master's coat in spite of her terror of him and the real threat of physical danger to her.

There is much to be said for the moral of the story, for Pamela remains steadfast in her virtuousness, piousness and prudence in spite of her entrapment in isolation from parents and friends (loss of her support system). Pamela bears much, and is made to feel more and more a prisoner. And as such, Mr. B.'s cruelty reaches a crescendo as he takes hold of Pamela's letters. This final, calculated volley against her invades the privacy of her mind, therefore, emotionally strips her bare. There is much indignity for Pamela in Mr. B.'s action. This is an attack of upper class upon lower and male upon female. It is the ultimate act of control. But Pamela as heroine is victorious at the end, with all of her convictions intact.

In opposition to what some may think( Pamela as conniving female with ulterior motive), she ceaselessly begs her captor/would-be-rapist to allow her to return to her parents. And she maintains her spritual fortitude throughout her trial with the recitation of neverending prayers majestic-like in sincere intent. She bravely attempts escape in spite of hallucinating from lack of food and sleep. And as victim to extreme emotional and psychological upheaval, the proof of the scope of her desperation moves her to ponder suicide. Her letters to her parents are gut-wrenchingly raw in her terror, yet moving in her piety. Pamela is honest at all times in her writing, especially when she admits that she has fallen in love with her tormentor.

Pamela may be the victim/underdog througout this tale, but in the end she triumphs. As she is married into the upper class, she now has the means to wholeheartedly act with beneficence and compassion to those in need. Therefore, this elevation in class does not serve her pride, but is instead a means to serve a purpose. And although she has been lifted up according to societal boundaries, Pamela the woman remains steady of her soul. And most importantly, through her true goodness, she has brought her societally upper class (but morally debased) husband to be elevated as well. His love for "lower class" Pamela brings him to know the worth of a truly good, selfless woman. And in this realization, his heart is raised to sympathetic and munificent heights of feeling toward his fellow man.

I'm Gonna Give it My Best Shot, Sam!

I just finished Pamela, and I would be sorry (because I enjoyed it), except for the fact that I couldn't stand their mushy, gushy conversations one second longer! What happened to the fiery, sassy Pamela I so enjoyed being suspicious of all along? If she threw herself at his knees one more time I don't know if I could have gotten through it!
When he "lectured" her on what he expects from her, I laughed thinking any man would love his wife to read this book and learn from virtuous Pamela! The married men of that time were probably ecstatic and overwhelmingly grateful to Richardson for listing though Pamela the rules a woman is to observe in her marraige. I read some of them to my husband, and he answered, quite gleefully, "Exactly Honey! This is what I've been trying to tell you!"
I do have to admit, I was happy for Pamela. She did a great job with her sister-in-law, and I was rooting for her in church, happy that all the "ladies" kissed up to her afterwards. I kept waiting for the veneer to crack and I couldn't believe it didn't - even when she met his daughter!
Can anyone really be so virtuous? And if they are, do all these great things really happen for them and their families? (Like, will my parents get a farm somewhere?) OK, I'm going to try to be as wholesome and good as Richardson would want me to be from now on, and I will let you all know how it goes...lol

Pamela's fate is in her hands

When asked if I'm enjoying Richardson's, "Pamela" I have mixed emotions. At first I felt sympathetic towards Pamela's character being that she dealt with Mr.B's insane attempts and lived so far from her family. But then she started to annoy me because it seemed as though she was asking for it by choosing to remain in the house instead of escaping to her parents. While reading her letters it seemed as though she was trying to convince herself to remain virtuous and to not give into her desires towards Mr.B . It was quite obvious that Pamela had feelings for her master when she chose to finish his waistcoat and delay her return home after he attempted to rape her. Noone in their right mind would ever want to stay in the same house with someone who is trying to rape them; unless they secretly want to sleep with them in return and enjoys the chase. In her letters to her parents she first signs them with " your honest and dutiful daughter" but in the rest of her letters she just signs your dutiful daughter. Perhaps she wasn't completely honest with her parents about her feelings towards Mr. B. Another hint was when she was debating on whether or not she should marry Mr. Williams. If she had married him perhaps he would have allowed her to return home for a while and would have protected her from Mr. B. But she hesitated again and I think she did this becaus eshe was in love with Mr. B and didn't want to disappoint him. Just like she didn't want to disappoint him again when he asked her to return to him when he finally allowed her to go back home. When she returns to him and he treats her with kindness she realizes she has fallen in love with him and in a way she stops running away from him and her fears of no longer being virtuous. I think her virginityis sacred to her because it's the only thing she has left and because she wants to keep her parents happy. It appears as though she keeps trying to please them by remaining virtuous through her letters and that she is messing with Mr. B's head by playing games. Her fate is in her hands and she is to blame for the mental, physical, and emotional abuse.

"Misinformed Pamela"

I hate the way Richardson wrote “Pamela.” I understand that is how they wrote back at the time, but I still don’t appreciate it since I am the one who has to read it. I had trouble understanding how Pamela wrote her letters. I think Pamela should’ve done a dialogue when she was writing to her parents the words that were spoken between her and the other people who were in her life at the time.
Overall I really enjoyed the book. The way I see it, this book is a love story. Many might not think so but I believe that Pamela was in love with the Master right from the beginning. I don’t think she knew what her feelings were just because she was too young to understand. When you have someone constantly telling you that your only duty in life is get married and have kids, it is difficult to differentiate between what love is and what a marriage is. Some simply get marry just for the sake of tradition, then you’ll find the few who actually get married to the person whom they fell in love with and cant imagine a life without them. How many people can you think off who married the one person they loved more than anything?
As I was reading this book I realized Pamela should have left the house from the very first time Mr. B tried to kiss/rape her. When she stayed it made me think that this is more than her just being afraid. I mean come on she is fifteen years old what the hell does she know. Mr. B says, “I will make a Gentlewoman of you, if you be obliging, and don’t stand in your own light.” When I read this it was is if Mr. B was saying that he will make her a woman meaning teach her what sex really is and to stop acting like a child, it was as if he was saying to keep her virginity was ridiculous. It was hard for me to understand this because I would have thought that back in those days the virginity for a young woman to keep was one of the strongest thing for someone to do, and if someone didn’t keep it, it would mean that she is a whore and that no one should be marrying her.
It was of great trouble to go through this book, for a woman to continue to marry to the same man who constantly tried to rape you, was a disgrace to me. I can’t imagine how people do this. This is not to say that Pamela would be the first. How many stories have you heard, for something like this to happen? The sad part of it all is, that it still happens to this day. I think she felt obligated to him more than anything. I think she is truly attached to him, although she knows she is beautiful, I believe that she thinks what Mr. B is right. Who would want her? I think she was afraid that no one would want to marry such a poor girl, and I believe that she convinced herself that she really loves him.

Although Mr. B tried to rape her, Pamela thought that he loves her and wants to be with her even though she is poor and the little attraction she had for him and his richness made her stay in the house through all of it. You can call it a love story, but I call it a misinformed child.

Friday and Robinson Crusoe

I wasn't having a great reading experience with Robinson Crusoe before Friday came along. I knew it as an important work, and I was happy to be reading it just for that, but I wasn't emotionally stimulated at all. Crusoe seemed to be a Crocodile Dundee but without the charm, and it was really hard to make myself care about his corn planting, pottery making, and home building. When Friday came on to the scene though, I began to invest myself emotionally. From that point, I literally read through to the end without putting the book down.
My favorite part of the book is when Friday realizes that the bound man in the canoe he and Crusoe had just saved from being eaten alive is his father. His physical display of joy is wonderful in contrast to the "Spockish" Crusoe I had been reading about up to now. Could that display of human emotion have rubbed off on Crusoe? "It is not easy for me to express how it moved me to see what ecstacy and filial affection had worked in this poor savage at the sight of his father..."(Barnes & Noble Classics Ed. 231) Crusoe's attitude toward his own father is in sharp contrast to the respect Friday shows his. "I also gave him a dram for himself, but he would not taste it, but carried it to his father."(232)
This made me question who the savage really is.
I was really upset that there was never a mention of Friday's father again after he left with the Spaniard to get the rest of the white men and bring them to the island. I was shocked that Crusoe didn't consider waiting for them even once. I was also really surprised that Friday made no mention of waiting for his father to come back before they leave. Even when Crusoe went back to the island many years later with his nephew, he never mentions Friday's father.
I truly enjoyed Friday's character, and as repulsive as it was the way Crusoe assumes authority over him, it was probably a big thing for the time that he was portrayed as human (capable of deep emotion) and intelligent (quickly learning English and religious concepts) as he was.
Was Defoe trying to say that his emotional depth was primitive, or was he trying to show that the exploring/conquering white man may be lacking in someway?