Northanger Abbey: Just another romance?

Austen really kicked up the satire and wit in this gothic parody. It was fun to read and satisfying after reading Udolpho.
By the end of the semester, my own ability to route for romantic unions had been so tryed that I longed for a better plot line and found nothing to go on. An egregious father and an infallible heroine and hero just did not satisfy what I expected to be a response to all of the customs of 18th century english novels. I guess I was putting too much on the shoulders of Austen. After all, these types of storylines were what sold then.

the Mystery around reading Udolpho

This book had that wonderful tendency of wrapping everything up all in the last possible second or maybe it was my speed reading of the last few sections that made it seem that way, (because of the abundance of pages we were consuming per week toward the end of the semester ). It was as if, the technique of the author was to keep everything hidden because if the reader knew any of it they may be inclined to stop reading.
The novel made me want to go on vacation (and maybe take it with me).

My favorite book of the class

Evelina was one of my favorite books of the class. It really seemed like a pleasure read. Seeing a fallible young girl entering a society that she had no prior knowledge about was entertaining and informative. Having previously seen it through the descriptions of Jane Austen's balls, I really enjoyed the feeling of actually meeting it with Burney. Though Burney does not present her heroines with the fresh and natural outlook that Austen does, Evelina still seemed real. But, I guess that was just Burney's fluid narrative and technique because Evelina was unbelievably self-controlled as no girl of her age should naturally be. The only reason could be that Burney knew she was writing to an audience that preferred rationality above sentiment and to stay in line with those standards was to do her book sales credit.

Tom Jones

Akthough Tom Jones was an unperfect hero because of all of his indiscrepancies, his heroine was as close to infallible as they come. It sets the double standards of men and women farther apart even if Fielding was trying to be satirical when he designed Sophia that way. I like her anyway though. Sophia is a strong character because she knows who she loves and takes action to make that happen. She disobeys her father (even if she is justified because he is only a comic relief character).
Though I liked the novel because it discusses the natures and thoughts of people realistically, the scenes of comic relief (excepting the witty and subtle dialogues of Squire Western) seemed too staged to be very funny.

Shamela and spoof on Pamela lovers

The spoof Shamela, was effective at comic relief but a minimally respectable work of art. Since, Fielding only put about sixty pages worth of energy into the novel I will not really hold it against him or say, it was not necessary. A satire of Pamela probably was necessary.
Richardson seemed to have some ideas about improvement in mind when he wrote Pamela, though and even if I think they were self-destructive in the end, Fielding's premise for writing Shamela seems trivial and indecent. I do not appreciate it as a work of art, maybe just an attack on all people who took Pamela as a second Bible.

man of feeling, weak or strong?

There are characters in the novel, The Man of Feeling that encourage the jaded modern reader to keep turning pages. Maybe nihilistic readers like me just want to see maladies. Maybe they just seem to be what is real.
Harely is sunk because of his inability to acclimate his virtuous actions in society. The life fortune has set up for him leads him to tragedy. His naivete is an added weakness but his inaction is most probably his demise.
The narrator's remembering him is for me, a sad conclusion to what should have been a more thought out ending. If the author wanted the readers to do all the thinking and reacting, it might just be that the reading community was not ready for that much responsibility seeing as how the book did not seem to change that much.

impractical plot of Pamela

Pamela is a story about a girl because this is a disadvantage in and of itself. The many authorities she is subject to, though some coincide with her own are all supposed to be more credible than this poor, young girl, Pamela.
I think it was the intention of Richardson to model a glistening example of the steps that would secure the road to marital success (within gender roles that men and women had to contend with at that time.) I would have applauded Richardson if he exploded just one of those gender roles but I don't think he did. Pamela was a paragon of beauty, and forgiveness and Mr. B was controlling and infinitely powerful. When he failed at controlling Pamela, he adapted his technique and eventually succeeded. He laid down the law when she became his wife. This novel fosters a bond between man and woman that I can't condone; One where the woman is entirely occupied with righting wrongs done by her man and not seeing his faults or confronting him with them (yet, they are miraculously dissappearing by the novel's end anyway).

Catherine Morland is an innocent soul.

Catherine is a somewhat odd hero. She is a girl who wants to live the life of little girl. She does not want to do something like something like protecting her virtuosness she just wants to be a child who wants to play and that is what make Catherine an innocent life with no complications and this reader really likes this story.

Evelina and Robinson Crusoe boyfriend/ girlfriend in another life?

Evelina is a young girl who is trying to make it in the upper class. She is like Robinson Crusoe in that she really wants to become a sucessful person who has access to upper class world. In addition, she is like Robinson Crusoe in that she is not a poor person. In fact, she is middle class like Robinson. She also shares a drive and determination like Crusoe this is what makes Robinson and Evelina so alike in their novels their determination and drive to succeed in their novels.

The Man of Feeling is a confusing commentary?

The Man of Feeling is a confusing tale. The author, Mackenzie is a dry, boring treatise but myself as a reader finds this novel confusing. He presents the reader with many problems but he does not offer any solutions to the problems he profess. If Mackenzie does this then this reader would know what he's advocating. I just did not find something in this novel very interesting.

Is Tom Jones a real hero?

I believe that Tom Jones is a real hero. Tom Jones is a bastard, he sleeps around, and he has a moral compass. He is in love with sofia, but he sleeps with Molly. Allsworthy is his adoptive father but he does not live the life of someone who is rich. But yet he does have a moral compass one that will let him defend someone who is being picked upon because of his race and this shows me the reader that he is a hero with flaws one that needs to be rooted for and not against.
To me I would call Tom Jones the Peter Parker/ Spider-Man of 18th century and it makes him a hero in this reader's eyes.

Shamela is a funny story.

Shamela is a funny tale on vituousness and piousness. The reason Fielding takes a sarcastic view on Richarson's Pamela is because he believes that words are not as good as deeds. This is what a moral and healthy person is in Fielding's view and this reader agrees.

Crusoe is a making it story.

Robinson Crusoe's a 'makin it'story. The reason that Crusoe is a 'makin it' story is because he displays a determination to succeed. His father wants him to live a safe sereene life but he does not want to be safe and serene he want to be successful and rich and he disobeys his father's wishes and sets out to make his fortune. He does things that make me as a reader uncomfortable such as slavery and not listening to his father's advive, nonetheless, he proves to be one who knows what he wants and he will go out get it type of person and to this reader this is what makes it a makin it story in this readers eyes.

Pamela Overdramtic

Richardson's Pamela is an overdramatization of a pious person. She is a person who believes that her virginity makes her special and that she is better than any other person, especially females. She wears her virginity as a badge of honor. But this display of pride in her virginity is phony in this reader's eyes. The reason this is so is because I believe that to apply these characteristics to a teenage girl is a phony that is why I believe that Richardson's Pamela is phony to me.

Tom Jones, Fielding’s double standard?

(I'm so sorry guys, I was working on my paper when I realized that I never put up my last two blogs so please excuse me for these very late additions.)

I feel like there is a double standard between male vs. female virtue. The female characters in this book that have sexual experience such as Molly and Mrs. Western aren’t shown in as redeeming a light as Tom is. They are the temptresses that entice Tom to have sex. They’re not virtuous, but Tom is, despite the fact that he sleeps with these women. The only truly “virtuous” female is Sophia, and she remains a virgin until her marriage.
It is true that Molly and Jenny Jones are described forgivingly by Fielding in order for the reader to sympathize for them. However, I find it hard to characterize them as “virtuous,” especially with Molly not being entirely honest to Tom about her pregnancy and Mrs. Western’s aggressive seduction of Tom.
I’m not sure of Fielding is serious or playful when he describes Sophia. He makes her seem like the paradigm of perfection, but her perfect virtue reminds me too much of Pamela. If Fielding was serious, and Sophia is meant to be interpreted as the perfect example of femininity, then I feel like Fielding is something of a hypocrite. She should have had some sort of sexual experience, or at least some sort of experience with love prior to Tom, in order for the standard to be fair.

The Mysteries of Udolpho taught me to read

The Mysteries of Udolpho really is an escapist novel, and at first, I didn’t know how to approach a book like this. I became bored with Radcliffe’s lengthy narratives of the scenery and the emotions of Emily after her father’s death. But then I realized that most of the reason why I found myself rolling my eyes every time she cried or fainted was because I’m a lazy reader. What I mean by this is that, in my interest to finish a novel, I don’t really flesh out the scene that the author is describing, but rather imagine a rough sketch of the setting, the characters and what is going on. This time though, I forced myself to take advantage of all the descriptions and really push my mind to imagine everything, and I found it REALLY changed the way I read.

I was on the bus with my mom when I read the part where Emily finds out that she won’t get to marry Valancourt and I actually went “Oh no!” out loud, and I think people must have that I was kinda weird. I found myself actually understanding that heart grinding feeling that Valancourt and Emily must have felt on their last meeting and that scene which I normally would have considered over dramatic or too much like a soap opera actually began to seem very natural. All of Emily’s interactions with her aunt made me want to strangle the future Madame Montoni and when Montoni traps Emily in the castle and thwarts her every chance of escape, I felt her frustration.

The castle at Udolpho was probably the mostly richly illustrated in my mind, and all of Emily’s spooky adventures there had me scared too. (If some of you are raising your eyebrows, keep in mind that I mainly got the chance to read the book at around midnight if not well past it and I have a low tolerance for anything in the horror genre.) I think this book drew more out of me emotionally than any of the others, and while the length was horrifying, I found a way to appreciate Radcliffe’s wordiness.