Book Review: Henry Fielding's Shamela
So I am not the only person who is absolutely sick of Richardson's Pamela. The great early English novelist Henry Fielding is equally disgusted by Richardson's novel. (On another note: I was as shocked to see that the great Alexander Pope, the greatest poet living at the time, he too extremely admires Richardson's book. Fielding was disappointed that even such a great intellectual as Pope lack sense. But I digress.)
To Fielding's disgust of Pamela's success he wrote a parody, titled Shamela. In this very brief work (40 pages in all) Fielding uses the letter form (just like Richardson) to correct the "misrepresentation" of the real character of Pamela, whose real name is Shamela. The parody is highly satirical, and Fielding basically inverts the characters of Richardson's novel. In the novel, Shamela, instead of being the great virtuous heroine, is a much more realistic girl who uses her beauty and art to bewitch and manipulates the poor defenseless Mr. Booby, who is undergoing puberty, I think. Shamela is actually in love with Parson Williams (who, in Richardson's novel, is the nice parson who very willingly helps Pamela with her troubles). Shamela, however, doesn't marry Williams because he's too poor and Mr. Booby is rich. Williams is a hypocritical parson who preaches that adultery is okay, and that one only needs to repent afterwards.
In short, Fielding's criticism (slightly different from mine) is that Pamela is anything but possible. Virtue is hardly rewarded (just imagine a real life servant girl!). Even more important is that even if it is possible, this kind of reward - Pamela's marriage to a loving, rich husband - is wrong: virtue's reward is not earthly and should not be earthly. Earthly reward is a bonus, but it should simply be a happiness because of one's clean conscience. Pamela, according to Fielding, encourages otherwise, encourages readers to think of social and economic reward for virtue (particularly virginity). Fielding wants to tell us that this distorted view is the same thing as treating virginity as an economic commodity, like Shamela. The Church, according to Fielding, is also capable of preaching the wrong views of religion, as examplified with parson William. Thus it almost seems that Fielding is asking the reader to truly reconsider the thesis of Pamela, this idea of "virtue reward" - what does virtue really mean, and what does reward mean? The reader is asked to think outside of ideological bound and into their own hearts.
Fielding's Shamela is a work of art because, contrast to Richardson's Pamela, Fielding's work is a critical reflection of society. I believe one function of art is to examine the times critically and produce approiprate commentaries to the reader, who might be lost within the network of ideology. I think anyone who reads Pamela a second time will not be so naive and fall for Richardson's fatal sentimentality.
To Fielding's disgust of Pamela's success he wrote a parody, titled Shamela. In this very brief work (40 pages in all) Fielding uses the letter form (just like Richardson) to correct the "misrepresentation" of the real character of Pamela, whose real name is Shamela. The parody is highly satirical, and Fielding basically inverts the characters of Richardson's novel. In the novel, Shamela, instead of being the great virtuous heroine, is a much more realistic girl who uses her beauty and art to bewitch and manipulates the poor defenseless Mr. Booby, who is undergoing puberty, I think. Shamela is actually in love with Parson Williams (who, in Richardson's novel, is the nice parson who very willingly helps Pamela with her troubles). Shamela, however, doesn't marry Williams because he's too poor and Mr. Booby is rich. Williams is a hypocritical parson who preaches that adultery is okay, and that one only needs to repent afterwards.
In short, Fielding's criticism (slightly different from mine) is that Pamela is anything but possible. Virtue is hardly rewarded (just imagine a real life servant girl!). Even more important is that even if it is possible, this kind of reward - Pamela's marriage to a loving, rich husband - is wrong: virtue's reward is not earthly and should not be earthly. Earthly reward is a bonus, but it should simply be a happiness because of one's clean conscience. Pamela, according to Fielding, encourages otherwise, encourages readers to think of social and economic reward for virtue (particularly virginity). Fielding wants to tell us that this distorted view is the same thing as treating virginity as an economic commodity, like Shamela. The Church, according to Fielding, is also capable of preaching the wrong views of religion, as examplified with parson William. Thus it almost seems that Fielding is asking the reader to truly reconsider the thesis of Pamela, this idea of "virtue reward" - what does virtue really mean, and what does reward mean? The reader is asked to think outside of ideological bound and into their own hearts.
Fielding's Shamela is a work of art because, contrast to Richardson's Pamela, Fielding's work is a critical reflection of society. I believe one function of art is to examine the times critically and produce approiprate commentaries to the reader, who might be lost within the network of ideology. I think anyone who reads Pamela a second time will not be so naive and fall for Richardson's fatal sentimentality.
posted by Tristan at 10:34 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home