Book Review: Samuel Richardson's Pamela
For those who are not students of English literature, I have no doubt that you probably have not heard of Samuel Richardson or Pamela. What I can tell you briefly is, published in 1740, that it is considered as one of the first modern English novels. The story is a long series of letters and journal entries that narrates Pamela's three month (?) journey from her mistress' death to her happy marriage with her mistress' son. (Mistress is to be understood as the female counterpart of master.) Richardson spends the first 250 pages describing Pamela's virtuous character, as she endures her imprisonment as ordained by Mr. B (the mistress' son) and his attempts to seduce her with authority, wealth, lust, etc. At the end of the 250 pages, Mr. B, supposedly touched by Pamela's virtue, gives up his project; Pamela in turn is touched by his sincerity of letting her go and she instead returns to him. The next 100 pages describe the two weeks after Pamela's return to Mr. B and the day before their marriage. The final 150 pages describe another week or so of after-marriage actions. To tell the truth, nothing really happens in the final 250 pages apart from a resketching Mr. B's true character (he was "wicked" before, but now he is "all goodness") . The novel ends with an explicit summary of the moral of the story: be virtuous, and you shall be rewarded.
I do not blame Richardson for writing such a terrible novel because he had no models to follow. Jane Austen, the master (or I guess mistress) of character sketch and analysis, was not even born when Richardson died. The book is basically a very tedious read, with layer after layer of Pamela's virtuousness and even more layers of people complimenting of Pamela. Depending on how you read the novel, you can really say that Pamela is virtuous, or you can just say that Pamela's a weakling who is too afraid to fight back. She is ridiculously generous and forgiving, takes tremendous care and pride in her own virtue.
But I suppose my attacks are unfair because I am a 21st century non-Christian reader. For the 18th century Christian reader, Pamela would be the perfect model woman. Pamela conforms exactly to the feminine expectations of the time. This is what makes this novel, while boring and tedious, fruitful for discussion. For the 20th or 21st century reader, the many assumptions about women and femininity which would be unquestioned in the 18th century would now be exposed very clearly. Women, it seems at the time, are expected be weak and helpless, and hence rely on the men. The gentlemen are supposed to spoil them with clothes and other ornaments. They are expected to be virtuous, although in reality (as Pope satirizes) it is more true that they should look virtuous. There is one passage that is stunning to me but might seem perfectly normal: aristocratic men are allowed to marry below their social class, but aristocratic women are not. This is obviously highly problematic for us, but does not seem to be so for earlier readers.
I will end by saying that if one truly wants an analysis of the human character, this novel is anything but that. Jane Austen and George Eliot remind as the mistresses in that category. But Pamela is a novel that is so obviously ideologically based, that, without the author himself intended, it makes for a fantastic and fascinating shaded reflection of 18th century English high society.
I do not blame Richardson for writing such a terrible novel because he had no models to follow. Jane Austen, the master (or I guess mistress) of character sketch and analysis, was not even born when Richardson died. The book is basically a very tedious read, with layer after layer of Pamela's virtuousness and even more layers of people complimenting of Pamela. Depending on how you read the novel, you can really say that Pamela is virtuous, or you can just say that Pamela's a weakling who is too afraid to fight back. She is ridiculously generous and forgiving, takes tremendous care and pride in her own virtue.
But I suppose my attacks are unfair because I am a 21st century non-Christian reader. For the 18th century Christian reader, Pamela would be the perfect model woman. Pamela conforms exactly to the feminine expectations of the time. This is what makes this novel, while boring and tedious, fruitful for discussion. For the 20th or 21st century reader, the many assumptions about women and femininity which would be unquestioned in the 18th century would now be exposed very clearly. Women, it seems at the time, are expected be weak and helpless, and hence rely on the men. The gentlemen are supposed to spoil them with clothes and other ornaments. They are expected to be virtuous, although in reality (as Pope satirizes) it is more true that they should look virtuous. There is one passage that is stunning to me but might seem perfectly normal: aristocratic men are allowed to marry below their social class, but aristocratic women are not. This is obviously highly problematic for us, but does not seem to be so for earlier readers.
I will end by saying that if one truly wants an analysis of the human character, this novel is anything but that. Jane Austen and George Eliot remind as the mistresses in that category. But Pamela is a novel that is so obviously ideologically based, that, without the author himself intended, it makes for a fantastic and fascinating shaded reflection of 18th century English high society.
posted by Tristan at 3:19 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home