Required Blog Post: Krista DeMeuse

Tristram Shandy expresses his dismay at the reading habits of many readers in the Chapter XX of Volume I of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentlemen, saying “I wish it may have its effects;-- and that all good people, both male and female, from her example, may be taught to think as well as read.” (Sterne, 53). At this point, the narrator seems to be imploring the readers to go beyond just reading his story (and really all novels) at a surface level and really think about what the author is saying with his/her words. However, at the very end of the novel, in the ninth volume, Tristram’s mother asks what the story is about and the response is “A COCK and BULL, said Yorick—And one of the best of its kind, I ever heard” (Sterne, 588). What do you make of these two scenes in connection with one another (considering the fact that the footnote defines a cock and bull as a “Story without direction, rambling, idle, often incredible; […] associated with prose […] satire)? From the passages we have read, do you think there really is some sort of moral or message that Sterne is trying to deliver with Tristram Shandy? Or is he merely making fun of readers and scholars who seem to find every instance in a novel as a lesson from which they can learn?

I Found Something Fun Last Week - Jesse Colin

Pre-Post-Modernism

During my visit to the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library, where I viewed an original version of Tristram Shandy, I wanted to know the year the book was published.  Instead of turning to the front of the book (turning pages in these ancient volumes is always risky and attended by some anxiety, and who knows how to read those pages anyway?) I simply opened Wikipedia.  By the time I had typed “The Life and Opinions” into the search bar the auto-complete function was giving me two suggestions.  One was of course Tristram Shandy.  The other was The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr.  I’m sure you are all familiar with the never-ending trap of the Wikipedia experience which seems to thrive on self-fed curiosity.

            This second novel is an early 19^th century novel by the Prussian writer E.T.A. Hoffman.  Wikipedia quotes the cover sleeve:

"Tomcat Murr is a loveable, self-taught animal who has written his own autobiography. But a printer's error causes his story to be accidentally mixed and spliced with a book about the composer Johannes Kreisler. As the two versions break off and alternate at dramatic moments, two wildly different characters emerge from the confusion - Murr, the confident scholar, lover, carouser and brawler, and the moody, hypochondriac genius Kreisler. In his exuberant and bizarre novel, Hoffmann brilliantly evokes the fantastic, the ridiculous and the sublime within the humdrum bustle of daily life, making "The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr" (1820–22) one of the funniest and strangest novels of the nineteenth century."

            The title of the book certainly must be a reference to Sterne’s earlier novel.  Interestingly they both seem to pre-figure post-modernism with their imaginative forms and their meta-level of analysis.  Indeed book-making (and its flaws) is wrapped up in the creation of the second novel.  While post-modernism is correctly associated with the 20^th century, some novelists were using very forward approaches to literature which we associate with our intellectual era. 

            Regarding the question “Are novels written today automatically post-modern?”  The answer is yes and no.  Post-modern works are a self-conscious attempt to create just that, but also we are surrounded by the post-modern condition.  Science makes us doubt the certainty of thousands of years of human tradition and meaning.  With respect to peoples of earlier times we are incredibly self-aware and aware of the various social and political situations around the whole world.  Post-modernism is, to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite teachers, the water that we are swimming in.  It was not the water that Sterne and Hoffman were swimming in and we have to give them that much more credit for understanding the rich possibilities of the medium of the novel. 

Public Service Announcement: What Can You Do with an English Degree?

The English department Undergraduate Advising Office is welcoming alumni and other professionals to speak on the topic of "WHAT CAN I DO WITH MY ENGLISH/RHETORIC DEGREE?" During this panel discussion, guest speakers will describe their career paths since graduating with English, Rhetoric, and Teaching of English degrees. The event will take place this THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011, from 4:00-5:30 P.M. in ROOM 104 ENGLISH BUILDING. Refreshments will be served.

Secondary Post: Tristram Shandy

Article Link: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=ecf&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3Dessays%2Bon%2Btristram%2Bshandy%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C14#search=%22essays%20tristram%20shandy%22

The article I read, Sterne and the Narrative of Determinateness, is an article that I found particularly interesting. The article alone pointed out many arguments/ critiques about the intentions of Sterne while writing this novel which made it very interesting to see how it tied back into the characters presented within. Some of the main arguments of this article was the fact that Sterne was using experiences and the mind through the characters to keep the perspectives on life and the narratives real and clear throughout the novel. For example, the article states that "if the point of Tristram Shandy is clear, then the work must be significantly divorced from life (1)." By establishing this, I think what is being said is that the reasons presented by Tristram Shandy are based off fact and his appearance or perception and the reasoning that support these claims to be very defined, thus it separates ones thoughts from their personal beliefs because individuals are being clouded by the nature of many other fiction writings.

The article continues to make comparisons between appearance and reality and how we as humans can't always refrain from believing the truth versus confusing that same reality with our own perception of desires. The article continues to state that Sterne is fascinated by the art of storytelling which is why many times narratives when being written become our truths even though they may not be the real truth. For example, Tristram Shandy states that, "I have imposed this penance upon the lady, neither out of wantonness or cruelty, but from the best of motives (chapter xx. 52)." By stating that this was done because of ones motives, shows how sometimes the inner thoughts or in this case motives an individual has can become the truth of which one writes their narratives.

It is also interesting to see how the author of this article continuously uses the word muddle when making comparisons between the writings of Sterne and his arguments. This word is repeated at every instance a new argument is mentioned. Thus, it got a little confusing when looking at the arguments being made from a big perspective on whose claims were really confused or blurred- the authors or Sterne's. In addition the the word muddle constantly being used I think it is also interesting to observe the title of the article, Sterne and the Narrative of Determinateness. I think that the overall point the author was trying to show was how the narratives of Tristram Shandy and the arguments presented were very determined in a sense that the narratives present itself as being based off facts whereas, in fact, these facts are misguided as false presumptions of truths that alter perspectives for its readers. We are determining whether or not the narratives can claim to be true.

Thus, in your opinion do you think that the article is presenting clear arguments when talking about the misconceptions of Sterne and his narratives? Is Tristram Shandy really just contradicting story to everything that is being said in the narratives? On page 257, he states that "was it not that my OPINIONS will be the death of me." Do you think that this statement is true? In what way could his opinions, his experiences, and beliefs be the end of him based on the arguments made in the article and from his narratives?

New, Melvy. "Sterne and the Narrative of Determinatenes." Eighteenth-Century Fiction 5th ser. 4.4 (1992). Web. 08 Oct. 2011. .

For Credit: Promiscuously Describing the World (UPDATED!)

On Thursday in class we discussed Samuel Johnson's Rambler No. 4, which you can find here and over there in the sidebar.  On the whole the responses to the attendance question showed that everyone is pretty comfortable with Johnson's prose style, but there was some general puzzlement about what means for "the world [to] be promiscuously described" (177).

What does it mean to promiscuously describe the world?  Do you agree with Johnson that such promiscuous descriptions are not worth reading?  What sorts of literary productions might qualify as erring in this way?

UPDATE: There are a lot of great responses so far, but a lot of people seem to be defining "promiscuous" is the narrow sense of "sexually promiscuous." Have a look at the definition of promiscuous in the OED*, and think about how a broader definition of the term might change your understanding of the passage.

Deadline: Tuesday (10/11), start of class.  Responses before Saturday midnight count toward Week 7; after Saturday midnight they count toward Week 8.

*that link will only work for three days. If it doesn't take you to the OED definition you can look up promiscuous in the online OED by going to the UIUC library website and searching "OED," which should give you a direct link to the online source (though you will need to login).

For Credit: Starting Tristram Shandy

In class on Thursday, I mentioned the course reading guide to Tristram Shandy, which can be found here, and over there in the sidebar, under "Required Readings."

There has been a movie version of Tristram Shandy.  It's pretty good, as these things go, but it is no substitute for reading the book itself.



We did not get through the entire passage from Tristram Shandy that I brought in for discussion, so feel free to follow-up here by trying to make sense of what it happening in that episode.  It's the very last chapter of the book, the final chapter of Volume 9.  It begins with Tristram's father, Sir Walter Shandy, railing against the emotion of lust--arguing that it is NOT, in fact, a good thing--but his discourse gets interrupted.

What interrupts him?

What does the ensuing discussion involve, reveal, concern?

What sense do you make of this entire episode?

Offer your thoughts (or feel free to take issue with a classmate's thoughts).

Deadline: Tuesday (10/11), start of class.  Posts count towards Week 7 or Week 8, depending on which side of Saturday midnight they appear.

Required Blog Post: Dayna Parenti

As we finished our discussion on Henry Fielding's Shamela, one of the most important themes we talked about was the author's "moralizing" through their characters. In Richardson's Pamela, the idea of "virtue" takes on much more than Pamela's sexuality; it represents an innocence and naivety that Pamela looks to preserve. In Shamela, we see Richardson's "moralizing" criticized through the explicit sexuality of the characters like Squire Booby and Shamela. Although we know that Fielding is criticizing these moral lessons, what exactly is he criticizing about them? For example, what is he actually saying about female virtue and sexuality? Do you think that he is mocking these virtuous attributes as insignificant moral factors? Does Fielding offer any of his own moral lessons through Shamela about "virtue" specifically? 

Further, in paragraph [92] we see one of the many sexual scenes between Shamela and Squire Booby. In class, we talked about how Shamela "deals" with his advances here, and decided on sexual pleasure as her preventative action (she is being held down and has one arm free). What does a scene like this say about Fielding's view on the real Pamela? Is he insinuating that, in fact, she played along with his sexual desires? What does this tell us about her "virtuous" character? It seems that Fielding is exposing her here as a "slut" who has almost no virtuous aspects at all.  Is he trying to argue here that "virtue" can be performed or faked? Is there a distinction between performing virtue and intrinsically being virtuous? 

Before you answer these questions, define "virtue" in your own terms. Do you think it simply means protecting virginity, or is it a whole persona of actions?

Secondary Lit Blog Post: Jesse Colin

Lockwood on Fielding

In an article titled “Theatrical Fielding,” Thomas Lockwood explores Fielding’s early novel-writing in the context of his earlier theatrical writing.  He takes it for granted that critics see Fielding’s novels as the more important and substantial part of his career, and that drama was more of a kind of internship he went through before finding his chosen career.  Most criticism, according to Lockwood, focuses on Fielding’s novels as the work of a dramatist in exile, someone trying, circuitously, through a different medium, to create comic scenes which the reader can almost see as if staged.  Lockwood’s thesis is more interesting than that.  He claims that the intensity of Fielding’s decade-long career in theater formed his very way of conceiving the world—a conception which is above all playful.  Theater informed the kind of imagination he lived with and that writing was just a part of how he lived.  Further, Lockwood says that Fielding was able, with Shamela, to create a character he never could have created if the theaters had remained open and the dramatist never forcibly converted to fictional narrative.   

                An extensive familiarity with Fielding’s career helps illustrate this point.  Lockwood sees, in the character of Shamela, the final culmination of a character-type which had been developing in Lockwood’s earlier works.  He points to Catherine Clive, an actress who had played 10 roles in Fielding’s plays, and specifically to her role as Lucy Goodwill in the 1735 play The Virgin Unmask’d.  Goodwill is one incarnation of a character type Lockwood describes as “an immensely engaging sort of Barracuda virgin.”  (pp 108)  She is innocent of experience but not of ambition, and like Shamela she associates marriage with financial and social upward mobility. 

                Imagining the relationship between a playwright and an actress as collaborative may help illustrate Lockwood’s thesis: Fielding created the characters Clive would recreate on stage and this give-and-take mode of character creation—the differences, one can imagine, between the creation and the recreation—helped fielding see nuances in character creation which would help him as a novelist to craft such dynamic characters as Shamela. 

                Lockwood says that Fielding went further with his work in novels than he did with his plays, taking full advantage of the print medium to illustrate his characters.  With Shamela, as with Pamela, we get an access to her inner thoughts which stage dialogue could not have done so richly.  Thus Fielding the dramatist and Fielding the novelist can be seen as two mutually-reinforcing approaches which resulted in incredibly rich characters. 

                This article was pretty dense, and required two complete readings.  Lockwood says that in the first paragraph his thesis is “all a bit murky and remote so far.”  (pp 105)  But his point is worth teasing out and I agree that Fielding’s experiences and combined with his outlook (or can the two be separated?) make his literary style unique.  Fielding moves past the didacticism of Richardson’s original work to create something which is not merely instructive but demonstrative.  It points out how interesting people and their conflicting desires can be. 

                I spent most of my reading of Shamela, caught up in comparing the titular character to Pamela.  Rereading sections of it in light of Lockwood’s suggestion that we separate the two and give them individual treatment is a lot more fun and makes it possible to look more closely at Shamela full frame, so to speak.  I would like to know if any of my classmates were able to read the character of Shamela for her own sake.  Is it easier, when you stop thinking of Pamela as a perversion of Shamela, to see the fun and the humor in it? 

Citation:

Lockwood, Thomas. "Theatrical Fielding." Studies in the Literary Imagination 32, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 105-114. MLA International Bibliography, EBSCOhost (accessed October 5, 2011).

Robin Johnson Secondary Lit Post: Shamela

In her article “Ambiguous Language and Ambiguous Gender: The 'Bisexual' Text of Shamela,” Earla A. Wilputte examines how sexuality is used and demonstrated in regards to identity and vocabulary in Shamela. Wilputte asserts that Fielding’s “technique in Shamela is to equate shifting sexual identities with shifting meanings of moral terms. He employs feminization, 'the persistent gendering as feminine of that which is devalued', to underscore his point that the Christian vocabulary has been perverted and devalued by his contemporary society,” (Pg. 561). Wilputte first looks at the sexual identity of Fielding’s characters. She notes that “the suggested lesbian tendencies of Richardson's Jewkes are given to Fielding's Mrs. Jervis. Rather than emphasizing the masculine physical attributes with which Richardson endows Jewkes… Shamela employs connotative language rather than explicit description to portray the character's and Richardson's perversion,” (Pg. 564). The language that Fielding’s Mrs. Jervis uses is, as Wilputte calls it, sexually charged. The sexual identity of Shamela’s mother is also examined, as in her letter to Mrs. Jervis, she writes of a sprained hand due to “boxing three new made Officers” whom she managed to beat. In this example, Wilputte points out that Shamela’s mother emasculates these men with her behavior.

Shamela herself is also of ambiguous gender according to Wilputte. One of the most prominent examples is decoded by Wilputte:

At one point in the novel, Booby exclaims to Shamela, 'I know not whether you are a Man or a Woman, unless by your swelling Breasts' (p. 23). Booby is politely referring to the fact that he and Shamela have not had sexual intercourse. Although Fielding is making fun of Richardson's dialogue, the remark also suggests within my context that she may be female only physically: that is, she cannot be read confidently from her appearance. (Pg. 569).

The idea of “bisexual text” (text that can mean two separate things, as opposed to a heterosexual text that can only mean one) is also shown through Shamela. Wilputte says that “Shamela herself, though she is the personification ofthe corrupt state ofthe moral vocabulary, is not presented blatantly as a bisexual or homosexual character. She does, however, generate the 'bisexual' text through her manipulations ofthe ethical language and her contortions of Christian virtue into mercantile 'vartue',” (Pg. 567).

I read Shamela as a more exaggerated, sexual, and comedic version of Pamela. I was aware of the changes in the actions of each character, making note of how the women in the novel are more masculine, whereas the men are seen as more feminine. Reading Wilputte’s article, however, opened my eyes a little bit more to how Fielding is using the text to illustrate his points and ideas. I found myself agreeing with much of what Wilputte is saying in her article.

How do you perceive the sexuality displayed in Shamela (keep in mind the switch of gender roles)? Do you interpret the text as “bisexual” as Wilputte does, or is there some other way to look at it?

Wilputte, Earla A. "AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE AND AMBIGUOUS GENDER: THE `BISEXUAL' TEXT OF SHAMELA." Modern Language Review 89.3 (1994): 561-571. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.

Required Post: Shamela, Probable or Problematic?

We've talked a lot in class about how some of Richardson's contemporaries read between the lines of Pamela and came to the conclusion that she was, in fact, purposefully seducing Master B through her letters. Some of us agree with those individuals, siting her continued journal-keeping and letter-writing, despite her knowledge that B is reading all of her correspondence, as evidence. Still, others lend Pamela a little more grace, and attribute her seeming coyness to innocence and girlish curiosity. Fielding, obviously, falls into the first category: Shamela leaves little room to doubt his opinion of Pamela's motivations. What do you make of his extreme interpretation of Richardson's supposedly morally upright novel? Is there enough textual evidence in Pamela to support Fielding's reading, or is he reaching outside of the original novel? If he is reaching, what does that say about his motivation for writing Shamela; does it change the impact of his criticism?

For Credit: Shamela's Positive Message?

The following painting was based on Richardson's Pamela, and engravings of this image served as black-and-white illustrations for later editions of the nove.   The painting now serves as the cover of the Penguin edition of Pamela and Joseph Andrews (a combined edition), where it invites an ironic reading of the image that neither Richardson nor Joseph Highmore (the painter) probably intended.

Fielding offers a devastating critique of Richardsonian moralizing in Shamela--but what does he offer in the way of a positive vision of what fiction can do and why we should read it?  Underneath all the mockery and ribaldry, does Fielding offer some alternative sincere moral framework to Pamela?

As always, cite some text to support your claims.  Deadline: Tuesday (10/3), start of class.  Responses count for Week 6 or Week 7, depending which side of Saturday midnight you respond.

For Credit: What Have We Learned? (L'Shanah Tovah!)

Picart, Shofar Sounded in a Portuguese Synagogue, 1728.

As some of us celebrate the Jewish New Year, it's a good moment to pause and reflect on where things stand thus far.  We've read Fantomina, Robinson Crusoe, the title page and opening to Gulliver's Travels, Pamela, and we've just started Shamela.

What have you learned about the C18 that you didn't know before?

What common threads do you find among everything we've read thus far?

What questions do you have as we prepare to go forward?

Deadline: Tuesday (10/3); posts before Saturday midnight count towards Week 6; posts afterwards count towards Week 7.

For Credit: Paper Writing Issues?

Feel free to respond to this post with complaints, observations, perplexities, or advice about the first paper assignment as you work on it over the weekend. 

Deadline: Tuesday (9/27), start of class.  What week it counts for depends on whether you post before or after midnight on Saturday.

For Credit: Pamela Follow-Up

We never got around to "Material for Discussion" question (a), which asked you to identify a couple of Squire B's "Rules" for Pamela (on pp. 448 - 451) that either demonstrate a halt to her process of growth, maturation, and self assertion OR demonstrate its continuation.

Your answers identified a lot of different ways of understanding these rules!

These rules show a halt in Pamela asserting her worth, but her comments...show that she has grown in her self-worth (Rule 20 and 22)

Beng married in this time came with so many intricacies and implications: maybe it was in fact the mature thing to be complacent, however twisted that may be.

Her action of writing her husband's lecture down not only shows her sincere effort to understand and serve her husband...but also helps her to identify what she disagrees with or finds challenging to comprehend.

All of the rules...have to do with her relationships to others....what this book shows as "moral" or "growth" isn't her personal growth, but her societal growth in her position as a wife and mother.

They halt her growth...[rules 2 and 37]...She simply accepts him as the better person worthy of more consideration.

It's worth noting that Pamela does not accept these rules uncritically!  She includes her commentary as she evaluates them carefully.  Among the things she's looking for as she reads: evidence that Squire B is holding himself to a similar standard of thoughtfulness and respect (and she finds it).  Also note the rules on how they will raise a child.  Squire B is aware of his faults and excesses and does NOT want to raise a Squire B, Junior, who will misbehave in the same way (and he believes that Pamela's habits of self-discipline and virtue will help to mold the child in a different image than his own.

So what about Sally Godfrey?  What is she doing in this story?  Does Pamela's reaction to Squire B's sordid past confirm the interpretation of those who view Pamela as a willing participant in her own oppression?  Or does it convey the kind of independence and mutuality that I argue can be found in the "Rules"?

Deadline: Start of class Tuesday (9/27); posts before Saturday midnight count towards Week 5; after that, they're Week 6.

NOT for Credit: Upcoming Fun in 429

Pamela Writing (Joseph Highmore, 1745, Wikigallery)

Your papers are due Tuesday.  I have not assigned any reading for that day on the syllabus, but you should bring your printout of Shamela to class AND Pamela, so we can wrap up the one text and begin the other.  By all means, start reading Shamela if you have the time.  It's a pretty quick read, and those of you who disliked Pamela will find it deeply, deeply satisfying.

We won't have class on Thursday (l'shanah tovah!), but those of you not celebrating the holiday can use the time to get a head start on the Rare Book Library assignment, which I'll be posting shortly.

Just a reminder: as with Fantomina, I will not be permitting you to read the text from an electronic doo-dad in class, so please make a print-out of Shamela and bring it with you.  It runs about 30 pages, so you'll need to budget your toner/paper accordingly.  Depending on what you pay for ink cartridges, you might find it more cost-effective to print it out on a library printer.   Also, as with Robinson Crusoe, take a moment before you start the novel to glance over the glossary that the C21 editor (Jack Lynch) has supplied at the back of the text.

Robin Lee - Secondary Literature Blog Post

A. M. Kearney claims  that “a highly original mode of writing in a new genre, deserves another kind of treatment” (28) and that Samuel Richardson’s critics – including Richardson’s peers, Henry Fielding and Laurence Sterne - have abused and satirized Pamela with the narrowest approach due to their preoccupation with the heroine herself.

Kearney looked at Pamela as an artistic whole and gives his perspective on Richardson’s attempt to marry the internal and the external narrative viewpoint through the epistolary form in Pamela; he argues that Richardson presents the problems that arise from both constructive process in the art of fiction and from the narration and style of epistolary technique.

Richardson had the task of resolving the tension between being in the “subjective pulse of experience” (32) and sensationalizing the work with the uncensored contents of his mind and heading towards the objective voice as an author, not only in order to enlarge the his spectrum of readers but to show his realization in the readership that “without civilized recognition virtue is powerless in terms of influence”. This change from subjective perspective to an objective one in Part II also suggests Pamela’s changing function as a heroine who is moving from the low-class life to a high-class. Kearney  notes that “The alliance between the “inflaming” and the “spiritual” in Pamela is perhaps an uneasy one, but certainly one reason for the reaching after the formal style in Pamela’s reflective letters is an awareness on Richardson’s part of its value as an intellectual counterweight” (31) as a didactic art.

Kearney suggests that as much as Richardson was successful with letting his character to create her own literature he also failed by “intruding as commentator regardless of dramatic context” (37). The ultimate disconnect that grows between Richardson and his readers stem from Richardson asking his readers to accept Pamela as both of those roles – as “both participant and commentator” (38). In the process of shifting to an objective voice, along with Pamela’s own voice, Richardson’s own authorial voice is expressed through Pamela. The double function of Pamela as both “character” and “author” creates two voices: one coming from spontaneous moments and experience, and the other coming from an observer’s point of view. The imbalance that Richardson tried to solve within the novel became a problem for the ultimate authorial voice and Kearney believes this is where the critical voices of both the past and modern readers enter to point out. 

Kearney concludes by praising Richardson's struggle to establish and define the epistolary form itself and acknowledges his courageous attempt at creating a complex work of fiction that not only acquaint his readers with the real situation and moral landscape of the work but also intellectualizes it. 

I respected Kearney's approach of not judging whether Richardson achieved a success or not and instead observing the struggle that Richardson experienced in the process and his own effort to fuse the separate voices in the epistolary form. His comparisons between Richardson and Henry Fielding was also interesting: “Like Fielding, Richardson is also aware of the value of style as dramatic function. Unlike Fielding, however, who utilized his stylistic excursions to point various comic incongruities, Richardson was mainly concerned with the literary style as an expression of moral being” (35). The essay helped me to take a look at Pamela again and see the struggle that Richardson must have experienced while establishing the narrative structure and Pamela's voice. 

What do you think of the epistolary form? Do you think it is possible to successfully fuse the internal and external narrative viewpoint? How successful do you think Richardson was in his attempt?

For those of you who have read Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, do you think Richardson did a better job at engaging with the issues surrounding epistolary form in the narrative structure? 

Works Cited

Kearney, A. M. “Richardson’s Pamela: the Aesthetic Case.” Samuel Richardson: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. John Carroll. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, INC. 1969. 28 – 38. Print.

Pamela Blog Post - Jesse Colin

Considering the classroom commentary of KW and the copious prefatory material, it is clear that we are to understand Pamela as a pop-culture phenomenon. What about the novel made it so? Is it in some way a challenge to the rigid socio-economic structure of C18 England? Is it sensational becaus of the sexual content? What pop-culture phenomenon of C21 would you compare to Pamela and why?

On a different note, do you like to read introductions and editor's notes? Sometimes I feel like the experience of reading a novel should be between me and the author, but in this case I think Richardson was intentinally creating a public, sensational experience. How has extra-fabula material, or intertextuality, significantly affected something you've read before, wither within or outside of your academic reading?

Public Service Announcement: Why Your Instructor Gives a F*** about the Oxford Comma (and Why You Should, Too)

Required Blog Post: Kirsten Mendoza

In volume II, we learn why Squire B. has chosen Pamela as a wife. On page 445, he explains that he believes that fewer Men than Women love better after marriage. This is why, the woman he should marry must be a woman he prefers above all her Sex. Secondly, he must be assured of her fidelity to him and preference of him over all other men. He states, “The Word Command, on my Side, or Obedience, on hers, I would have blotted from my vocabulary” (446).  Although he declares that his married life would not be like the relationship between a master and a servant based on command and obedience, it is rather interesting that pages 448-451 are devoted to forty-eight rules upon which he expects Pamela to OBEY. It may seem as though volume II is nothing less than an instruction manual on how a good wife should be. Squire B. alludes to his imperfections, and advises her to be free to tell him anything so that “nothing may lie upon either of our minds that shall occasion the least Reservedness” (368, Richardson).  Pamela, in response, does not point out any of his flaws, but rather, informs him of her graciousness and subjection to his will. She continuously refers to Squire B, as the “charming Man” and her “dearest dear Sir.” Squire B describes how many women lose their figure and dress after marriage “as if she would take no Pains to secure the Affection she had gained” (368, Richardson).  He even tells her that he will rise in Summer at six in the morning, and that he will ALLOW her to lie “half an Hour after me, or so” (368, Richardson).             A man such as Squire B. who wishes to never be denied chooses for a wife, a servant girl. He does not want a relationship based on command and obedience, and yet he constantly instructs her on how to be the wife he envisions her to be. One must wonder if such liberties would have been taken had she been a woman of noble birth. 1)   Do you believe that part of Pamela’s appeal to Squire B. is not just her beauty and chastity, but also the fact that as a servant girl brought to a higher status because of matrimony, Squire B. can expect nothing less than obedience due to the wife’s gratefulness? (An interesting passage showing the double standard of a woman descending to a lower class based on a marriage to a man beneath them and a man raising the woman he marries may be found on Page 422) 2)   Richardson gives Squire B. a past with Sally Godfrey. He even has an illegitimate child, Miss Goodwin.  Are these experiences meant for us to have a harsher and more hypocritical look of Squire B., or rather, are these meant to show us Pamela’s bountiful love and goodness? Pamela is able to look past his double standard and manipulatively controlling ways and still remains faithful and always praising of his person. 3)   What do you all think the lengthy Volume II is meant to signify? Do you think Victorian women would have read his instructions on being a good wife with complaisance or do you think they would have viewed his ideas critically?

Hannah Keller Secondary Lit Post: Pamela

In his article “Pamela: Autonomy, Subordination, and the ‘State of Childhood’”, Raymond F. Hilliard explores the ways in which Samuel Richardson’s Pamela can be delineated into two separate statements about the nature of subordinate relationships in the eighteenth century. The first half of the novel, Hilliard argues, is marked by Pamela’s adolescent journey toward adulthood and the self-reliance and autonomy associated with it. In this half, Pamela still operates under the assumption that she is in a subordinate position to God, to her parents, to Squire B, to essentially any character of age or authority. She displays a type of childish ignorance that, Hilliard argues, works to her ultimate detriment. “…She is reluctant, for instance, to admit that Mrs. Jervis is complying with B’s plan to delay Pamela’s departure from Bedfordshire, and unable to realize that several of B’s other servants are not the single-minded well-wishers she likes to consider them” (204). However, Hilliard notes that this subordinate mentality slowly begins to melt away as the first half progresses, as Richardson attempts to separate Pamela from “all to whom she would look for ‘Direction’ or ‘Deliverance’” (204). In doing so, Richardson induces Pamela’s introspection and ultimate move toward autonomy and self-assurance.

This transitory coming-of-age reaches a breaking point in what Hilliard describes as the “emotional center” of the novel, where Pamela asserts her autonomy and singularly makes the decision to return to B and yield to his marriage proposal (217). In this moment, Hilliard contends that the characters reach a “temporary equality, a balance of power”, a break from “the great law of subordination” that so often dominates eighteenth century literature (202). He postulates that this is the moment in which Pamela reaches true adulthood and relinquishes the ignorance of childhood that distinguished her character in the previous half of the novel. The gradual isolation of Pamela from her figures of guidance reaches a threshold when she consciously chooses to give in to B. Hilliard notes that we may view this as Pamela’s “ascendancy over her master, for she has established a portrait of herself that totally seduces him” (209). This moment is fleeting, however, as Hilliard moves to classify the version of subordination and hierarchical relations we see in the second half.

As Pamela and B enter into the realm of marriage and domesticity, Hilliard argues that Pamela experiences a regression in terms of her autonomy. Instead of fully assimilating her newfound self-assurance, she reverts to a submissive, obedient version of herself characterized by the presumptive code of husband and wife. The “law of subordination” is again placed upon the characters and Pamela is relocated to what Hilliard describes as “childhood”. He borrows from an earlier Mary Wollstonecraft suggestion about the psychological nature of subordination. She argues that eighteenth century marriage was dominated by these hierarchical relationships in which a wife, whose principal concern was to dutifully please a husband, lapses into a childlike state of obedience (210-11). This parent-child relationship is abundant in the latter half of Pamela, Hilliard argues, as demonstrated through the interaction of B, Pamela, Lady Davers, and various servants.

Reading Hilliard’s article, I found myself intrigued by his claims, but ultimately in disagreement with them. Although I think that we can view Pamela’s marriage to B as an ultimate triumph and a testament to her autonomy, I do not see that particular episode as a breaking point in that agency she comes to possess. While she does enter into the sphere of domesticity and the patriarchal code that presumably follows, I did not see this as an end to her maturity and definitely not as a regression toward a character that was any worse than she was in the first volume. While she may not assert her dominance in a way that supposes any great change, there are still instances where Pamela is arguably autonomous and, in my opinion, certainly not reflective of a parent-child relationship. Even so, a certain level of subordination was normative in this time, so to describe Pamela’s and B’s relationship as peculiar or alarming does not seem valid. As modern readers, of course we would want to see a fully developed, independent heroine, but as far as the time period goes, I think Pamela does a great deal, even in the second half, to demonstrate that she is not fully subservient.

That being said, what do you make of this argument? Is there a parent-child hierarchy at play between Squire B and Pamela? Is Pamela an ultimately dynamic character or do we see this reversion to “childhood” that Hilliard describes?

Works Cited

Hillard, Raymond F. "Pamela: Autonomy, Subordination, and the 'State of Childhood'." Studies in Philology 83.2 (1986): 201. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Sept. 2011.