Novel Beginnings (ENGL 3205)

I liked this one though I didn’t necessarily like the character of Syrena. I found it amusing, as good satires should be, and I found that the plot was interesting and different enough from Pamela that I wasn’t plagued with wanting to find answers for the aspersions cast against Pamela. Yes I confess that when I like a character I have a tendacy to try and defend anything bad said against them if possible which can lead to issues when reading satires.

As we said in class, Anti-Pamela really only needs a new name in order to be a stand alone novel. It would be in the amatory style and still retain satiric elements perhaps but it could easily be read and enjoyed without ever reading Pamela. Where we know Haywood was trying to capitolize on the phenonema of Pamela it’s even possible that Haywood already had a story in mind and just decided to add a few allusions to Pamela to sell more copies. The issues which she raises against Pamela are issues which she had raised before in other original works. The idea that drinking is the route of all evil or at least of ruin is even referenced in one of the footnotes about the ruin of a chambermaid. The issue she raises of how frivolous Pamela is can be found in a pamphlet on conduct for female servants included in the appendixes. While I dont doubt that Haywood had issues with Pamela it is interesting to wonder if the satire got away from her to become a stand alone novel or if she added satirical aspects to a stand alone novel

Either way I enjoyed it and can enjoy it alongwith Pamela.

I will start by saying I quite liked this one! I came into it expecting to hate it. A lot. Instead I adore it and it’s taken its place on one of the bookshelves that reguarly gets read!

For my post I’ve decided to address the issues which prompted Haywood and Fielding to write satires about it. Well at least what prompted Haywood to as I have trouble believing Fielding did it for any reason other than pompous spite. I’m halfway through Shamela and it is very slow-going. I have no doubts why it is that Richardson won. His might be a lot longer but it’s a quicker read.

So first I’ll look to the issue of her vanity. I don’t deny she is vain. She gets reprimanded by her parents for being vain early on in the novel and from there she tends to qualify her repeating of compliments by stating she knows she had nothing to do with it. In this respect I don’t think Richardson was necessarily unaware of how Pamela would look going around repeating every compliment paid to her and almost pokes fun at it.  In class we talked about how he worked out the kinks for his next novel but couldn’t it just be a matter of character? Pamela is 15, she came from a very poor farm to live as the companion to a rich old, and seemingly eccentric, lady before falling into Lord B’s path. I say eccentric given that she educated a girl fresh off the farm in the arts of a gentlewoman or a lady rather than anything suitable for her station in life. This is not quite a fairytale but it does have a similiar quality in that she went from hard work to dancing and singing which doesn’t pave the way for being exceptionally well-grounded.

I think that while I can defend her actions, the 18th century reader would not. I see a 15 year old girl who is brought into a world of dancing and singing and is naive but a quick learner as a result. Well not entirely quick but she’ gorwing up and with that learning not to trust rich lords that could keep her captive.

As to Haywood’s point concerning the many faults of Pamela as a working lower middle class there is little argument other than that it has caused me to look at Pamela as more of a Cinderella story than before though in retrospect it’s more obvious.