Skip to main content

III. Pamela, Part 2

I'd like to apologize for the tardiness of this post. It was meant to go up last night, but it has been a rough week and I must confess that even now, I'm not sure how productive or insightful I can be regarding the completion of the novel Pamela.

The second half of Pamela is as unrewarding to this reader as the first. I'm not sure why I have been so put off by this novel, because even though the language and the nature of the novel seem appealing and attractive and easy to read, I've really struggled with this book in more ways than I would have ever imagined. I'm not finished with it and I don't know if I'll ever be finished with it. At this point, I've read as much of it as I can bear to read. And that's not to say that it isn't a good book, it's just to say that for whatever reason, I've felt this struggle and this desire to just throw the book away and never approach it again. It's not a common feeling for me. I love reading. But the characters! My god, I hate Pamela. And I hate Mr. B even more.

There's this controlling aspect of the novel that really bugs me. I can't stand the fact that Pamela seems unwilling to defend her own sense of worth (outside of her refusal to give it up. I mean that's pretty much a defense, but it's troublesome as well that she'd fall for this guy. I mean come on!). There's the imprisonment and then the later Mr. B / Pamela falling in love / marriage thing that seems so beyond the realm of reason or possibility, that I can't imagine how any reader could have taken the text all that seriously. And yet I guess they did? I don't know. It bothers me. The possession of her writing is equally bothersome, and I feel the entire time that Pamela is knowingly giving in to abuse, and yet she seems to be borderline happy and in touch with whatever sense of virtue Richardson is trying to express to the readers. I don't get it. I just can't see it and maybe I'm being harsh because I am unfamiliar with novels and writing of this era. Whatever the case, I don't know.

I think that's where I leave things. I simply don't know what to think or make of the text.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book Report: Vermeule's "Why Do We Care About Literary Characters?"

1. Thesis of Work Why Do We Care about Fictional Characters is primarily concerned with the cognitive approach to understanding relationships readers enjoy with fictional characters. Vermeule outlines three specific goals for her book in the first chapter: How do humans engage with fictional characters Why do humans spend a great deal of time and energy explaining themselves to others How does the relationship we have with fictional characters relate to our relationships with real people 2. Methodology Blakey Vermeule is a professor of Literature at Stanford University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1995. Vermuele incorporates several different traditions into her work including literary criticism, neuroaesthetics, philosophy, and cognitive science. 3. Contribution The major contribution of this work is the establishment of literary characters as being important or reimagined as integral to understanding literature as ...
Post a Comment
Read more

I. Seductive Forms and the Progression of the Novel

I am no authority to speak on behalf of the development of the novel, but regarding the various theories presented in the first chapter of Ballaster’s Seductive Forms , I can only conclude that reason and logic would seem to indicate a preference for Michael McKeon’s theory / understanding of the development of the novel as form and object.  Ballaster does a wonderful job at expressing the weaknesses of theories presented by Watt, Davis, and others within the formalism / historicism/ hybrid theory debate. When reviewing these theories, I struggled to grasp the complexity of some of these narratives. I also struggled with what appeared to be a lack of basic logic in terms of the progression of structure and device. The historicists seem to ignore or undervalue the progression of literary tradition. The formalists seem to forget that every writer, regardless of position or gender, are people living in a given time; that as individuals who exert themselves as writers of the pag...
2 comments
Read more

Gallagher: a Criticism

"No feature of the novel seems to be more obvious and yet easily ignored than its fictionality." - Gallagher, "Rise of Fictionality", pg. 336. First, a obvious observation, regarding the term "fictionality": Gallagher's paper does the term a great injustice, because at no point is the term clearly and concisely defined. In many ways, it feels like we're reading abstractions without any need for abstraction. Gallagher's article/chapter (not sure which) doesn't necessarily or fundamentally (in my humble opinion) offer a truly sound argument as to the "discovery" of "fictionality". There are several arguments that are made, including one particularly troubling to me: writers turned to "fictionality" in order to avoid prosecution (My concern about this statement relies fundamentally on the fact that very clear and obvious fictions existed to the world far before any author ever turned to this sort of thought. ...
Post a Comment
Read more