I encountered Samuel Richardson's Pamela many years ago as part of my History of the Novel module at university. I was introduced to some great works through that course, and there are two reasons I am grateful for being introduced to this; mostly, because it was the first year the class had read Pamela rather than Clarissa (which is more than twice the length), but also because it made it clear to us that even in an academic environment there are books which are considered as classics because of their place in history that it is perfectly acceptable to hate. And almost the whole class really, really hated this book.Most of the defence of this book is that 'morals and social mores were different then', which is undoubtedly true, but for me misses the point entirely as well as being poor reasoning. Richardson was writing with the explicit intent of creating moral instruction manuals - and tracts rarely make good literature. Pamela, an attractive servant girl, is kidnapped by the dastardly squire and spends five hundred pages defending her honour, until - shock, horror! - the dastard is won over and offers to make her his wife. Cue several hundred more pages of fluttering eyelashes and betrothals of eternal love.Lots has been written about this book defining the novel and illustrating the changing the changing master/servant relationships of the time. What? The novel had been around for more than a century and was already popular and in rude health. And there were far better writers working at the time, such as Henry Fielding who mercilessly lambasted this work with his parody Shamela. And as for throwing light on the master/servant relationship, this book bears no more relationship to reality than the reams of romantic Mills and Boon literature it has inspired. Let's not forget, this book was published twenty years after Moll Flanders, a book which has so much more to say about the possibilities of a woman's place in 18th Century England, as well as being far better written and still more relevant today - as I'm sure it was then - and more realistic (okay, in a different stratum of society, and realistic in the challenges Moll faces rather than her survival of them, but my point still stands).Yes, it took books years to circulate, but Richardson was a publisher in London. He was aware of Moll Flanders and books inspired by it, and deliberately set out to write books that were 'conduct letters' on how a young lady should behave (he was also a publisher of some wealth and standing, and it is debatable that his books would have been the success they were had he not had the power to print and market them). He wasn't saying that virtue and a good marriage were the most a woman could expect from life, he was saying that ought to be the most she can expect from life. There are no grey areas. Pamela resists the squire's advances and her virtue is rewarded. I understand Clarissa does have much more depth (perhaps Richardson was truly stung by Fielding's riposte), but he still sticks with the horribly clunky epistolary style.I would certainly recommend reading it, as I did, as part of a sequence showing how the English novel developed (Defoe, Richardson, Fielding, Fanny Burney, etc - although I also wish this had included some European literature which of course had a huge influence on Britain - remember most educated people read French, Latin and possibly Italian - and almost all forms and styles were imported from the continent).
SPOILER ALERTThis is considered to be the first epistolary novel. The note at the beginning also suggested that it was the first character novel. And this may be so. My degree is in history and not English Literature; however, I would make a case for Moll Flanders and even Robinson Crusoe as being character novels in their own way. And Pamela certainly exhibits characteristics of an adventure novel too. At any rate, let us assume that Pamela is as the note writer contends, the first example of a character novel, it would explain why Pamela is such a two dimensional character. I suppose really most of the characters in the novel are during the first half of the novel. Everyone is either the most righteous good or the most vile evil. There is only one morally conflicted individual in the first half. But in the second half of the book, all of the evil characters mellow out and become more balanced. But not Pamela. Pamela remains the most irritatingly pious epitome of Christian female modesty. Which frankly makes me want to slap some sense into her. In fact, I spent most of the book wanting to slap some sense into poor Pamela. Frankly, I would have slept with the lecherous master of the house at some point. And not because I'm promiscuous. I just would have realized that I was in a hopeless situation and made the best of it for myself as I could. He has all the power. And then she is given a chance to leave and she MARRIES HIM!?!At this point I think I threw the book down in exasperation. And you know what, she gets what she deserves. He is the same person that lied to her, tricked her, kidnapped her and held her captive for 25% of the book. He is controlling and inconstant in his emotions and impetuous. And I imagine he is going to tire of her in six months and start buggering one of her maids. And she is so THANKFUL and still treats him like a servant treats a master and not as a wife treats a husband. I realize this book was written in the 18th century and that I am imposing my 21st century values on Pamela. In addition to which the poor kid is only 16 and was a servant to his family. So her actions...most of them...are understandable. That does not mean that knowing this makes it any easier to read. And indeed people at the time took issue with Pamela as well. In fact, I believe there was a satire written in response to this book called Shamela....I wonder if I'll like it better.
What do You think about Pamela; Or, Virtue Rewarded (2001)?
I did not finish this book. Because it is a million pages that boil down to:PAMELA: I am a lowly maid. Yet my virtue, look at it. MASTER-OF-THE-HOUSE: Ooh, dazzling. How 'bout you let me avail myself of some of that virtue?PAMELA: No!MASTER: YES.PAMELA: No!MASTER: YES.[Insert cross-dressing in-bed-hiding country-house-involving shenanigans.:]MASTER-OF-THE-HOUSE: Your virtue, it has won me over. Marry me?PAMELA: But of course.Ok, the shenanigans make it sound vaguely amusing? Just know that there are MANY MANY pages where Pamela details how awesome she is and the shenanigans are not nearly ripping or amusing enough to compensate for the remaining tedium.Very popular in its day, though. Fathers bought it for their daughters. You could buy Pamela fans and tea-sets.
—Charlotte
I read this book at least four years ago so I cannot remember the whole storyline and don't plan on reading this again. What I do remember is how tedious it was for me to read. The book is well-written but if you're not used to old-style english it takes some concentration. But the problem for me was the fifteen year old Pamela. Maybe its just me but I thought she was overreacting about Mr B's "advances". Throughout the book I felt he was completely misconstrued and although he may have acted wrongly he was merely in love with her and her constant reptitive words of O poor me! Or whatever it is she said made her out as a pathetic martyr. The description of this book saying how Mr B tries to rape her is to me, absurd. She assumes he is about to do such things and she makes the reader believe that as it is her letters we are reading from. I think she is manipulative, naive, judgmental, conceited and as I read on I disliked her more and more and honestly just wanted to bash her over the head and get a book that was from Mr B's point of view -god knows what he sees in her. Yes okay we've gathered she's pretty blah blah blah. I'd much rather read Jane Eyre who may have been plain and poor but at least she had sense and was humble to a point that despite Mr Rochester's signs she still couldn't believe he would want anything to do with her. Now that's a true lady.
—A.Z. Green
Thank goodness that's over! (Tiny spoiler you can probably guess from the front cover picture.)If you ever want to read a novel concerning a saucy employer and their attractive servant who end up getting together then don't read this novel, read Jane Eyre. If you've already read Jane Eyre and you want to read Pamela then don't. Just read Jane Eyre again, Jane is a far superior protagonist and the plot is much better. This is a novel of a sexually and emotionally abused teenage girl who goes through a kidnap and hostage situation only to be 'rewarded': she is not rewarded but marries her abuser. The plot is tedious, repetitive and unbelievable to the extreme. Pamela flip flops between being very perceptive and a complete idiot. Mr B is a horrible, controlling bully to all of his servants. The writing is over done and badly paced. Just don't read it, unless like me you have to for a course, in which case leave yourself plenty of time to get frustrated and put it down!
—Alice
