Starting out slow...

Honestly I do not have much to say about Evelina thus far (which is not good since I have to do a presentation on Tuesday....). In the first volume we are introduced to a number of characters and are left at a point where Madame Duvel wants to appeal to Sir Belmont about acknowledging his daughter so that she becomes the rightful heir to his fortune and name.

So a few things I've noticed:

1. Evelina is much better model of virtue and innocence than Pamela was. Evelina acts proper but does not boast about her innocence and beauty. Her beauty is mentioned a few times, sometimes by herself in the letters to Rev. Villars and sometimes by others in other letters. Evelina definately has one virtuous quality that Pamela did not have: HUMBLENESS.

2. As of right now, there seem to be too many people meddling in Evlina's affairs. Madame Duvel showed up out of nowhere, Rev. Villars is her "keeper," and Lady Howard also has her best interests invested into Evelina. Each person has a different idea of what is the best for her. Madame Duvel wants to sue her dad, Sir Belmont, to get him to take responsibility for his daughter, Rev. Villars wants to keep her in the country, and Lady Howard is playing both sides. Something tells me that this is not going to work out well for Evelina. Rev. Villars is more interested in her virtue and public reception based on her virtue (106-107) while Madame Duvel is more worried about her status and public reception based on wealth (102).

3. And what do we do with yet another girl without a father, nontheless a father that abandoned her mother after marrying her, tainting her birth. Right now her reputation is at stake becuase if this is revealed and Sir Belmont continues to deny her as his legitamit child, this can pose problems for her as well. No one wants a woman that is from an unworthy birth.


4. As far as writing goes, Evelina is much more developed and has a more complex story line than the other stories we have read. In Pamela after 111 pages, we were already almost to the climax of the story without much more development left to go, even though Richardson drones on for another 400 pages or so after that. In Evelina, Burney has developed a plot line that has a lot of room for development and some suspense. At the end of volume 1, the reader is not quite sure what is going to happen. Even though it is written in the epistolary style like the others, Burney shows her skills in writing and the development of the novel as a form. Her characters are more complex, her plot is more complex, and the reading is easier to take in and follow. This is much more like the novels we are used to and has broken away from the older prose forms that, for me anyways, were not always as fun or easy to read.

Reading other people's mail....

Letters, letters, and more letters...All this letter reading is making me feel like I'm invading the personal lives of these characters or something...lol. Although, I believe it was common to share letters and read them to others during this time and that they were not a private as we think of them now. If anyone has anymore information on this I would be interested. I've become sort of obsessed with all these letters...

Even though letters are an essential part of Anti-Pamela just as they are in Pamela, they are no longer the predominate source for the action of the story. In Anti-Pamela there are moments where there is a narrator who fills in the gaps between the letters and gives the reader clues about Syrena's behavior. But what is odd about this now that I just looked at it again is that this story is still comprised of a series of letters, but Syrena refers to herself in the third person within the letters and writes it like a story...so i think. Now I'm confused. A lot of this occurs during the relations with Vardine when she is lying about what happens to her mom, but the truth is revealed to the reader.
There are two different things going on between Pamela and Anti-Pamela. In Pamela it is hard to discern what is really going on because Pamela's letters have a very distinct audience which may cause her to be an unreliable narrator. In Anti-Pamela, it is unclear who the audience is since the letters are addresssed to Ann Tricksy but things she isn't supppossed to know are revealed in the process. There appears at some points to be a narrator who intervenes (p71-86 is one spot, among others...), giving the reader true insight into Syrena's charachter that lacks in Pamela's charachter. The reader only knows Pamela through the way she depicts herself in her letters to her parents and her reproduction of letters from others. The reader never gets a glimpse of Pamela from someone else's point of view. In Anti-Pamela, if it was not for this intervention by a narrator, the reader would be forced to believe Syrena's letters to her mother, which are often as inclusive as Pamela's letters to her family. The writing is the same, the responses to the men are similar when depicted in her letters, and even though it is obvious Syrena is lying to these men for her own personal gain, her letters depict her in a different light. This is similar to the inconsistencies I found in Pamela, but without the evidence that is provided in Anti-Pamela.

It is very interesting how the presence of letters can change the way a character and his/her actions are perceived...

One thing I forgot to mention was the issue of intercepting letters. This occurs in both books (I'm really sick of writing the titles over and over...) and changes the fate of the characters, more permanatly for Syrena than Pamela. This goes back to the issue of audience and letters. Now it is considered a federal offence in America to read someone else's mail. But in 18th Century England, what were the rules for letters? As I suggested earlier, I believe that letters were not as personal as we think of them now. In both books because Syrena and Pamela are servants, their masters by default feel that it is okay to read their letters. Is this an invasion of their privacy? Can servants have a private life or is their life fully indebted to their master? Syrena definately has more freedom than Pamela. Getting a little off topic here, does this freedom correlate with her much looser morals?

But anyways...audience and letters.....what does it all mean?!?!?!?!

Response to Ken's Blog that I would like to investigate further....

I think another thing to think about along the lines of property is who owns Pamela's letters? She is the author and the "publisher," but they are addressed to her parents (does this transfer the ownership?), but her Master "owns" her (so does this make him ultimately the owner of the letters???). There is a lot of debate about this throughout the book from the moment where we discover the master is intercepting the letters all the way until they get married. Pamela tries to take ownership of them and fights for the ownership, but is unsuccessful. She has to distribute them to an audience that she makes clear her letters were not intended for. I wonder how the Act of Anne would apply to this or what Locke would think. Renee talks about the ideas as property, but what about the physical letters she has to give up??? Who owns them???

Oh Pamela, I can see right through you....

Finally finally finally the time has come to read Shamela and see someone else's views of this lying, transparent little girl. I understand I may be being a bit harsh, but after reading almost 400 pages (I need to finish the book tomorrow morning...) of her horrible life as told through letters to her parents and her constant reminders of how absolutely perfect, virtuous, and moral she is (I always thought modesty was an aspect of morality...maybe I didn't have the same lessons as Pamela...), I am ready to punch her in the face for pretending to be something she's not, and Richardson for defending her to wits end. Henry Fielding is my new bff for sharing my thoughts on the little conniving brat.

I haven't quite finished reading Shamela, but when i got to this letter, I instantly fell in love.

LETTER II.

Shamela Andrews to Henrietta Maria Honora Andrews.

Dear Mamma,

[31] O what News, since I writ my last! the young Squire hath been here, and as sure as a Gun he hath taken a Fancy to me; Pamela, says he, (for so I am called here) you was a great Favourite of your late Mistress's; yes, an't please your Honour, says I; and I believe you deserved it, says he; thank your Honour for your good Opinion, says I; and then he took me by the Hand, and I pretended to be shy: Laud, says I, Sir, I hope you don't intend to be rude; no, says he, my Dear, and then he kissed me, 'till he took away my Breath — and I pretended to be Angry, and to get away, and then he kissed me again, and breathed very short, and looked very silly; and by Ill-Luck Mrs. Jervis came in, and had like to have spoiled Sport. — How troublesome is such Interruption! You shall hear now soon, for I shall not come away yet, so I rest,

Your affectionate Daughter,
Shamela.

This letter sums it all up for me. I love how Fielding points out that in all of these spots where she is "being virtuous," she is really pretending. Her exaggeration of each and every situation, her overemphasis of how "perfect" she is, and the fact that she is writing to her parents are all indications that Fielding has it right on here. All of her attempts to get away from her horrible master are sorry attempts, and all it took for her to want to be with him was for him to convince her that he loved her. I'm sorry, but if some guy was being awful to me and then said he loved me, that would not convince me to marry him. Also, with the exception of Mrs. Jervis (who really doesn't help her out that much anyways...), all the people she goes to for help are men. This may just be out of societal position and convenience based on sex, but one could speculate (as I mentioned on Thurs) that she is flaunting her good looks (since she is the most beautiful thing, even in her plain clothes) to get what she wants. And anything bad that ever happens to her or anyone else (she ruined A LOT of lives with her little schemes...I have the page numbers marked...I'll put them in later) is not her fault. Afterall, Shamela, errr, I mean Pamela, is perfect, right???? She would NEVER do anyone any harm........more on this later...

So I was thinking...

...about all this mention of virtue and being ruined and everything else that poor little Pamela is encountering in her little story, and i couldn't help but be reminded of Memoirs of a Geisha. Pamela puts so much emphasis on her virginity that it almost seems like a commodity. She mentions time and time again how all the men admire her because of her virtue, which is synonymous for her virginity. Even though she doesn't explicitly say it (she can't; she's writing to her parents) she is a tease, often flaunting her beauty and her clothes and using it to her advantage. Every man she encounters is described as being enthralled with her beauty, which I see as not wanting her beuaty, but wanting her virginity that she also flaunts.
I thought of Memoirs of a Geisha because Sayuri also is a poor girl and once she hits adolescence, her virginity becomes the thing that will either make or break her career as a geisha and allow her the means to escape her fate as a maid if she cannot pay off her debt. She sells her virginity for a very high amount, and through this wins the favor of Mother and secures her career as a successful geisha.
I'm sure there are other literary instances of this as well. Why is it that the poor girls in these two novels have to bank their life on their virginity to secure themselves in society? I haven't read that far into Pamela yet (about p150 or so as of right now) but the strong emphasis on her virtue and no wanting to be ruined makes me think that somehow her virginity may play an important role later on. Even if it is not as drastic as in Memoirs of a Geisha, the emphasis is still there and is commodified. I really don't know how to piece this together but have been thinking about it ever since I started reading Pamela. More on this once I read some more and can clarify the connection, if there even is one....