Rating: 
Summary: Spamela
Review: As a writer, Samuel Richardson is completely honest about his intentions. His novel "Pamela" serves an explicit purpose, announced on its title page as intending "to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the YOUTH of BOTH SEXES [sic]," and this self-righteous statement invokes a suspicion, almost a conviction, that the book's value is instructional rather than literary. Can it be both, and can it still be enjoyable? Yes, it is both, and no, it is not very enjoyable. Richardson's heroine, the fifteen-year-old Pamela Andrews, a girl so lily-white and virtuous she almost rides into the story on a unicorn, works as a maid for a wealthy young man discreetly called Mr. B. He is attracted to her and treats her most ignobly, kissing her despite her protests, grappling her like an octopus, feeling her up, calling her a slut, reading her mail, deceiving her poor parents, and finally having her kidnapped and imprisoned in his rural house. This much of the novel is epistolary, in which Pamela wails about her distress in letters to her parents, who are concerned but unable to help her aside from giving her advice filled with platitudes about minding her virtue. The second part of the novel is in the form of a diary, in which Pamela relates how her virtuous resistance to Mr. B's salacious persistence culminates in his offer to marry her, which she accepts. Okay, so now what? Richardson's next step is to introduce class warfare. Mr. B's sister, Lady Davers, admonishes her brother about the impropriety of his marrying a vulgar wench like Pamela when he should be seeking a girl of the aristocracy. The dignity with which Pamela responds to Lady Davers's snobbish attitude shows that while Richardson may have been high-minded about morals, he was definitely not a supporter of elitism.
The challenge in reading this novel is to try to take it seriously without discarding modern notions about proper gender relations. It may be argued that Richardson is really pointing the finger of scorn at Mr. B, but since Pamela is the focus and the voice of the story, it almost seems that the burden of remaining virtuous is being placed on her and not on her immoral aggressor, who knows better but thinks his privileged social status gives him license to do as he pleases. And then one day he realizes the iniquity of his character, reverses his behavior, makes an honorable overture to his lady, and suddenly everything's wonderful. Sure. "Pamela" basically fuses together two genres, the morality tale and the Cinderella story, and a formula like this was bound to invite waves of adoration, commentary, and controversy. Fans loved the book's optimism; puritanical detractors accused it of being merely prurient. Henry Fielding, possibly inspired by the book's humorless earnestness, even wrote a parody ("Shamela") in which the heroine really *was* a slut. Whether "Pamela" deserves to be read in the twenty-first century is difficult to judge; it can't quite be recommended on the strength of its narrative, but readers who feel the need to see an example of "virtue rewarded" could do a lot worse.
Rating:
Summary: Spamela
Review: As a writer, Samuel Richardson is completely honest about his intentions. His novel "Pamela" serves an explicit purpose, announced on its title page as intending "to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the YOUTH of BOTH SEXES [sic]," and this self-righteous statement invokes a suspicion, almost a conviction, that the book's value is instructional rather than literary. Can it be both, and can it still be enjoyable? Yes, it is both, and no, it is not very enjoyable. Richardson's heroine, the fifteen-year-old Pamela Andrews, a girl so lily-white and virtuous she almost rides into the story on a unicorn, works as a maid for a wealthy young man discreetly called Mr. B. He is attracted to her and treats her most ignobly, kissing her despite her protests, grappling her like an octopus, feeling her up, calling her a slut, reading her mail, deceiving her poor parents, and finally having her kidnapped and imprisoned in his rural house. This much of the novel is epistolary, in which Pamela wails about her distress in letters to her parents, who are concerned but unable to help her aside from giving her advice filled with platitudes about minding her virtue. The second part of the novel is in the form of a diary, in which Pamela relates how her virtuous resistance to Mr. B's salacious persistence culminates in his offer to marry her, which she accepts. Okay, so now what? Richardson's next step is to introduce class warfare. Mr. B's sister, Lady Davers, admonishes her brother about the impropriety of his marrying a vulgar wench like Pamela when he should be seeking a girl of the aristocracy. The dignity with which Pamela responds to Lady Davers's snobbish attitude shows that while Richardson may have been high-minded about morals, he was definitely not a supporter of elitism.
The challenge in reading this novel is to try to take it seriously without discarding modern notions about proper gender relations. It may be argued that Richardson is really pointing the finger of scorn at Mr. B, but since Pamela is the focus and the voice of the story, it almost seems that the burden of remaining virtuous is being placed on her and not on her immoral aggressor, who knows better but thinks his privileged social status gives him license to do as he pleases. And then one day he realizes the iniquity of his character, reverses his behavior, makes an honorable overture to his lady, and suddenly everything's wonderful. Sure. "Pamela" basically fuses together two genres, the morality tale and the Cinderella story, and a formula like this was bound to invite waves of adoration, commentary, and controversy. Fans loved the book's optimism; puritanical detractors accused it of being merely prurient. Henry Fielding, possibly inspired by the book's humorless earnestness, even wrote a parody ("Shamela") in which the heroine really *was* a slut. Whether "Pamela" deserves to be read in the twenty-first century is difficult to judge; it can't quite be recommended on the strength of its narrative, but readers who feel the need to see an example of "virtue rewarded" could do a lot worse.
Rating: 
Summary: "...you must read it for its sentiment."
Review: despite certain theorists views that this is actually a story of feminist or working class triumph, i found this piece of writing to be painfully misogynistic and classist. pamela is a young female housemaid whose master attempts to rape her several times, going to such lengths as kidnapping her, lying to her and anyone who'll listen and attempting to bribe her. pamela's resistance earns her a marriage to the same would-be rapist, after which everything comes up roses for pamela. this novel is extremely repetitive. part ii could easily have been condensed to ten pages or so without losing much. apparently pamela is the perfect christian, wife, daughter, servant, mistress, etc, etc. she's beautiful, too, with a waist that her master's hands can span. she annoyed the bejesus out of me. so did the novel. ...
Rating: 
Summary: the anti-feminist book of the old millenium...
Review: despite certain theorists views that this is actually a story of feminist or working class triumph, i found this piece of writing to be painfully misogynistic and classist. pamela is a young female housemaid whose master attempts to rape her several times, going to such lengths as kidnapping her, lying to her and anyone who'll listen and attempting to bribe her. pamela's resistance earns her a marriage to the same would-be rapist, after which everything comes up roses for pamela. this novel is extremely repetitive. part ii could easily have been condensed to ten pages or so without losing much. apparently pamela is the perfect christian, wife, daughter, servant, mistress, etc, etc. she's beautiful, too, with a waist that her master's hands can span. she annoyed the bejesus out of me. so did the novel. ...
Rating:
Summary: A tad verbose
Review: I admit that I haven't yet finished "Pamela" and also that I've never been very enthusiastic about the literature of the 18th century. The only reason I'm reading "Pamela" at all is because, while reading the journal of Esther Burr (18th century American and mother of Aaron Burr) she mentions reading both "Pamela" and "Clarissa." She loved "Pamela" and hated "Clarissa" and I want to see if my opinion lines up with hers. (And I also want to see the film version of Clarissa w/ yummy Sean Bean, but want to read the book first.)
I find Pamela's endless lamentations to be quite tedious to read. Until I read the other reviews posted here, I assumed that Richardson was writing ironically and poking fun of Pamela. She says again and again that she'd rather die in a ditch or spend her life dressed in rags, begging than lose her virginity to her master and yet when she finally is left alone and has a key to help her escape from her imprisonment in her master's house, she is afraid of the bull that lives in the pasture and ends up remaining imprisoned. Also, she's quite sly, sneaky and dishonest, despite all her protestations that she remain honest. (Although by "honest" Pamela really means "a virgin.") But perhaps Richardson was sincere in his portrayal of Pamela as a truly virtuous woman.
At any rate, I am not enjoying this novel as much as I'd hoped I would although the scene between Pamela and Lady Davers is highly entertaining. However, Pamela is an extraordinarily prolific letter writer, but at different times throughout the novel she recaps what has already happened at great length. The characters are not very interesting or particularly well-developed. If I had to invite one of them to dinner, I'd pass over the tedious Pamela and the despicable Mr. B, her master and plump for earthy, pragmatic Mrs. Jewkes who is occaisionally entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: TRASH
Review: My teacher at the Univeristy used to say that "Pamela" ought to be read rather for its psychological depth than for the almost inexistent plot. If you read it, she said, waiting for something to happen, you'll hang yourself in despair. However, hard as I tried, I could find no psychological insight at all. I mean that Pamela's behaviour is inconsistent from beginning to end. She strarts admiring Mr B, then she starts loathing him because he attempts rape on her. Perfectly logic. But afterwards!! She takes up every possible excuse in order not to escape from Mr B. (including the sight of a cow! Come on, who could ever be scared by a cow, and in the Eighteenth century too, when people were used to sighting such "frightening" animals?!) and in the end, when he finally offers marriage to her, she starts calling him angel, and best of men and so on, just as if nothing had happened. I could not help agreeing with Henry Fielding that "pretty Pamela" had planned to marry Mr B. from the beginning and that far from being innocent she was actually sordid. Another puzzling point was the fact that almost everybody (including Mr B.'s sister) read Pamela's diary and nobody helped her, and I mean NOBODY at all. I can't believe that Eighteenth Century people valued privacy and discretion so much as to avoid interfering with criminal behaviour of every sort. In a word, Richardson handled the plot too awkwardly to make it plausible. Note that he meant the book to be didactic, but many people actually read it because some scenes could be easily mistaken for pornographic writing (i.e. the two attempted rapes in which Pamela's nakedness is very minutely described, along with all the spots that Mr B.'s hands were busy in trying to reach...). What writer would ever be so clumsy as to entirely miss his aim? Maybe Defoe only... It must have been a shortcoming common to Puritan novelists. Far from being a masterpiece, "Pamela" is TRASH (in Italian: una vera ciofeca!!), don't waste your time with it. Read Shamela, by Henry Fielding, instead: it will be worth it.
Rating:
Summary: The worst piece of vacuous tripe I have ever read.
Review: Not only are the characters in Pamela entirely unbelievable and impossible to liks, they are also incredibly long-winded. Pamela is an infuriatingly self-righteous pricktease who can't seem to understand why her master, a disguting mysoginist, gets excited every time she flirts with him. Then she falls in love with him, inexplicably, and marries him. Suddenly she becomes Ms. Submissive, begger her husband, whom she continues to call "master," to give her "more wonderful injunctions" to restrict her behavior. She even seems thrilled when he hits her.
Richardson's writing is repetetive, boring, and entirely devoid of beauty. His protagonists are either creepy or unbelievably stupid. This may well be a candidate for the first English novel, but that doesn't mean you should read it. If there were a zero rating, this book would receive it.
Rating:
Summary: 2 or 3 hundred pages are spent laboring to a happy ending.
Review: Pamela is written as if it were a series of letters, but evolves into a journal-esque format. Though instructional concerning the origin of the English novel, it is incredibly boring. Pamela is eventually rewarded for her virtue - the whole plot in one sentence. It is long, intensely repetitive and the characters are entirely unbelievable. For an eighteenth century novel it is mysteriously devoid of humour, except that the reader might laugh at how awkwardly Richardson forges his happy ending.
Rating: 
Summary: Rewarding
Review: Pamela was a required book in a college class I took a few years ago - and as such 'forced reading'. Therfore, I had an opinion similar to the harsh reviews below. However, during a bizarre fit of eighteenth century reading, I tried it again. With time to read and actually absorb the words, I thoroughly enjoyed it! Pamela is a very humourous look at two "country bumpkins" (as the editor puts it). Pamela herself is not a very sympathetic character. However, her dramatizing of the events taking place around her is wonderfully funny! Don't come to this novel expecting to find a story of an innocent maid in danger - she's just not there. What you will find is a conceited, uppity girl about to enter a relationship with a similarly vain man on the lowest rung of the then gentry. Certainly the work gets a little trying in places, but give it a chance - it really is well worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: "Pamela, poor, poor Pamela"
Review: Samuel Richardson is one of the most misunderstood and underappreciated novelists in the English language. His style of prose is a model for all students of English. It is very simple yet very musical. Look closely at each syllable-- rather, listen closely to each-- and you will find how beautifully they are gathered together. Samuel Johnson and Jane Austen are dangerous models for aspiring writers-- imitations usually fail. But Richardson's prose is the ideal guide for clarity of sense and beauty of sound. The reader shouldn't worry that Richardson considered himself to be a moralist and that his intention was for _Pamela_ to be "instructional rather than literary." After all, this novel is a guilty pleasure more than anything else. Only the dullest mind would fail to detect the extra layer of meaning which runs through it. Yes-- _Pamela_ teaches virtue. Yet Pamela Andrews is an ironic character, and we the readers see what she and the other characters cannot see. This irony is quite radical in many ways. It is brought about by Richardson's epistolary method. It's a sort of first-person narrative that takes advantage of the narrator's limited perspective. Pamela is a young girl with little experience and a certain fear of gaining more. Yet we can see the bigger picture, and whether it was Richardson's intent or not, the real truth lies there-- in what she doesn't know. Not that Pamela is dishonest in her letters to her dear parents and others. No-- we sympathize with her, but at the same time find a certain entertainment in her distress. And Richardson *is* an intentionally comic author. His comedy resembles the stage of the time, or of a slightly earlier time, in the age of Congreve and Wycherley. More than once the reader will also be reminded of Mozart's Da Ponte operas-- comedies of situations as well as manners. Richardson's grotesque sketches of Mrs. Jewkes and other adults are also humorous. Richardson the moralist? Perhaps. But also, Richardson the master of irony, of humor-- of realism. For an 18th century Puritan male, Richardson is remarkably sympathetic to the mindset of a fifteen year old female. It's understandable that she would be afraid. And young people often have an inflated sense of their own virtue. But in page after page, Pamela *is* a human being, and a rather perceptive and likeable one at that. She also happens to be one of the finest prose stylists of her age! Henry Fielding was a savage critic of Richardson and in many ways the world has gone the direction of _Tom Jones_ rather than _Pamela_. Yet the truly progressive mind-- the mind open to many points of view, strange as well as mainstream-- should be able to find pleasure in Richardson's masterpiece. I'll take him at his word that he truly meant "Virtue" to be "Rewarded" but we all can believe he had another goal in mind-- to entertain. Some may feel Pamela whines too much, is too distrustful and indignant, but the point is that we ought to set aside the morality for a second (his and ours, puritan or otherwise) and wrap our brains around its eccentric humor (the true hallmark of the eighteenth century). So if you should treat yourself to this classic novel, please do so for the beauty of the language, paying close attention to the way Richardson uses alliteration and varies the length of each sentence for maximum dramatic (and comic) effect, and letting yourself laugh at the ridiculous situations which Pamela finds herself in. If you do this, and take your time with each phrase, you will find every word to be a delicious dessert, not a moral duty.
|
