An inn on the road where Tom and the military men at table (Osborne/Richardson Tom Jones, 1963)
A rare flashback in the two films: Bridget Allworthy when young, waving goodbye to Mr Allworthy as he sets off for three months in Bath: she is pregnant, the man who impregnated her dead, and she will have his baby, our hero while Mr Allworthy is gone — a stealth female character (BBC Tom Jones, 1997)
Dear Friends and readers,
I’ve come to the end of my lecture notes: my fourth blog will lead you to the whole set. Here I tell our topics in the last third of the novel, and the essays I assigned and discussed, with a coda on the two movies and adieu from our narrator.
An interesting aspect of the last part of the book is Jones’s depression – both movies try to make something of this in the prison scenes. They both have Tom stay in prison and be almost hung in order to do this. His passivity and then self-defense against the crazed male Fitzpatrick is excuse for framing him by bribed lawyers — until Mr Allworthy at least alerted intervenes. The film-makers work up the press gangs subplot in both movies too.
Important in the book in this last phase is female libertinism as seen in Lady Bellaston and Tom’s willingness to be a kept man for a while: so that brought in the word and needed discussion. We read cogent debates between Sophia and her aunt, Sophia and her father, Mr Allworthy and her father, with the stories of Mrs Fitzpatrick woven in so that there is a dramatization supporting Sophia’s defense of a woman’s right to choose her own husband. There is a break for more interwoven histories where in this last third we hear the pathetic widow’s story of Mrs Miller (an epistolary letter from another widow to Tom showing willingness to buy him in a marriage). Women’s stories.
A long chapter on a trip to the theater to see Hamlet.
And after Tom helps Nightingale to do the right thing by Nancy Miller, marry her and have a loving happy marriage, and he is freed from prison, he becomes the most exemplary of characters, even providing Blifil with an allowance. Sir Charles Grandison could talk no more nobly; Tom is in fact more unreal than Sir Charles Grandison. A protracted ending does not exclude the idea that Fortune has ruled what has happened, but the structural emphasis is a benevolent providential pattern, with Blifil alone ejected from the group.
John Sessions as Fielding eating and drinking and telling us what is happening, a gleam in his eye (BBC 1997 Tom Jones)
Over the term we also discussed the “peculiarities” of Tom Jones, the introductory chapters, the inset histories, the narrator, epistolary chapters and I offered a kind of potted history of the novel and when the subject came up, we’d go at it again. I’ve put some of this in a orderly postnote in the comments.
Celia Imrie and Kelly Reilly as Mrs and Nancy Miller (BBC Tom Jones)
Jones at one point marvels at the blindness of Mrs Miller to her daughter’s condition; it’s a repeat of Mr Allworthy’s blindness – in part a convenience for the plot. In her case it’s presented as making her happier – she has this sanguine disposition of mind (p 621). Our narrator says this accounts for happiness more than anything else.
**************************
The attempted rape scene in Osborne/Richardson Tom Jones (1963) is presented oddly gently
The rape scene in the BBC film (1997) is for real: here Peter Capaldi as Fellamar corners Samantha Morton as Sophia terrifying her
Sexual Violence towards Women in Fielding
Well the essays the class seems to have read was Simon Dickie’s “Fielding’s Rape Jokes.” Review of English Studies, new series 61:251 (2010):572-90. They also read a pdf of Fielding’s defense of Elizabeth Channing that I sent by email. I went over Dickie’s essay in the previous blog on Tom Jones (on feminism, commerce and contracts).
Strong-minded as she is (with pistol), Sophia intensely relieved to meet her cousin, Harriet on the road, and Harriet likewise (BBC Tom Jones)
Here I will cover the Elizabeth Channing and Mary Hamilton cases and what Fielding did and wrote about these. Elizabeth Canning, a servant girl marked by small pox, plain, with no father (an orphan), was accosted on a dark road, perhaps fell into an epileptic fit (it’s the story of a disabled girl), finds herself imprisoned and pressured into becoming a prostitute. Happens all over the world today. Movie in theaters just now is about a woman imprisoned by a man who rapes her continually (Emma Donoghue’s book, The Room). Starved, humiliated, finds a way out, escapes; her mother horrified by her appearance when she turns up, had been advertising about her loss of her daughter. They went to court. Elizabeth identified the house and Mary Squires, apparently working as a prostitute and bawd herself (procurer). The abductors (if they were abductors) found discrepancies in her story, said she lied – they would, wouldn’t they? Virtue Hall working for them was terrified to give evidence – I presume they’d have beat her up – but she corroborated Elizabeth’s story. Mother Wells found guilty to, Mary Squires sentenced to death for stealing Elizabeth’s stays and for assault. People began to give evidence for Squires, an alibi produced; Fielding accused of having presided over injustice and he writes in his defense. There was a gypsy woman involved; someone said it was a plot to discredit Fielding. Mystery never resolved; Mary Squires got off; Elizabeth accused of perjury, of trying to hurt the gypsy woman; it was decided if you put Elizabeth in the stocks, she’d have been stoned to death by the populace so she was sentenced to transportation (indentured servitude) and ended up in Connecticut where she died in 1773. In the end Fielding apologized where he couldn’t explain; he ended up not being respected for all he had done. No good deed goes unpunished. His pamphlet is of interest because of how often he appeals to probability, evidence, common sense.
He comes out much less well in the Mary Hamilton case. In this case I sent them Terry Castle’s “Matters not fit to be mentioned: Fielding’s Female Husband,” ELH, 49:3 (1982):602-22, but I doubt they read it because it is so jargon. I told them about it ans we discussed the contrast with Fielding towards Elizabeth Channing. Mary Hamiltone was accused of fraud for having personated a man, found guilty, whipped sentenced to hard labor in Bridewell. She had a history of doing this before (14 times it was said); he seems to have read the transcript (deposition) where Mary tried to excuse herself by saying she was seduced by one Anne Johnson and suffered under the baneful influence of methodism. He wrote this novelistic tract to make money. It’s prurient and voyeuristic; it reads like a cheap soft-core porn novel; the attack on methodism is pure Fielding, he laments how after her first whipping she tried to buy “a young girl to satisfy her most monstrous and unnatural appetites.” It’s a classic in euphemism – like Cleland’s Fanny Hill. Of course it exposes his masculine point of view.
I now briefly restated Earla Willaputte, “Women Buried:” Henry Fielding and Feminine Absence,” Modern Language Review, 95:2 (2000): 324-35 Willaputte argues the women at the center of the story (Sophia, Lady Bellaston, Molly, Mrs Walters, Mrs Fitzpatrick, Nancy, Mrs Miller) also show how law and custom render women powerless. The women at the edges yes worse. Mrs Bridget Allworthy who disappears, Mrs Western and the various women we are told of in the stories are stronger examples of how society makes invisibility safety; women are turned into servants of law and family and live in a liminal kind of space.
Tom tenderly rescuing Molly in Osborne/Richardson Tom Jones
We do see fearful and arbitrary control; women as “other.” We see scenes where what they want is simply not paid attention to at all. Willaputt instances the Elizabeth Canning case. Women protests against being slaves. Sophia is eloquent even if taken advantage of and not listened to. Even if what Mr Allworthy likes best is her obedience to men.
I recited one of the most reprinted poems by a woman in the period in anthologies – appears in major ones: Mary Lady Chudleigh’s “To the Ladies:”
Wife and Servant are the same,
But only differ in the Name:
For when that fatal Knot is ty’d,
Which nothing, nothing can divide:
When she the word obey has said, [5]
And Man by Law supreme has made,
Then all that’s kind is laid aside,
And nothing left but State and Pride:
Fierce as an Eastern Prince he grows,
And all his innate Rigor shows: [10]
Then but to look, to laugh, or speak,
Will the Nuptial Contract break.
Like Mutes she Signs alone must make,
And never any Freedom take:
But still be govern’d by a Nod, [15]
And fear her Husband as her God:
Him still must serve, him still obey,
And nothing act, and nothing say,
But what her haughty Lord thinks fit,
Who with the Pow’r, has all the Wit. [20]
Then shun, oh! shun that wretched State,
And all the fawning Flatt’rers hate:
Value your selves, and Men despise,
You must be proud, if you’ll be wise.
I like how in Tom Jones we find the narrator objects to mockery of women when they have been sexually seduced or impregnated – Tom calls “jesting” “pieces of brutality.” It’s worth noting that the narrator and sometimes good characters deplore ridicule as very unkind especially of vulnerable or exposed people – like mocking playwrights. None of the critics I read or assigned mentioned this aspect of the book. To me it’s a redeeming feature.
*******************************
From the masquerade dance in Osborne/Richardson Tom Jones (1963)
Illicit transgressive sexuality in Fielding
On libertinism, the best writing I could find (and shortest) were the opening pages of Robert Erickson, “A review of James Turner’s “Libertines and Radicals in Early Modern London,” Eighteenth Century Fiction, 17 (2005):269-76. Sophia does call Tom a libertine in his behavior with Mrs Walters and the narrator brings out the idea but he’s such a “good-hearted libertine”. In Erickson’s few pages libertinism is defined as illicit transgressive sexuality which defies orthodox religion and morality – loosens family bonds, and respect for maternal authority. Erickson says that Turner uses trash and junk rather than high literary texts (like Tom Jones)and in so doing reveals women’s behavior and attitudes to women in the era. From the second work by Pamela Cheek that Erickson reviews it emerges that women who were educated, or serious intellectuals saw prostitution and especially the female libertinism as something deeply harmful to women’s rights and causes. So Lady Bellaston is someone as destructive of Sophia and Mrs Fitzpatrick as the bully tyrant Squire Western or potentially Blifil or as played by Peter Capaldi Lord Fellamar. A female libertine is a sinister figure. I agree with that — though in the book Lady Bellaston’s words reveal her to believe she loves Tom Jones, is jealous of Sophia and just wants an ordinary revenge and to get Sophia out of the way by having Fellamar rape and marry her.
From the sexually-suggestive pantomime put on before Sophia by Lady Bellaston in her London townhouse (BBC Tom Jones)
I suggested a kind of wild debauchery & sublimity can be found in abjection (for those who have the appetite and strength for this); it’s sadomasochistic sex seen from the masochistic point of view reveling in itself. In texts low crude stuff enters upper class culture: the aristocratic libertine aligns himself with shamed abject whore. Now in Tom Jones the gender roles are reversed. There is a sense where both Lovelace and Tom Jones (especially in the 1966) film allows himself to be acted upon, is the passive person. The rest of Erickson’s article is on exploitative sexuality in the colonies: global reach. Female libertine could also be a stance that allowed for philosophical radicalism and I brought in Therese Philosophe, showed the illustrations and the elegance of the volume (I tried to show this) startled them.
We looked at the scene of Sophia and Lady Bellaston where Lady Bellaston needles Sophia successfully about Jones because Sophia will not admit the gentleman who came was Jones nor that she loves him, and Lady Bellaston knows that was Jones, she loves him and Sophia learns that Lady Bellaston knows. As Nightingale’s friend Enderson is another male subject victim so Jones has had to let himself be up for sale; and then in the inset history of Mrs Miller we get another story of money, gender, power from a helpless woman’s point of view. To me the target of the book is the very connections of people are utterly corrupted and they can be victimized because they have connections but if they don’t have them, they are in grave trouble. In the scene of Lady Bellaston and Sophia we see an intimate experience of this: Jones is despised because he’s a bastard, homeless: we see how that corrodes the soul. Libertinim is beside the point.
We don’t have a true male libertine in this book: man about town yes, gaming crooks; corrupt gamekeepers, and I suggested Lady Bellaston and Lord Fellamar are the closest we get. I tried to cite examples from works the class would know and could come up only with Les Liaisons Dangereuses Valmont and Madame de Merteuil – the film with John Malkovitch and Glenn Close. After class was over I was very glad when someone mentioned Mozart’s Don Giovanni. Yes that’s perfect. Brutal, promiscuous, raped women, insouciant, proud of his conquests as conquests; he would be taken as an atheistic, irreligious and at the play’s close he is taken down to hell. Libertinism was bound up with radical thought in this era. The first and influential literary text or character is by Thomas Shadwell, the play 1712 called The Libertine. Over the course of the century (as in our own era) the type changed as times changed. The growth in secularism strong and a rise in sentimentalism corresponds to repression of some of more frank crude ideas. People parodied the concept too: one night Austen goes to a burlesque play of Don Juan, she finds it funny but says the main character is brutal. Fielding belongs to the first half of the century more or less, Austen to the second half, but we can see sentimentality when Tom weeps over Enderson’s story. Tom is good-natured and wants to be virtuous; is he a moralized libertine? That makes nonsense of the term. We had already talked of seeing him as a low-born scoundrel rogue and Tom Jones an imitation rogue story.
There is a continuum of males in the novel. Fielding explores what happens to masculinity in the world, the norms that people follow, and what these do to people. – he’a a man of wit and pleasure. We are not shown him having much fun. Among the things he enjoys is going to a play and damning it among a mob. Theater at the time was not all silence and passivity – but people went there to meet other people, they booed, hissed, interrupted – again it was at the theater that someone insulted Nancy and Nightingale took this point of view seriously.
********************************
The theater: Our characters go see Garrick act out Hamlet
Garrick as Hamlet (contemporary print)
In the midst of the book, time out to see Hamlet. People did go to the theater a lot; in all ranks that could. It was a popular art form. So off go Jones, the youngest female Miller, Mrs Miller and Partridge.
What’s really strange or wants explanation here is that Fielding goes through the whole play step by step. He really touches upon each of the phases of Hamlet. If you ‘ve read and remember it, it’s uncanny. Again I’ve gone over this in a previous blog (on superstition in the era).
Max Beasley and Ron Cook as Tom and Patridge at the Miller wedding (BBC Tom Jones)
The class members inclined to the idea the book is sympathetic to Partridge; that Patridge is the most loyal father to Tom in the book. There ‘s a tribute to the actors and Garrick as Hamlet, to the theater itself which is part of the skein of metaphor in the book.Or is Fielding himself taken with the ambivalent presentation of the loyal son and corrupt father?
******************************
Thomas Gainsborough, A Suffolk Landscape
So what we were to make of this book?
In the last session I invited them to take a post-modern point of view and give up on conventional moralizing as well as ideas about human progress. What I ended was the amount of caustic and multiple pointed ironic satire in the book. What is the nature of the satire in Fielding? What is its target? He shows how all our human ties, the way we have to conduct ourselves in society forces us to behave corruptly and badly – the target is not the corrupt selfish stupid people but the society they create as a whole, the social connection – force of custom; a complaint against the depravity of society which is unlikely to reform. In that sense Fielding’s conservative -– everywhere we look from people going to a play, a masquerade, we see a network of vice with a few good souls here and there who are very vulnerable. In his writing as a magistrate Fielding recommended harsh justice and punishment even if he recognized at core the source of much evil in the society was mass poverty and not giving people enough useful that they could respect to do. I paraphrased from John Richetti’s review of Bertelson’s book on Fielding as magistrate, man and journalist: “Bertelsen finds in Fielding’s last book, a journal of a trip to Lisbon as he knew he was dying; an associational style so the way to draw the meaning is to look at the self-reflexive stories, contradictions, incongruities – that it’s spontaneous and at its best relativistic and free-wheeling.”
Squire Western in Osborne/Richardson Tom Jones (at the hunt, 1963)
Benjamin Whitrow as Mr Allworthy towards the end of the story, finally realizing what Blifil is (BBC Tom Jones)
I then showed clips from the 1966 and 1997 movies. We had sent them some short reviews and suggested that the actuating impulse of the two films was different from one another and from Fielding. Richardson and Osborne were showing us the animal savagery of people; their absurdity but also their pathetic ruthlessness. They also presented the book as a sexual romp and zany witty comedy. The BBC film-makers turned Tom Jones insofar as they could into proto-feminism, building up the character of Sophia and bringing her out as strong wherever possible; they tried for sympathy for the defeated Aunt Western (played by Frances de la Tour), a moral romances. John Session was acted the character of Fielding himself as enigmatic, ironic, well-meaning, keeping apart; they dedicated the film to him.
I ended on Fielding’s own good-natured adieu as, which I suggested was the sort of passage that influenced the BBC people’s film:
And now, my Friend, I take this Opportunity (as I shall have no other) of heartily wishing thee well. If I have been an entertaining ompanion to thee, I promise thee it is what I have desired. If in any Thing I have offended, it was really without any Intention. Some Things perhaps here said may have hit thee or thy Friends; but I do most solemnly declare they were not pointed at thee or them. I question not but thou hast been told, among other Stories of me, that thou wast to travel with a very scurrilous Fellow: But whoever told thee so, did me an Injury. No Man detests and despises Scurrility more than myself; nor hath any Man more Reason; for none hath ever been treated with more: And what is a very severe Fate, I have had some of the abusive Writings of those very Men fathered upon me, who in other of their Works have abused me themselves with the utmost Virulence.’
All these Works, however, I am well convinced, will be dead long before this Page shall offer itself to thy Perusal: For however short the Period may be of my own Performances, they will most probably outlive their own infirm Author, and the weakly Productions of his abusive Contemporaries.
I very much enjoyed reading Tom Jones and the recent criticism of Fielding. It was quite a journey for me to discuss this text with a group of adults my own age. My view of it underwent a sea change. Read aright — deconstructively, historically, autobiographically, from a post-modern standpoint — it still has a lot to teach us. Robert Hume’s idea is that the one way you can bring all Fielding’s stances into one is as a teacher. Yes.
Ellen
Short history of the novel. I take some of this consciously from two famous accounts: Ian Watt’s Rise of the Novel (like the middle classes ever rising until recently) and Margaret Doody’s The True History of the Novel (tendentious title), but most from years of reading and writing of early novels and essays and books on the development of the genre.
A potted account which is contradictory. The first long prose narratives of fiction emerge in the first couple of centuries in the “classical world.” These Greek narratives combined stories of characters subject to fortune and the Gods and they showed much suffering and were about love. Short class one is by Longus: Daphnis and Chloe. Long one by Chariton, Callirhoe; one attributed to Heliodorus, called Ethopian Adventures or the romance of Theagenes and Chariclea – probably one of the translators a later 17th century dramatist called Nahum Tate.
If you’ve seen Shakespeare’s later romances, Pericles, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, you have this material turned into poetic drama.
These were stories that reflected the ancient world of northern Africa, the central Mediterranean world and middle East, with Greece and Rome central powers. They were highly improbable, lots super natural happenings They purported to give the reader the private lives of people who were distanctly connected to major public events that were recognized at the time – with major historical people in charge of wars. They did require a stable environment to read in. At the fall of the Roman empire and the sweeping across Europe of tribal cultures, these were lost to public view. Libraries burnt.
In the European medieval period, verse narratives were what was sung and circulated – remember how few people could read and there arose the knightly adventures based on old historical chronicles. Epics and romances and three kinds of material emerged: the Arthurian, the Charlemagne stories (the Song of Roland the grim first tragedy based on an actual war defeat) and the stories of Troy. At the core of some of these have been shown to be real battles – it’s said that there is evidence in the 6th century of a push-back by Celtic and Roman forces against the Anglo-Saxons in Wales, a final defeat. What human beings do is they turn into a spectacular success and make nostalgic what was lost.
In the Renaissance there were circulated collections of stories: a group of characters sits down and for ten days tell one another tales: Boccaccio’s Decameron. Margaret of Navarre’s Heptameron. These were a combination of bawdy tales, revenge of God, often highly misogynistic, sometimes coarse. This material provides Chaucer’s Pilgrims with some of their tales which he transforms. Again these short and often violent tales are taken up by Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Othello.
They combine with archetypal folk and fairy tales too. It’s not far from the truth to say the geniuses who wrote this material do seem to have moved towards what is today called “realism” or conventions of naturalism and mirroring the contemporary world in ways that take into account real history: one of these was Cervantes in his Don Quixote, but he by no means sticks to consistent time or probability, and he does not try to mirror his world of Spain at the time beyond what he needs to reflect his theme: which is to parody the romance forms of the time. The first prose narratives to consciously be consistent insofar as this is possible are in England Daniel Defoe with his Journal of a Plague Year and Moll Flanders. Robinson Crusoe is a tall tale; in France Madame de Lafayette with her Princess de Cleves (a first historical novel set in the era of Henry II, and a memoir of Charles II’s sister, Henrietta).
Various forms of novel emerge in the later 17th century: epistolary narrative which allows for subjectivity, and slows down the narrative, lengthens it, frees it from the rigors of straight-forward chronological time, and you have to account for how people know things. The picaro novel – a male character goes on the road and has adventures, this allows for the wide landscape and supposedly objective portrayal of events outside the purview of the characters’ consciousness.
These two forms: the subjective narrative and the wider objective are still with us and often associated with the two genders we divide people up into: woman’s novels and men’s. Of course that’s a simplification but there is some truth to it.
I like Walter Scott’s summary in trying to account for the place and achievement of Jane Austen: The novel is the “legitimate child” of romance where mirroring of daily realities replace extraordinary adventures.
Not only is probability followed but an attempt at real human nature, where among other things you could have an ending neither ecstatic with happiness (Tom Jones does fall into this in part) or tragic and despairing (Clarissa) but people carrying on, where nothing much is concluded but the curtain pulled down.
You have to create interest from a critique of life seriously intended. The idea is to delude or seduce readers into really believing in what they are reading while they read it, not to break the spell (suspension of disbelief this is called) and readers bond with characters as people. We talk about them as if they were people.
This new form or genre was accompanied by developments of other new genres: serious biography, in the later part of our era, autobiography. People published books of their letters (usually doctored).
It’s central to the secularization of our thought: the getting rid of supernatural belief.
Turn to Fielding: he wants to be respected and what he is doing in his book is ironically discussing in front of us, mocking and parodying but also obeying the new conventions of verisimilitude – more or less. He needs a narrator because he can’t have the characters do this. They are inside this world.
Richardson in his editor’s preface (he pretends throughout that the letters of his novel were written by real people) does discuss some of his techniques but he did not publish this preface until the third edition of Clarissa. Letters allowed him to capture someone’s consciousness when they don’t know what is happening next, in the throes of life’s traumas and troubles, and we see the same world from other character’s points of view plus we get to know from one character what another might not know of – -so we get ironic and dramatic suspense.
In the second half of the century you get the first early treatises trying to define what is a novel, how it differs from romance. Of course lots of objections: the improbable does happen. If you stick to probability it’s hard to write a rebellious novel – which exposes the norms of a society and critiques them as most people don’t. Probably becomes what most people do in drawing rooms. Women are amng the first to write gothic romance in order to offer alternatives to what is that are still convincing, to turn to historical fiction to try to give an account of how the present order came to be. Scott takes that to serious depictions of different states of mind among combatants in earlier history.
The gothic becomes a form where you can pose metaphysical questions: is there such a thing as justice in the universe, is there a good order among us, what happens when an act is irretrievable; what do you do with lethal hatred?
At the close of the century with Madame de Stael the first written awareness of how a novel reflects a given culture: so this reflects French culture and mindset and that German and the other English. Problem of mainstream readership
In fact or reality ordinary readers have ever loved fantasy and a good deal of fantasy creeps back quietly or wholehog by the entrance of gothic (vampires, ghosts) and in our own time science fiction. It’s my view that one of the important criteria of the realistic book that can be taken seriously is if a character should die, he or she stays dead. There is no bringing him or her back. I’ve noticed again and again (Douglas Adams’s famous Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy no one ever dies. Death defines our lives; that we age and die is so central that if you eliminate this, at least I can’t take it seriously.
People want to be thrilled and they want meaning to be offered them, their norms and values and lives to be validated. So mysteries show us “other” and “bad” people destroyed, the world tidied up by strong and super intelligent detectives. These forms – mystery, thriller, science fiction, detective and romances which end happily ever after are thriving. They have most of them been strongly influenced by two centuries or more of realism. So you get blends like time-traveling historical fiction.
I thought I would lay this out and then ask for questions and try to answer them. If I cannot, I”ll write them down and answer next time.
We can begin by citing what we notice when we read that make us disbelieve a book and if Fielding fits the criteria; what is he careful about or what we look for when we want to believe in a book.
What are these conventions as Fielding begins to solidify them? Does he satisfy these?
Probability – how much marvelous can you take — called verisimilitude
realistic characters
historical time
accounting for how someone knows something
space
slow moving structure
death is not something that you get up from
No supernatural
Politicized themes, social themes: love, sex, marriage; real worlds of justice; psychological depths
for more and patterns human nature projected through; and what characters have to cope with in larger world
This is one of the research projects that I mentioned to you. I have a list and I want to reread the four blogs and restart the book. Your blogs have enthused me to go on reading this book. Thanks for that.
It’s a book that takes a long time to enjoy. I found I had to revise what seemed an instinctive response to it, but after a while it seemed to me that this response was a wrong framing. I was looking for things that were not there — though they are in the movies. It doesn’t offer the satisfactions of 19th century novels either.
It’s like a long essay with twists and turns in irony. It was reading it autobiograpically, in the context of real history, dismissing a lot of preconceived ideas about Fielding as good-natured. Rather he is deeply sceptical — like Swift, like Sade. He’s also intensely anxious over women and sex. You have to learn to savor the inset histories and sometimes read the words of those with deep emotionalism. It’s really a very dark book.
I do believe the interpretations I offered through the essays were accurate and help understand and therefore enjoy the book. The Douglas Thomas biography was the first help. Stevenson’s book on The Real History of Tom Jones twists and turns itself, hard to read. But the Battestin approach which reigned for decades is deadly; it just kills the book into this dull sermon and we have been reading it through a lens like his.
[…] Sexual violence against women, libertinism; Hamlet and a history of the novel […]
Congratulations, Ellen, on a thorough and admirably energetic critical presentation! Jim Gill
It was tremendously enjoyable teaching Tom Jones to a group of older adults. My view of the novel was transformed — so too of Fielding and other topics connected to him. I’ve set up a panel calling for papers on Tom Jones for next year’s EC/ASECS and may even myself give a paper too. Not that I’ve gone off Clarissa 🙂 Ellen