Shannon Evans Fall 2012

English 318: 18th Century Fiction Journal Entries

Journal #1: Throughout reading Pilgrims Progress I kept coming back to that question we discussed the first day of class What is a Novel? My own initial thoughts proved to be way off the mark after reading Ian Watts Realism and the Novel Form. I have heard this question before in other English classes and its returned answers were always very vague and ambiguous; pretty much any form of fiction could be constituted as a novel. So that was the type of answer I went with in this class but after reading Watts ideas I found that some think that in order for a piece of literature to be considered a novel it must have certain conventions. If I had never read Watts novel and someone asked me if Bunyans Pilgrims Progress was a novel I wouldnt have thought twice about saying yes but now I dont think I would say yes at all. It seems that for it to be considered a novel in its time (as then the novel was a new and groundbreaking form of literature) it would have had to show realism, which as an allegorical tale Bunyans piece is pretty far from the real world. The whole book is metaphorical and although the reader is supposed to take some very real lessons away from Christians journey, the actual story is far closer to the imaginary than the real and tangible. The closest one can get to the world in this book is Worldly Wiseman and his mortal ways but Bunyan pretty much yells do not follow this path to the reader. If anything this book uses symbolism at its fullest to show one to try and live life more according to godly values than real human experience It is a good virtue but the pitfall of Vanity tends to show that the reader can associate this situation more with their real life than many other of Christians trials and successes.

Journal #2: Watts idea of the novel is much more prominent in Defoes Robinson Crusoe. I mean you can sort of figure this would be true because Watt cites Defoe as one of the founding fathers to the novel but reading his work after Pilgrims Progress makes it much more evident. In a normal circumstance (meaning had I not just read a parable tale, and I was not looking to see if it was a novel) I would have read Crusoe and found nothing extraordinary about it. I mean it is an interesting tale about an explorers adventures and his shipwreck but I would not have necessarily seen anything that set it an apart from other novels that I have read. But it dawned on me that to people in this time era Defoes novel would be strikingly different than most of the things they have read so it is understandable he was part of the novels coming-of-age phenomenon. Since I read Pilgrims Progress right before Crusoe I saw what Watt meant by many of the novels being timeless, moral, re-hashed romanticized stories that dwelled on

traditional conventions (13). Not saying that by any means Bunyans book was very traditional, its plot and story were very unique but his story was not built on specifity and one persons real and life like experiences, his book was meant for anyone in any time to understand and learn from. Robinson Crusoe on the other hand feels almost as if youre at Robinsons side seeing what he is seeing. Defoe uses the sensory aspect of realism (taken from the French realists/philosophy) very well. He also gives you a time and plot that doesnt seem so outrageous (as it was a time of exploration). We do not just see his character doing things but we see him think, and contemplate his actions. This gives the reader the feeling that Crusoe could represent real people at the time. Another interesting point to see is that both Pilgrims Progress and Robinson Crusoe address religion but a big difference is that Robinson is more relatable to the average reader than Christian. Robinson repents but also struggles with religion, his problems and his relationship to God are much more life-like. He is not trying to be a standout example but he is trying to realize his mistakes and learn from them.

Journal #3: I am about 180 pages into Pamela at this point so when I am writing this journal I am writing where my thoughts are at as of now (since I havent read the entire thing yet). Just figured that this might be beneficial to know in case some of the things I say have yet to be resolved. After getting into Pamela I am really beginning to see this evolution of the novel form. Pilgrims Progress helped me to see what a fictional biblical allegory was at first I didnt fully get why it was being read since we were discussing how the novel was beginning to flourish at this time but after reading Robinson Crusoe I realized it was a very good book to read in order to contrast the other novels to it. Pilgrim was a good example of showing what many stories were like before the novel emerged (as Watt has said they were very focused on timeless lessons and morality). I started to see the essences of reality and biography take form in Defoe, who has been coined as one of the pioneers of the novel. This point made me excited to read Richardson because he was also acknowledged as one of the first novel pioneers. I found that while reading Pamela that there are many similarities to Defoe but there are also many differences. I found that the realism and autobiographical aspects were still present in Pamela as they were in Robinson Crusoe but instead of the choppy episodic plot that Defoe used through Robinsons journal, Richardson kept causality throughout his novel (Watt 135). Pamela is one continuous story, many things happen in this story but Pamela and her obsession with virtue is at the center of every and all happenings. The plot is continuous and relies on the cause and effect trials to propel the story through. This is a key difference (and some say evolution) that Richardson possessed to Defoe; the singular plot had the ability to be extended over 500 pages. Another point that Watt makes is marriage at this time period was not recognized wholly as romantic. It actually functioned for many other motives (economic, social credibility, etc) (139). Therefore, (for the first part of the novel at least) it is very unrealistic that Mr. B would ever imply marriage to Pamela because in their society it would serve no purpose and very unrealistic. So Pamelas predicament is not

exactly predictive of a happy ending. I also think Richardsons novel was revolutionary because it did not just try and make a realistic account of a person in the 1700s but it tried to show the reality for a lower class girl. He tried to expose the injustices of the class system; a topic that might have been sort of taboo at the time. A man writing a story about a young, poor heroine in a life-like setting made the story both immensely popular and controversial. In terms of class it is also interesting to note that Pamela drives Mr. B to act very lowly. Even as a servant girl Pamela insists on speaking and acting as eloquently as possible. Aside from protecting her virtue she is very obedient, caring and seemingly innocent. Since she was educated in higher forms of learning when Lady B was alive she learned to speak and behave as if she were in a class much higher than her own (her careful and eloquent use of language is an example of this). This language is a key weapon in trying to save her virtue but it also gets her into trouble. Her cunning wit often makes Mr. B angrier because he insinuates that it is one of Pamelas manipulation tactics. It is ironic that the low class Pamela shows characteristics of higher classes yet when Mr. B is around Pamela he is weakened to act as if he was in a lower class. By this I mean his extreme vulgarity and his behavioral out lashes. These things usually do not have their places in the upper classes. This shows how although you are born into a specific class it does not mean your behavior will always emulate that position. So far in the Novel these are some of the key things I have taken notice too and I am sure I will learn a lot more as I progress throughout Pamela.

Journal #4: While reading Defoe and Richardson I could see many of Watts points in The Rise of the Novel come to fruition. The stories of Robinson Crusoe and Pamela represented his ideas of Formal Realism that is representational of the new novel form. In Richardson, I even saw how he is able to expand this form by making one plot, revolving around only a couple specific turmoils (Struggle for Pamelas virtue/ her adjusting to life in a different class) into a lengthy, albeit sometimes repetitive, but complex novel. I think Defoe and Richardson were two of the founders of the novel but both with their own styles. They both had structure to their books and used formal realism in their own ways so it easy to understand why they are considered to be two of the founding fathers of the novel. As of now I have just started Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding. I learned a lot of background information on Fielding since I was doing my presentation on him, he was a very interesting man considering the time period of the 18th century. My first thoughts when I heard that his first novel Shamela was a parody of Richardsons Pamela, was a little confused. I mean the people who make parodies of things today (at least in Hollywood and often in literature) are not the most respected bunch. They usually get a lot of slack for making fun of someone elses work, while often times trying to use their titles to get fame, when they arent even writing an original piece. So to hear his first two works derived from Richardsons ideas was a little unsettling because Fielding is noted as a brilliant novelist/playwright. I thought his early method would be too controversial for him to

gain such prestige. When I think of parodies my thoughts associate them as often being lowclass, somewhat vulgar rip-offs. I guess the difference in Fielding is that they are more of satires, and yes they do possess many comedic elements but there are deeper underlying meanings in his works. Many show his criticism of the political and social world at the time. He uses Pamela and the beginning of Joseph Andrews to both show his own issues with Pamela while hoping that audiences could see multiple views into pieces of literature, and ultimately the social constructs that inspire them. I admire Fielding in this respect and think he was an amazing author, but when it comes to him being one of the founders of the novel I am not quite sure he is as convincing as Defoe and Richardson. Of course this could be because I have not read enough of Joseph Andrews to know (which is implied to be more novelistic in the latter half), and I also have not read Tom Jones (what is seen as his greatest work, and most representative of the novel). So I am very aware that my opinion is not that educated at this point but I still see some big differences. First off, some of the scenarios in the first few chapters come off almost like a soap opera. They are very comedic. For example when Joseph is trying to be seduced by both Lady Booby and Slipslop it is hard to take the situations very seriously. Joseph, like his sister Pamela, is also so innocent and almost clueless that his character seems inauthentic (I mean Fielding might be purposefully doing this but it makes the story not seem very serious and I always assumed a novel was for the most part a semi- serious text). I chose to read some of Michael McKeons article Dialectical Method in Literary History a little early. It seems Mckeon also has a few issues with Fielding being grouped with Defoe and Richardson. His gripe lies more with Watt than it does Fielding because he says something along the lines that Watts definition of formal realism/the atypical novel is too limited to include Fieldings approach (3). He writes If we want Fielding we must dissipate and weaken the explanatory framework by requiring it to accommodate romance elements and the anti-individualist tendencies they imply (3). I think he is implying that Fieldings style (romance, comedic, anti-individualist) could technically be considered as fitting into different genres almost over the novel. Although I have not read a ton of Fielding yet I think this is a really interesting point. From Fieldings autobiography to the portion of Joseph Andrews I have read I have seen evidence that Fielding writes very different than Defoe and Richardson, and has different goals. I think I need more time to figure this out more and maybe even after I finish I might still be confused, but I figured I could write this journal on my initial thoughts.

Journal #5: I have to say although I feel like I dont know Tobias Smollett very well yet, I do like his style so far. I have to be honest when I say that I havent literally laughed out loud from any of the books yet but some of the weird, random, and often violent situations (i.e the teeth and barbershop scenes, the bedpan scenario, etc.) that Smollett initiates in Roderick Random are really hilarious. Something tells me the text will get a little more serious/ darker as it goes on, the twisty humor seems like it might foreshadow this. But as of right now I like that text has the

ability to mix in some jovialness in the face of Rodericks adversities. Roderick was born into a pretty horrible situations and he is a character that can sometimes come off as a bit self righteous. Even though to me he seems a bit narcissistic at times this quality seems to sometimes aid in his perseverance. I think as readers many of us would agree that we are rooting for Roderick, he shows some heroic-type qualities. One of them being that he isnt afraid of putting people in their place, regardless of class differences. We saw a bit of this trait in Pamela and it seemed to be either a really admirable or a really foolish characteristic to have at the time, we more easily see it as the former since we dont live in the 18th century. Anyways, Roderick makes a goal of becoming a naval surgeon (perhaps from the influence of his uncle?) and he is determined no matter the setbacks, to keep going. Many of his setbacks (being a presumed poor orphan, never finishing his apprenticeship due to his fictitious involvement in the adultery scandal, and the prejudice his faces because of his Scottish citizenship) are completely out of his hands. Yet he doesnt seem to really make excuses or get caught up in it, instead he just tries to continue bit by bit towards what he wants. He knows that his wit/ intelligence can have the ability to take him to different places, and out of his dismal situation, so he plays on that note. I have to say that I really enjoy the picaresque novels so far, nothing becomes too static, and situations are always changing, this was a pleasant surprise because in many of my other classic lit classes the storylines can become very dry fast. A quality of Smollett that I have noticed and appreciated so far is his insane use of detail and specifics when discussing people and situations. Some might find this tedious and tiring, but I like it because I can easily visualize what is happening and what things look like; to me, the more descriptive the better. I think that Smollett continues to expand on the novel form, I think he fits the confines of a novel by using similar conventions, form and narrative structure, but from what Ive read so far he seems to make the genre more versatile by adding elements of descriptive language and satirical situations.

Journal # 6: To wrap up my journals for the course it seems only fitting to reassess my ever changing thoughts about the novel form in this era. After reading Frances Burneys Evelina I thought that this version of this emerging novel form was very particular. I mean I can see threads of the ideas of Defoe, Richardson, and Smollett through each others works. And its not to say I dont see these threads in Evelina, I do, but there was a big difference I couldnt quite put my finger on. I was illuminated to exactly what this difference was when I stumbled upon it while I was looking for evidence for my final paper in Nancy Armstrongs introduction, The Politics of Domesticating Culture, Then and Now. On page 7 of the article she writes that Ian Watt has an explanation for just about everything, and a particularly good one as to what influenced Defoe and Richardson (economic individualism and puritan ethics) and their styles, views and representations of the novel form. He basically cops out of offering a real explanation for the vast amounts of women novelists at the time period, he says that the female sensibility really has a way with revealing the intricacies in personal relationships. To me it seems like Watt

had no problem pinpointing very specific concepts when it came to Defoe and Richardson but in terms of women writers he did not distinguish any authors as individuals and uses brief flattery tp go around the subject. As a critic or theorist it is by all means at your digression the topics you cover, but I agree with Armstrong that this topic is important and needs to be seen as both a part of history and the rise of the novel. I will talk more at length about some of the topics I am about to mention in my paper but I think they are also worth bringing up now since I am on the topic of this need for more information on this topic. We have already discussed how the novel became more prominent as the structure of society was changing (which made the novel also a part of this shift in society). But Armstrong is right when noting that just like the male novel writers the female writers had a rhetoric all their own. There was hints of feminism throughout both Pamela and Evelina but this feminism but as many can acknowledge this feminism was not concerned with the same issues we face today. It was simmering in a time nowhere near close to getting to true equality. So I like to use the analogy that each generation chips away at this big block of gender inequality, bit by bit, decade by decade. In Evelina, they are only beginning to start this chipping away process, and part of this process is Armstrongs concept of the domestic female. Today, since women have real jobs and some equalities to mean we see the term domestic wives as old fashioned, maybe even weak in some scenarios. But back in the day to be the domestic wife was to be the strong leader of the household, this was actually a shift in society that gave women a lot more power than they were used to having. The novels discussed above and Brontes, Jane Eyre, showed different parts of this phase change. To me, the story of Evelina seems to be in the transition stage. Evelina is not by any means an outspoken radical, so as a heroine she is pretty realistic (as it should be since it is not a romance). The characters that surround Evelina end up showing her different ways to act, she lives with both soft and hard figures of females (Mrs. Mirvan and Madame Duvall) and at this point she admires the softer woman who rarely if ever interjects, and only does so when she feel a moral inclination to do so (like letting Madame Duvall into the carriage at the opera). Evelina later acts in the same manner which helps you see she too wants acceptance and for much of the novel she tries to be a person that will be approved of, yet like Mirvan she doesnt abandon this code of behavior she believes in (right from wrong). As domesticity increases the males see a decrease in their political power, and aristocracy starts to slowly lose its hold over people. This change was helped catalyzed by women who expressed their opinions through novels. Therefore it is very important that women writers be researched in both fields of literary theory and historical process. I do not think these writers are a mere detail in the evolution of the novel; the societal change they helped to transpire is reason enough to analyze their works and ideas.