For Wednesday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.180-219 (the end of Book 1)

Last set of Pamela questions! Answer two of them for Wednesday's class, then we'll have a short break before starting Austen's novel (our last!). 

Q1: By the end of Book 1, is Mr. B finally able to see Pamela as an equal, or at least a woman of rank and character, and not merely a servant (or his servant)? If so, where does he finally acknowledge this? And if not, what seems to prevent him from making the intellectual switch?

Q2: What did you make of the incredible scene where Mr. B dresses up as a woman to seduce Pamela at night with Miss Jewkes' help? Is this a scene of high comedy, played for laughs to ridicule Mr. B and the aristocracy? Or is this a scene of lurid semi-pornography which almost went too far? How do you think Richardson wanted us to read this: with laughter or with terror (or for some readers, titillation)? 

Q3: Why do you think Pamela is so careful to reproduce Mr. B's "Articles" so exactly, followed by her point-by-point responses? She could have easily summarized all of this and/or merely recorded her indignation to them? Why did she take the time--and waste the paper, which is a scarce commodity for her--to copy it all out for herself (and the reader)?

Q4: Based on the ending of Part I, where do you think the novel is headed in Part II? Though you know the general outcome of the story (they do end up marrying), is that a foregone conclusion from Part I? What obstacles might they still face in the months (and years?) to come? 

For Monday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.140-180

Answer two of the following for Monday's class: 

Q1: Why does Pamela turn down Williams' proposal of marriage, considering he is not only a parson but has been trying to woo her in the right way (and of course, could save her virtue as well)? Do you believe her when she tells her parents, "I have no Mind to marry. I had rather live with you"? (144). Is she holding out for a better offer, or is she like Emily (in "The Knight's Tale") who truly wants to live happily and free from marriage?

Q2: Related somewhat to Q1, do you think Williams is proposing to Pamela out of his own love and affection, or is he merely following Mr. B's orders, as everyone else is? Does Pamela suspect this? If so, what might make her suspicious? 

Q3: Pamela shares two letters with the reader from Mr. B: one intended for her, and one intended for Miss Jewkes (both of which she conveniently reads, since they were 'accidentally' mislabeled). Do we trust the contents of these transcribed letters verbatim? Do you suspect Pamela of having embellished them? And if not, what do they reveal about Mr. B's psychology and intentions towards Pamela?

Q4: Toward the end of our reading, Pamela makes a shocking admission: "What is the Matter, with all his ill Usage of me, that I cannot hate him? To be sure, I am not like other People!...I must wish him well; and O what an Angel would he be in my Eyes yet, if he would cease his Attempts and reform" (179). Is it believable that after all this time, she could still have feelings for him? Could this be an example of her naive virtue at work? Or could she be acting even here? 

Paper #2: Old Wine in New Bottles, due Nov.21st

British Literature to 1800

Paper #2: Old Wine in New Bottles

INTRO: Everything old is new again, nowhere more so than in the entertainment industry. When Hollywood or Netflix runs out of ideas, they always look to the great literature of the past, with their seemingly inexhaustible supply of great plots, characters, and  dialogue. In recent years, there have been new adaptations of Jane Austen’s Persuasion (starring Dakota Johnson), Dracula (starring Morfydd Clark), and of course Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power (also starring Morfydd Clark!). In some cases, people now know the adaptation better than the actual work, as with movies such as Clueless (Austen’s Emma) or Ten Things I Hate About You (Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew). In the right hands, an adaptation can not only give new life to the old work, but can challenge how we see and understand it.

PROMPT: For this assignment, I want you to pitch a new adaptation of ONE of our last three works—As You Like It, Pamela, or Northanger Abbey—to Netflix as a potential series or film. Assume that the taste-makers at Netflix know nothing about the work in question, so in your proposal I want you to do the following:

(1)  Briefly summarize the main plot or action of the work in a way that will make it seem like a sure-fire hit to modern audiences; suggest its connection to modern-day works that it may have influenced (don’t do a play-by-play, just enough to fill them in and make it seem exciting)

(2)  Highlight one or two of the main characters that would be most relatable to modern viewers and explain why.

(3)  Discuss 1-2 scenes from the work that shows this character(s) in the best/most interesting light; help them see why this character(s) is so dynamic and interesting. QUOTE from the book and examine—close reading!

(4)  Finally, conclude by explaining how you would translate the work into a modern setting (in other words, outside the Elizabethan or Eighteenth-Century era). How could you restage the piece in a modern setting? Who would the characters be today, and where would they be? Would you change their names, careers, relationships? After all, we don’t really have servants today like Pamela…so what would be a close facsimile? Show how the work can easily translate to a 21^st century locale so that it doesn’t look like a history lesson. You don’t have to nail down every detail, but do try to show us how you could accomplish a translation that would look modern but still feel classic.

BONUS: This part is optional, but if you like, try to also re-write 1-2 pages of the book into modern conversational English to go along with #4. Since this will be a series, you might want to focus on dialogue, but you could also do the narrative if you plan to have a Narrator in your series/show. But show how you can adapt the actual ideas into different language without changing much. In the last week of class, we’ll share our adaptation ideas with the class, and I encourage you to read this passage to the class. It could be fun to guess which passage you chose based on the language alone.

DUE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21^st BY 5pm [no class that day]

For Friday: No Reading, but In-Class Writing & Paper #2 Assignment (see below)

NOTE: I decided to tweak the schedule slightly for the rest of the semester, since we're a day behind, but also, I wanted to introduce the next paper assignment and do a little in-class writing to as a way to approach it. For that reason (since our classes are so short!), I decided to give you a break for reading, and we'll pick up Pamela on Monday, finishing it on Wednesday. So keep reading! 

The in-class writing isn't really a "reading exam," but I'm going to call it one anyway. You don't have to quote from Pamela for this one, since it's a much larger question that goes towards the paper assignment. The revised schedule is below:

REVISED SCHEDULE

 

M 24    Pamela, pp.60-98

W 26   Pamela, pp.98-140

F 28     In-Class Writing (“Reading Exam #4”); assign Paper #2

 

M 31    Pamela, pp.140-180

NOVEMBER

W 2     Pamela, pp.180-219

F 4       Context: Intro to Jane Austen

 

M 7      Northanger Abbey, part 1

W 9     Northanger Abbey, part 2

F 11     Northanger Abbey, part 3

 

M 14    Northanger Abbey, part 4

W 16   Northanger Abbey, part 5

F 18    Reading Exam #5

 

M 21    Paper #2 due by 5pm [no class] 

W 23   THANKSGIVING BREAK

F 25     THANKSGIVING BREAK

 

M 28    Adaptation Presentations

W 30   Adaptation Presentations

 

DECEMBER

F 2       Adaptation Presentations

 

 

For Wednesday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.98-140 (since the letters become one long letter at this point)

Hogarth, Portrait of Miss Mary Edwards

NOTE: Below the questions for Wednesday is the handout I gave out in class on Monday. These are contemporary fictional responses to Pamela which show how two different authors felt about Richardson's novel. While Henry Fielding thought Pamela was a "sham," a woman who was playacting the entire time, John Cleland felt that Pamela was near-pornography, and decided to out-do Richardson in a work about a servant who really does sleep her way to the top--and he doesn't skimp on the sex (I included one very provocative passage below, so you can see how tame Pamela is by comparison!). 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Mr. B goes to great and frankly criminal lengths to prevent Pamela from going home in these pages. Do you feel his intentions, however dubious, are actually honorable? Is he trying to get her to fall in love with him? Or is he merely trying to work up the nerve to seduce her once she's growing tired of being in prison? In other words, do you believe his declaration of love and his claims that he is her "passionate admirer"? 

Q2: On page 114, Pamela gives a thorough and graphic description of her new warden, Mrs. Jewkes, saying, among other things, that she is has a "dead, spiteful, grey, goggling Eye." Why does Mrs. Jewkes inspire more fear and awe in Pamela than Mr. B ever could? Do you think this has something to do with why Mr. B hired her in the first place? 

Q3: Thanks to Arthur Williams, many of Mr. B's neighbors learn of what's going on in the house, and why Pamela is sequestered there. How do they respond to this act of abduction? Does it cause a scandal, as would happen today is a rich celebrity kidnapped a young girl and kept her in his country house (shades of R. Kelly, if you know about that story)? Or did it take more to shock 18th century aristocrats where servants were concerned? 

Q4: We talked about Pamela as a round character who likes to appear flat (virtuous) in her letters. But once she's abducted, note that her letters change, and she tends to keep more of a running diary. How else does she change in these chapters? Is Richardson trying to make her more obviously round? Is she becoming more aware of her precarious situation? Or is she merely playing a new, more intricate game with Mr. B (since, after all, Mrs. Jewkes tells her that everyone assumes she'll be the new mistress of the house)? 

RESPONSES TO PAMELA: SHAMELA (1741) AND FANNY HILL (1749)

(1) from Henry Fielding’s Shamela, Letter II (Shamela to her Mother):

O what news, since I have 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 by Ill-Luck Mrs. Jervis came in, and had like to have spoiled Sport—How troublesome is such Interruption! You shall hear more soon…

(2) from Letter VI (Shamela to her Mother):

Mrs. Jervis and I are just I Bed, and the Door unlocked; if my Master should come…Odsbobs! I hear him just coming in at the Door. You see I write in the present Tense, as Parson Williams says. Well, he is in Bed between us, we both shamming a Sleep, he steals his Hand into my Bosom, which I, as if in my Sleep, press close to me with mine, and then pretend to awake—I no sooner see him, but I scream out to Mrs. Jervis, she feigns likewise but just to come to herself; we both begin, she to becall, and I to bescratch very liberally. After having made a pretty free Use of my Fingers, without any great Regard to the Parts I attack’d, I counterfeit a Swoon. Mrs. Jervis then cries out, O, Sir, what have you done, you have murthered poor Pamela; she is gone, she is gone…O what a Difficulty it is to keep one’s Countenance, when a violent Laugh desires to burst forth.

(3) from John Cleland, Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure:

She had hardly time to get downstairs before Mr.H—opened my room door softly, and came in, now undressed, in his nightgown and cap, with two lighted wax candles, and bolting the door, gave me, though I expected him, some sort of alarm. He came a-tiptoe to the bedside, and saying in a gentle whisper, ‘Pray, my dear, do not be startled—I will be very tender and kind to you.’ He then hurried off his clothes and leaped into bed, having given me openings enough, whilst he was stripping, to observe his brawny structure, strong-made limbs, and tough shaggy breast.

The bed shook again when it received this new load. He lay on the outside, where he kept the candles burning, no doubt for the satisfaction of every sense; for as soon as he had kissed me, he rolled down the bedclothes and seemed transported with the view of all my person at full length, which he covered with a profusion of kisses, sparing no part of me. Then, being on his knees between my thighs, he drew up his shirt and bared all his hairy thighs and stiff staring truncheon, red-topped, and rooted into a thicket of curls…and soon I felt it joining close to mine, when he had driven the nail up to the head, and left no partition but the intermediate hair on both sides. I had it now, I felt it now; and beginning to drive, he soon gave nature such a powerful summons down to her favorite quarters that she could no longer refuse repairing thither…I lost all restraint, and yielding to the force of the emotion, gave down, as mere woman, those effusions of pleasure, which in the strictness of still faithful love, I could have wished to have held up.

For Monday: Richardson, Pamela, Letters 25-31(pp.60-98)

NOTE: As you're reading Pamela, carefully distinguish between what she's writing, and what she's transcribing from other conversations (it can be tricky, since it all runs together). Her letters contain three kinds of narrative: (a) her own thoughts, (b) remembered conversations with others, such as Mr. B and Mrs. Jervis, and (c) second-hand conversations told to her by someone else, which she is re-telling in her letter. The letters can make everything sound like absolute truth, but remember that there a few degrees of separation here, especially since she's writing the letters after the fact.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Even in Richardson's day, there were many pioneering works of early feminism floating about, such as Mary Astell's work, Reflections Upon Marriage (1700), where she famously declared, "if all men are born free, how is that women are born slaves?" Do we hear any of this feminist sentiment in Pamela, or in the character and ideas of Pamela herself? How much of this novel is an indictment of the sufferings of lower-class women at the hands of powerful men?

Q2: How seriously are we supposed to take this work? Though the subject matter is certainly serious and Pamela is constantly in danger, is Richardson aiming for pathos, or bathos? Where might we find echoes of Chaucer and Shakespeare in some of the struggles between Pamela and Mr. B? (you might keep "The Miller's Tale" and "The Wife of Bath's Tale" in mind).

Q3: Do you feel that there's any truth to Mr. B's assertion that "with all her pretended Simplicty and Innocence, I never knew so much romantick Invention as she is Mistress of. In short, the Girl's Head turn'd by Romances, and such idle Stuff, which she has given herself up to, ever since her kind Lady's Death" (93)? Is she writing her own 'romance' through these letters, which Mr. B is a somewhat unwilling participant? Or is he just gaslighting her and her family throughout? 

Q4: After Pamela's verses in Letter 31, the "editor" briefly takes over the work, and introduces a rare letter from Mr. B himself. Why do you think Richardson disrupts the narrative scheme of Pamela's letters? Is it distracting to be suddenly torn away from her first-person perspective, especially since it quickly reverts back to it? Or does it serve a useful narrative purpose? 

For Friday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.11-59 (Letters 1 through 24)

William Hogarth, Portrait of his Servants 

Remember our discussion about the early novel on Wednesday, and how Richardson is writing to the biggest consumers of novels in the mid-18th century: aristocratic women (or women of means, who had leisure time) and their servants, who wanted to be entertained and looked for the means to advance in status. Richardson intended Pamela, to some extent, to be a morality tale for servants who had many temptations to steal, gossip, and/or sleep with their superiors. However, he wasn't blind to the many dangers that a servant faced in an aristocratic household, since they had virtually no form of redress and could be turned out in a moment's notice. By and large, people loved this novel, so he must have done something right! But does it still make essential reading today? We'll have to see...

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Following from our discussion on last Wednesday (before Fall Break), does Pamela strike you as a flat or a round character? Novels are traditionally about round characters growing and developing over time/plot, so does Pamela show the potential to grow as a person? Or is she merely a blank slate for Richardson to shine his moral lessons on? Would a round character interfere with these intentions? 

Q2: In the opening Preface by the Editor, he claims that most novels these days (in the 1740's) "tends only to corrupt their Principals, mislead their Judgements, and initiate them into Gallantry and loose Pleasures" (9). In other words, novels teach vice rather than virtue. However, vice (and sex) sell in the marketplace, and Richardson seems to pile on the 'bad behavior' in his novel with a pretty liberal hand. Do you think he really means to write a manual of vice and virtue for young servants to follow...or is this a cover for him to get away with writing a novel that would appeal equally to men, who fantasized about being a Mr. B themselves? In other words, in this yet another novel of vice masquerading as virtue? 

Q3: Pamela has several chances to leave the house after Mr. B harasses her, and indeed, she could simply run home and quit her job. Why does she continue to stay even after Mr. B has made his sinister attentions clear? For example, why does she insist on staying "to finish the Waistcoat; I never did a prettier piece of work" (44)?

Q4: In Letter XXII (22), Mrs. Jervis tells Pamela that "you have it in your Power to make [Mr. B] as sweet temper'd as ever; tho' I hope in God you'll never do it on his Terms!" (48). And she's clearly right: if Pamela flirted with him more, couldn't she win him over even without sleeping with him? Why doesn't she take a more Wife of Bath approach, rather than making him angrier and angrier, and even more desperate? OR, is this her strategy all along? Do you think she's actually playing hard to get to make him more interested in her? Or is she just scared and naive? 

No Class Monday! See below...

 Sadly, I have to cancel class this Monday, so enjoy an extra day of Fall Break. We'll return on Wednesday so I can introduce some ideas about the early English novel, and what kind of work Richardson's Pamela is, which we'll start reading for Friday's class. See you then! 

For Monday: Shakespeare, As You LIke It, Acts 4-5

Finish the play for Monday, and answer TWO of the questions below that cover both acts, and indeed, your general impression of how the play ends for the audience.

Q1: Matthew Bevis, his book on Comedy, writes that "comedy can teach you to be both a fatalist and a moralist at the same time" (83). How might this describe most of the fools in Shakespeare's plays, and especially someone like Jacques? Why does being a satirist (which is the proper role of a fool) risk turning you into a misanthrope as well (a hater of people)? 

Q2: Discuss the difference between Phoebe's poem to Rosalind (delivered to her by Sylvius) and Orlando's poetry. Are they both wretched verses that mock the silliness of love conventions in poetry? Or does Phoebe manage something a little different? Consider Rosalind's response, "I saw she never did invent this letter./This a man's invention, and his hand" (157). 

Q3: Bevis also writes that "to be a witness [in a comedy] is to be an accomplice" (85). When do we feel guilty for laughing or enjoying a laugh in this play? When is the laughter also cruel or uncomfortable? What things do we laugh at in the play that we wouldn't laugh at in real life?

Q4: In the humorous wooing scene between Orlando and Ganymede, how aware do you feel Orlando is of Ganymede's true identity? Is he playing along because he knows who he really is...or is he falling in love with Ganymede? How can we tell? (note that they woo each other in prose, not poetry)

Q5: (one extra one): Why does Rosalind get an Epilogue at the end of the play where she speaks directly to the audience? Is this a way to wash away the shocking nature of the comedy from the audience's mind? Or is it equally subversive and a way to get a parting shot off at them...almost Shakespeare's retort against the quadruple marriages? How do you read it? 

For Friday: Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 3

Remember, Act 3 is always the 'big' act in Shakespeare's plays. A lot of great stuff happens in this act, and everything that follows is really just a development of the 'plots' that occur here. 

Answer two of the following...

Q1: How does Act 3 satirize the conventions of love and how people speak (and write) of love? How does the play let us in on the joke? As an aside, Shakespeare loves to attack bathos in poetry, and did so most famously in Sonnet 130, which I’ve posted BELOW these questions (you might look for echoes of this sonnet in Act 3!).

Q2: How is the Touchstone and Audrey subplot a foil for that of Rosalind and Orlando? Similarly, when sets out to woo Audrey, how does he use wit rather than poetry to woo her?

Q3: In other Shakespeare comedies (Taming of the Shrew, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing), the headstrong, witty woman always has a foil, a man who can ultimately overpower her. Why doesn’t Orlando really fill this role for Rosalind? Why would Shakespeare allow her to basically run wild in the forest with no one to oppose her?

Q4: How does Rosalind/Ganymede intend to ‘cure’ Orlando of his love for her? Do you feel she really wants him to fall in love with him, meaning Ganymede, rather than her female alter ego? Is this scene merely a comedic game, or something a little more subversive and racy?  

SONNET 130 (from Shakespeare's Sonnets)

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;

Coral is far more red than her lips' red;

If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

I have seen roses damasked, red and white,

But no such roses see I in her cheeks;

And in some perfumes is there more delight

Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.

I love to hear her speak, yet well I know

That music hath a far more pleasing sound;

I grant I never saw a goddess go;

My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.

   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare

   As any she belied with false compare.

 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 2

As always, answer TWO of the following for our next class, or soon thereafter...

Q1: Unlike Act 1, Act 2 is almost entirely in verse, except for certain 'low' characters who usually speak prose: Jacques, Touchstone, etc. Why do you think this is? What makes being in the woods (away from the court/civilization) more of a setting for verse? Also, why does a character like Jacques speak prose throughout the scene and then switch into verse for his big speeches at the end of the act?

Q2: Shakespeare's fools are often characters who have the liberty to speak the truth without getting in trouble, or as Touchstone mentions in Act 1, "The more pity that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly" (23). With this in mind, what kind of fool is Jacques? What makes him 'foolish'? Is he wiser than those around him, and if so, what kind of wisdom is it? Just wit?

Q3: At the beginning of the act, Duke Senior says of the forest that "Are not these woods/More free from peril than the envious court?/Here feel we not the penalty of Adam" (49). Why does Duke Senior, and others, see the woods as a more pure, innocent environment free from the 'sin' of mankind? Does Shakespere seem to agree with this, or is this part of his comedy: that the courtly people are clearly out of their element? (many comedies even today feature people from the city trying to rough it in the country/woods). 

Q4: Consider the many allusions to the stage in Act 2, particularly Jacques' famous speech, "all the world's a stage." Why call the audience's attention to this? Wouldn't this risk breaking the spell of the theater (which is already paper thin in Shakespeare's time)?