For the rest of this week, I want to watch the BBC adaptation of Henry Fielding's massive--and massively funny--1749 novel, Tom Jones. The movie will help us appreciate the satirical aesthetic and social critique prevalent in the 18th century which Jane Austen adopts in her early novel, Northanger Abbey (1798, pub.1818).
Additionally, I want you to read the first 30 or so pages of Tom Jones as a companion to the film, so you can see his style and satire (I will provide this in class on Wednesday). The questions below won't be due until Monday, so watch the film this week and read the pages over the next few days. Hope you enjoy it--Tom Jones is one of my very favorite novels and can make me cry with laughter (can't promise the same for you!).
Answer TWO of the following...
1. How does Tom Jones compare to Robinson Crusoe as a character? While Tom Jones is more upper class (though illegitimate) than Crusoe, how do both flirt with conventional ideas of morality that might make them unusual protagonists? Additionally, how might Fielding have different intentions with his protagonist than Defoe?
2. Writing in the Second Chapter of Tom Jones, Fielding admits, "I intend to digress, through this whole history, as often as I see occasion; of which I am myself a better judge than any pitiful critic whatever" (33). Why does he adopt this unusual style of narration in the novel? How is this different than how Defoe wrote Robinson Crusoe, and how does it affect the way we read/experience Tom Jones (also, how did the film try to capture this narration)?
3. Though Fielding is writing of 'real' people who might have actually lived in 18th century England, how is the story of Tom Jones also quite allegorical, discussing types rather than fully developed human beings? What lesson might he be trying to impart to the audience through these types (and stereotypes)?
4. Compare the adaptation of the book to a specific scene in the opening chapters: what qualities/characteristics were they able to capture? What things were avoided or left out? Why might a novel (such as this one) sometimes resist the art of adaptation? How could this explain why so few 18th century novels become films?
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: Fielding tells us that he plans on saying whatever pops into his head. I get the impression that he is slightly laughing at the antics of every character in his story, and that he wants to stop occasionally and let us laugh with him. Like Defoe, he is showing us the people in his narrative so that we can form opinions of them; however, unlike Defoe, Fielding seems to be very subtly trying to sway our opinions by making us see the humor, and indeed, sometimes silliness, of the people we are looking at. (Defoe simply let us decide for ourselves.) I instantly got caught up in reading Tom Jones because it is so enjoyable to sit back with the author, watch the characters together, and giggle fondly behind their backs.
Question 3: As I said above, Fielding wants to us observe these characters and learn from them. If we were looking at real people, it would be impossible to develop them fully in the space of one novel. So Fielding instead chooses to sum them up, lumping all the qualities of a specific type of human into one overwhelmingly obvious example. Mr. Allworthy (my personal favorite) is the sweet, judicious gentleman who desires fairness above all things. Mrs. Deborah is the elderly matron who frequently indulges in self-righteousness. And Miss Bridget is the prim and proper old maid. Fielding is presenting each of these, and more, to us, and perhaps saying, "Which one are YOU?"
Excellent responses: as you suggest, this book holds a mirror up to society, asking everyone to identify their neighbors, family members, and of course, themselves. Defoe wasn't this heavy handed, though he wasn't as much fun, either! And though Allworthy is clearly the most "worthy" of anyone in the book, Fielding can't help making fun of him, too: in some chapters, he goes on and on with his "sermons," and causes the characters--and perhaps the reader--some genuine discomfort!
Delete2. I found that very interesting. I think the narration style in Tom Jones tends to be much more relatable and conversational than in Robinson Crusoe. I think this sets up the narrator as almost a character himself, which the film actually does. I found the presence of an n actual narrator interesting in the world of voiceovers we live in, but I also think it very effective for satire. Because satire points a finger usually in a humorous way, the presence of an actual character that seems to know more than the characters around him is rather effective I think.
ReplyDelete3. Almost every character is a stereotype, especially Miss Bridget. Her character suggests that if a woman is not married by her age she is prudish, uptight, and snooty. Fielding does not allow for her to be multi-faceted or give us insight to her desires. It seems utterly shocking that she would enter into a courtship with the captain or that she would be compassionate enough to sympathize with Jenny Jones. Miss Bridget is a very fascinating character in this time period where marriage seems almost required. (Even though she married, it was much later after a life of extreme piousness).
Yes, the narrator's style is more conversational and easier for us to read, but it's also very witty and Classically informed--this man is clearly quite educated. Crusoe lacks any of this polish and you'll notice he makes absolutely no Classical references or uses any wit that anyone of the court would be expected to. This was a conscious choice of Defoe to make his character seem more realistic. Ironically, it has the opposite effect today, and the Fielding narrator is the one that had more influence on many novels such as Austen, Dickens, etc., though the first-person narrator has never gone away, and with YA books has become the norm.
Delete1. Both of these characters have a sense of arrogance about them that seems a little out of place; afterall, Tom Jones was a bastard and Robinson Crusoe came from the middle class. I feel that Fielding mastered the art of depicting Tom Jones as a “rascal”, while still persuading the reader to root for him. I think it’s safe to say that some readers wouldn’t care if Crusoe got off the island or not, because he seemed to deserve his punishment. The main difference is, I don’t feel that Defoe wanted Robinson Crusoe to be as likable of a character as Fielding wanted Tom Jones to be.
ReplyDelete2. This gives the author a chance to take him or herself out of the story in a way. They are still there but there is no confusion on the stance they are taking. Where in Robinson Crusoe, it’s often hard to tell if Crusoe or Defoe is telling the story, or if there’s really a separation. I felt that the film did an excellent job of casting the narrator; it actually helped me to understand what was going on better than reading the book. This style of writing gives the narrator a certain distance from the story that can add a second opinion of sorts.
Yes, great points: both men are upstarts in a way, and neither one should be the hero of their respective story. That's the fun of both books: they are re-writing the rules of their society, in a way, and making us care about the underdog (since literature was traditionally supposed to be about important, powerful people--or at least very moral people). The narrator is kind of a defense for this, since he seems to deflect the criticisms many would lob at Tom Jones by giving a mask of seriousness which is actually quite satirical. Almost everything the narrator says is a satirical barb that seems to be well-intentioned but is actually insulting someone (either in the book or outside of it).
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete2. I absolutely love this style. The language is still older to us now, but is easier to understand with this narrator. It adds a whole other dimension to the story almost, kind of like in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" where it's a play within a play and the characters were commenting on the play. It just gives it a depth and an amazing satirical and comical tone. The narrator is completely separate from the story, but talks to the audience. The only thing I can think of that is similar is the film "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." In "Robinson Crusoe" we rarely had an idea what the author actually wanted to say, but here it is much more clear.
4. Oddly enough, the scene that I picked out that was missing from the movie (unless I missed it) was the reference to "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The women were listening through a hole in the wall and had a conversation of their own. I feel like it was left out because the film focused on the main point of the scene, Jenny's punishment. With books like this, there are always several things at work at one time. It is very difficult to adapt it properly, so I can see why there are few adaptations of older novels.
Excellent points: I'm glad you caught the Shakespeare references and the idea of having someone in the book talking to us confidentially about the 'other' actors in the book. It's almost like a frame technique, and it's quite effective at making us seem in cahoots with Fielding himself. The Rocky Horror Picture Show reference is cool and astute, since Fielding originally started out writing plays and gained his fame in what was called "ballad operas," which were basically musicals that used popular songs of the day with new lyrics, and were mostly farces and satires. These ballad operas read and stage a lot like The Rocky Horror Picture Show in the way they combine different genres into one hodgepodge performance.
Delete-Rocky Moore
ReplyDelete1. I think they are very different as characters. Tom Jones seems to be this enthusiastic person who we see as a young boy and young man and not an older man with any specific duties like that of Robinson Crusoe. If we took Tom Jones and put him in the tale of Crusoe and replaced him, we might have our selves a much more entertaining story, not to say Robinson Crusoe isn't good but Tom Jones' character is much more interesting. Their morals on the other hand do seem to fit each others character in similar fashions, well for the most part. Tom Jones always seems to take it upon himself to right the wrongs that he had something to do with and his intentions are pure as we get to know the character when watching the film. It also seems that Robinson Crusoe is a ethically just person as well I just think he regards himself as a higher being than everyone else like his relationship with Friday shows.
2. I am not really sure why he uses this type of narration but it does work in a sense that it captures my attention a little bit more than the narration of a character such as Crusoe. The movie adaptation does a great job of using that one guy to portray the narration and he does a great job being very funny, sarcastic and downright entertaining. It makes the audience want to continue watching to see what happens next. Everyone enjoys a laugh here and there.
It's interesting that both men are diametrically opposed, since Jones does almost nothing and Crusoe works himself to death. Yet both have high standards of morality which the reader realizes can be only skin deep; not that either character is bad, but their morality is variable and subject to the moment. All the same, Jones' is honest about his character and so stands out among all the backstabbing, two-faced villains in his story. Crusoe has almost no one else in his story, so it's hard to compare him to anyone else (though interestingly, when Friday comes into the book, he reveals many of Crusoe's flaws).
Delete3. The characters are stereotypes, typical types of people. None of them are completely real, they are just what we have come to expect. There is the old maid who seems prude and perhaps a bit of a snob, the religious/highly moral people who are hypocrites. Fielding was trying to emphasize the way society tends to view these people.
ReplyDelete4. I love the way that they incorporated the narrator. He was an important character, but one that easily could have been left out. He added a layer of sarcasm to the text, but wasn't necessarily needed. You often see characters such as that left out. It is just difficult to incorporate characters like this. They don't technically contribute to the action, so many directors overlook them completely.
Good points; but while we don't need the narrator in a movie, why is he essential in the text? Why might we argue that he'a an essential character in the book, and that all books now incorporate a narrator like this that speaks to us, though he/she usually does in third person (unless the book follows Crusoe's example and talks to us in first person).
Delete2. I believe he uses this type of narration to tell us how he feels about a character, he leaves nothing open. Its like he is saying well you don't like this character? Well good because you're not supposed to and I don't like them either. I really like this style of narration because it helps us to be able to read in to how a character is supposed to seem to us. In Robinson Crusoe, we never really know how Defoe feels about Crusoe. We are left to interpret his character on our own and many times this lead me not to like the character because I didn't have much back story on how we were supposed to view him and why.
ReplyDelete3. The most interesting character to me was Miss Bridget's servant, Deborah. She seemed like she was so much better than everyone else in almost every situation. Especially in taking in Tom, she wanted to leave him on the church steps, surely he would be okay because it would be a disgrace for him to stay in that house otherwise. But in all reality, who is she to judge anyone? She is a servant and probably wouldn't have much if it weren't for Miss Bridget. I just feel like I can see so many people in today's time that are exactly like her, they may come from nothing and have nothing but they act like they are so much better than everyone else.
Yes, the narrator in Tom Jones is very manipulative (in a comical way) and helps us see who various characters are by interpreting their motives. Crusoe, on the other hand, is less artful in his manipulations so that he probably gets away with more than he should; it's trickier to see Defoe writing behind the scenes against his character.
DeleteShelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete1) I most definitely see the ways in which Robinson Crusoe and Tom Jones could be considered very similar characters. They both pursue their utmost fleshly gratification above all else, even though deep down they seem to express guilt and remorse over their sins. Though I'd be more quick to suggest this within Crusoe than Jones it seems. However, no matter how similar the characters, I believe these men were created by their authors for two different reasons. It seems to be that while Fieldling could have created Jones to reveal the sins of the culture in not accepting people like Tom, Crusoe might have been created to reveal the sins of its readers within a reflection of the very character.
3) Continuing with my previous thought, The History of Tom Jones seems to me to be one giant allegory and critique of the culture of Fielding's time. This is why I think he generalizes and milks the use of his stereotypes rather than intensifying the details and persona of his characters. Every one of this characters seems to fit a certain mold perpetuated by the culture of the novel's time. And I wouldn't chuck this up to a lack of character writing, but rather a perfectly calculated message of sorts to preach to the author's time.
Great points--each character represents a cultural bias of the time: the low-class merchant and the bastard son. Each one has their prescribed place in society, and yet each one breaks out and accomplishes great things. Reading more of the novel, it seems that Jones is rewarded by simply being "good" more or less (maybe just lucky) while Crusoe has to make all his luck and work hard at it. But both contain their fair share of allegory and morality--though Fielding has a little more fun while he's doing it!
Delete1. I can see where a connection would be drawn between Tom Jones and Robinson Crusoe. Both men have adventurous spirits which is much less expected of respectable men of their time. Although they have different backgrounds, they were both taught the right ideas of morality and even still tend to drift from what they know is right. In the end, both of the protagonists wind up living “happily ever after” in a sense despite their transgressions. Although I think Fielding wanted Tom Jones to be seen as a true underdog, while Defoe introduced Robinson Crusoe as an adventurous and brave man who was willing to go to great lengths to achieve prosperity.
ReplyDelete3. Fielding often writes of people who very likely could have lived in 18th century England, but doesn’t fully develop them as human beings in order to make sure that the characters relate to everyone that is reading/watching. This way no one is excluded, but also the deeper meaning is to almost call out people who share the same qualities with these characters. It is a satirical way to bring light to people who do not always realize the effects that they have with their actions.
Yes, I agree that both men have a universal/Everyman quality, though each one's approach to morality is a bit different. And, as you suggest, both are underdogs who aren't expected to amount to much, but do in different ways (though Defoe has to make his luck, whereas Jones seems to simply fall into it).
DeleteKelsey Tiger
ReplyDelete1. They both come from low ranks, but end up pretty well off. I think Defoe had intentions to create Crusoe as more of an adventurous type who only wanted fame and fortune, while Fielding rightly created Jones to be adventurous but more in a young boy type of way. I think they both had to learn life lessons along the way, but none the less live for that thrill. Fielding might have had different intentions by creating Jones to have more of the appearance of upper class and demonstrate upper class characteristics.
2. I like having the narrator present. It helps to understand this style of writing. This style sets up the scene which is about to take place which I think helps assist the reader. It kind of gives the reader a little humor, at times, to enjoy the story as you get an idea of what is about to unfold. I think this style is different from Robinson Crusoe in that it is easier to read and understand.
Good responses; why do you think Fielding is more humorous in his approach to the material and his characters? Do we ever see Defoe poking fun/satirizing Crusoe in the same way?
ReplyDelete