I would like to begin with the difficulty of gathering all the knowledge we have acquired to formulate a question on a topic worth researching. Like many other students, I will not worry about the word count but have a more focus on a strong topic and question. After analyzing some of the novels we have read, the two novels that caught my eye is Roxana and Pamela. From what we have read, we can say that these two novels share a common issue in the eighteenth century. That issue may pertain to marriage, gender inequality and women’s virtue. Social values during this time was considered an important aspect of life. For example, Roxana prostituted herself to gain wealth, as well as to obtain a higher rank in society which ultimately forfeited her virtue. This was a valued element in a woman at the time and when Roxana married the Dutch Merchant, she had to hide a lot from him. She hid the fact that she was wealthy with many children in order to preserve her virtue in the marriage.

Richardson’s Pamela also contained similar examples of how social values affected their daily lives of women. Similar to Pamela, Roxana showed how social values during the time affected women. Women were forced to choose from following the norms of society or pursue their desired wishes in life. Pursuing their wishes may lead to sacrificial decisions, such that their virtue may be loss in the process. In this essay I would like to analyze these two novels and how social values during the eighteenth century affected the decisions of women which ultimately led to the sacrifice of their virtue. (temporary but I may go deeper).

To find the topic for my final paper was not an easy task. I wanted to unite all the novels we read and find something common between them. Looking through the books one more time, I realized that there IS something that readers can find in EACH novel. This “something” is real life. Even though all novels are fictional, each of them has a real element. So for my final essay I would like to connect some event in several novels that we read, analyze these connections and maybe do some research on why the writers decided to mention “this real fact” in their novel.

To make it a little bit clearer, let me give you a couple of examples. Let us take a look at the very first novel that we read – Roxana by Daniel Defoe. I am sure that many of you remember Roxana’s beautiful and unforgettable Turkish dress. This dress she bought from a Turkish maid when she [Roxana] and the Prince lived in Italy. By speaking about the dress and the Turkish woman, Daniel Defoe mentions the relations between the West and the East – slavery, religions, colonization and so on. So real life events are presented in the novel.

The next real fact can be found in the novel written by Henry Fielding, The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams. The author speaks about the justice system in England in the 18^th century and how poor people were controlled. When the main character, Joseph Andrews, leaves his Mistress Lady Booby and gets robbed on his way, he is taken to the inn. And here we can see how the justice system “works” (I would better say fail): the enforces of law are corrupt and self-interested. And it is not the only moment where we see how ridiculous and bad was this system in England in the 18^th century.

So these are just two examples that can show that the writers “borrowed” some important events or topics from real life. Why did they do it? This is the question I am going to answer in my essay. But I would like to say why it is important to me to write about it. I think that any book, novel or a short story should be more than just an interesting and exciting thing to read. It should be deep and broad, so that the readers can learn something new (not just spend time reading and enjoying it). And I do love and appreciate those writers who can make me think about the past, the present, and the future. And in order to do it, many of them speak about historical events. And, in my opinion, this is the key to success. This is what make a good writer. And, finally, this is what readers can relate to. As Gilbert Keith Chesterton said, “Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity.” In my essay I will prove that these novels are not just fictions, they are great pieces of literature!

Pamela and Shamela are the books where the same character is portrayed in a radically different ways. I have chosen these two books for my final paper. My aim in the paper will be to convince you that Henry Fielding’s parody is more than an inversion of Pamela, it  is an exposure to Samuel Richardson’s use of unreliable language to show the realistic image of virtue.

 Pamela is a book written in an epistolary form where our protagonist is displayed as virtuous, young yet courageous. It is a widely popular story where a young maid falls victim of sexual harassment by her master who belongs to an upper social class. With the series of the epistles, she walks us through numerous innocent attempts of her that results not only in the successful transformations of an evil rich squire into a gentlemen but also a life of poor fifteen year old maid that ends with happily ever after. On the other hand, Shamela is although written in an epistolary form, however consists of letters from characters involved in and out of the story. The same girl Pamela by Samuel Richardson is unveiled as the exact opposite by Henry Fielding. Shamela is exposed as a crafty, cunning, unfaithful and wholly designing gold digger.

Henry Fielding is painting a picture of a young and so called virtuous servant whose resemblance to Pamela is slim to none. However, I think Fielding’s parody of Richardson’s Pamela is not what it seems in the public eye. It could be said that Henry Fielding is urging his readers to come to senses that the one deceiving the world isn’t Pamela but Samuel Richardson.

In Pamela, Richardson follows a technique where the heroine of the story writes letters in the present tense. This is Richardson’s style of “writing in the moment”. I will be using excerpts from Fielding’s Shamela to show the falsity in the idea of “writing to the moment” that Richardson follows . As Pamela is a collection of number of letters, it simply sugar-coats the vulgarity in the form of romance or disguises it without the use of an explicit language. I will be analyzing it deeper and interpreting the real meaning of it in the words as mentioned in Fielding’s Shamela. Moreover, taking characters just as it is from Pamela with slight changes in their names or persona such as Shamela instead of Pamela, Mr. Booby instead of Mr. B, old righteous mother of Pamela into conniving woman which is another way of Fielding’s stripping away the characters to help readers deal with the recognition problems.

Furthermore, Henry Fielding’s Shamela to me is a representation of erotic romance novel to some extent more than just a parody. I think it is Fielding’s striking way of bone picking with Richardson. The use of explicit language within the story and morally undermining Shamela as an anti-heroine invokes the idea of how strongly Fielding is disturbed by the unrealistic concept of virtue that Richardson has abused to fool his readers.

For my final paper, I have decided to explore the role of women throughout the 18^th Century. It has occurred to me that most of the books that were read in class had issues about women, sex, and marriage. Therefore, I wanted to go more in depth in exploring what roles the women had during the time period of the 18^th Century. I decided to link together the roles of women during the 18^th Century to the novel of The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole.

Having been the first Gothic novel written, The Castle of Otranto depicts a story of the king of Otranto named Manfred. When a giant helmet from the sky kills his son Conrad, Manfred is left with no heir to the throne. This leads him to make the most unimaginable decision in a reader’s point of view. He decides to end his current marriage with his wife, Hippolita, and marry Isabella whom Conrad was supposed to marry. This brings up a question of the role of women in the novel of how they are treated.

Throughout most of the novels that we have read in class, women were depicted as an object of sex and overpowered by men. This idea that women should be submission towards men is depicted more and exaggerated more in The Castle of Otranto. The women characters in The Castle of Otranto are also portrayed as weak compared to the other novels we have read. I felt that the main female characters in Roxana and Pamela who sort of knew how to manipulate the men for some of their own advantage. What is it about the women in The Castle of Otranto that make it seem like the women are more weaker. Is it because the situations that they are in are different from the other novels? I would like to understand exactly how women were supposed to act during the 18^th Century and compare it to the women’s role in The Castle of Otranto. To me it was interesting and shocking to understand how Manfred ended up killing his daughter yet the daughter does not blame the father for killing her.

I would like to focus my easy on the topic of the role of women during the 18^th Century and the novel The Castle of Otranto. However, I am having a difficult time coming up with a central question. Maybe my research topic could be that women throughout The Castle of Otranto were thought of as commodities rather than as a human being and compare that idea with another novel that we had read in class, which could be Pamela. It would actually be an interesting comparison to compare the role of women in the two novels because in The Castle of Otranto the women are of high class and in Pamela the main character is a servant girl. Thus, the paper will be focusing on the topic of whether or not women of a lower class were treated more like commodities than the women of higher class during the 18^th Century.

I am deciding to write my final paper, on the first book of the semester, and the one I find to be the most controversial, Roxana. After reading this novel, I was left with many unanswered questions. All of these unanswered questions, left me trying to combine these thoughts and find a central theme between them all. The novel was a very controversial piece of literature for its time and still poses many controversial issues today to readers. Despite the more liberal society we live in today, Roxana’s actions can still be viewed as immoral. I was going to look into the many times the pro-feminist views that Roxana displays are prevalent to readers, but I couldn’t accept them, because of how she treats childbearing throughout the novel. Trying to write this proposal, has been very difficult for me. Despite, hearing Professor H’s advice about not being concerned with the length at this point of the assignment, I wanted to make sure I picked a topic that I could explain over 6-8 pages.

I decided to analyze the ironic correlation between Roxana’s immoral behavior, and how she became more financial stable  throughout the novel, despite being a mistress. I will analyze her various relationships, and how they all yielded more wealth for Roxana. I found it very significant that when it came to being a mother, she disregarded how her lifestyle affected her children. Throughout all her adulterous endeavors, she gained many riches but did not go back to rescue her children. She also continues to have children while in “hiding”, which seems very self-centered. I found it extremely ironic that her daughter Susan, is the character brought back to expose her. Susan was one of very few people who knew Roxana’s identity. Susan goes through more extremes to know her mom, than Roxana ever did to know her. Susan explains the “natural” connection she has with Roxana, while Roxana is more worried about her identity being exposed than restoring a relationship with her daughter.

Roxana explains her remorse throughout the novel, but is discredited by her actions. I was wondering if she actually explains her remorse, because she wants the readers of that time to think she dislikes what her life has resorted to.  I also find it ironic that the extent of Roxana’s behavior, affects many of the people around her. She explains the misfortunes of people around her but concludes the novel abruptly. She explains that her life did not have a happy ending but does not give details. This is another pattern from her throughout the novel. Besides her first marriage, she doesn’t mention any negativity that happened in her life. I feel she only mentioned the first series of misfortunes, to justify her actions throughout the novel. She is giving a purpose to her immoral behavior.

In discussing Roxana, I know that I will find many examples in order to analyze the irony between her immoral behavior and her financial success. She had many relationships and many prominent events throughout and in between these relationships, that show this correlation.

Trishan Mezbah

For my final essay I decided to write about the novel Roxana by Daniel Defoe and my argument is when is it okay for the main character Roxana do something in the story that could be considered alright or is there a justification about the acts she has done. Like for example is it right and reasonable reason for she has done throughout the story or the it’s mostly the opposite. All of what she has done could be looked as wrong and that theirs is no excuse for what she did; she could be looked at as mental derange woman. She could even be looked as a bad person by through religion because in the story there are activities and events that she does that just makes you say “No” or “Is she being hypocrite” But mostly throughout the story I have felt that she has been doing the wrong things then the right things, because every time she does something that can be right or justified; It somehow ends up being something that can be looked as wrong for doing it. For example in the story Roxana talks about being with her husband is the worst thing ever; because he is a fool. That’s ok because at the end that is your opinion and you can’t call someone a bad person if she just doesn’t like someone. However the part in the story were her husband leaves and is gone for away; the only people that are there are her children and her maid Amy. In her defense she realizes that she can’t feed herself, let alone the children so she; has to give them away to another family that can take care of them. In the novel Roxana states that “I was at first, sadly afflicted at the terrible thing, their being taken into the Parish-keeping; and then a hundred terrible things came into my thoughts […] this sunk my very Heart within me.”(Page 19) As you can see she shows care for her children well-being and wants them to at least be in a good state for their future. That can look good and all but literally later on the story she sleeps with a man and tries to have a kid but can’t; so she forces Amy to have a kid and make it her own baby. You’d get rid of your own children but later own make take another child and call it your child. Especially since religion wise this is heavily looked down upon for doing such when you didn’t get a divorce one man and get married to the other man. Also speaking of being with the man, she slept with him because he did all the favors and she felt like she was being a slut or whore. By making Amy sleep with; she was able to call her a whore/ slut and not feel completely guilty, “She was a whore, a Slut and she was undone!”(Page 47) In retro speck that was completely wrong to do because she degraded Amy and forced her to do something she didn’t want to do.

“The Romance in lofty and elevated language, describes what has never happened nor is likely to.” -Clara Reeve, 1778.

The way Romance was described in the eighteenth century was something that was very interesting to me. Romance was viewed as something completely different then how we view today. Romance in the eighteenth century would generally include improbable events, imagination and knights, dragons etc. The events in these types of romances would be completely unbelievable and implausible. The quote posted above by Clara Reeve describes the mindset that many had in the eighteenth century; The events in these romances never happened and aren’t likely to happen either.

The central question that I would like to explore is, How did the definition of romance in the eighteenth century affect the way that authors portrayed it in their novels? This was evident in The Castle of Otranto, where seemingly every event in the story was highly improbable and unlikely, starting with the opening scene when Conrad is crushed by a gigantic helmet. All of these events followed the prototypical descriptions of Romance during this period: damsel in distress, imagination, improbable events, aristocracy, and immodesty. All of these romance generalizations were prevalent in The Castle of Otranto.

None of these eighteenth century generalizations of romance would be considered necessary in today’s romances. This part of the reason why I am interested in writing about this topic. The difference between romances in the eighteenth century and now are so vast. The definition of romance in the eighteenth century clearly impacted the way authors wrote during that time period and that is something I wish to explore further.

Although I was hesitant on which novel I should write my final paper about, I’ve finally decided to analyze The Castle of Otranto. Walpole fascinates the reader through his own ideas of a Gothic novel while underlining romance, and sacrificing while taking into account the presence of religion.

Throughout the novel, the reader is able to learn how everything has turned out to be against Manfred, the lord of the Castle. Walpole introduces the reader to the novel with a devastating opening scene of Manfred’s fifteen year old son, Conrod, as a large statue helmet falls onto his head on his wedding day to Isabella, crushing it, resulting in his death. Manfred’s attempt in passing power onto his son at a young age is countered by Conrod’s death promoting the idea of god’s rejection of power inheritance.It also suggested that in order for power to be inherited for becoming a lord of a castle, they must be old to inherit the power.

Furthermore, romance is strictly underlined when reading the novel. As a reader, it is easy to pickup on the fact that this is a romantic novel. As the relationship between characters grow to be more evident, it alerts the reader of Walpole’s attempt of creating the medieval romance illusion which I find to be amusing. Although it is a very old novel, it sounds much like a story that would or may happen in today’s era. Moreover, Manfred’s lust to gain power has led to his downfall and Walpole is able to portray this through the use of romance in the novel.

The question that is being raised when analyzing this novel is how does romance and religion shape the novel and how had it impacted the fate of characters? It is fascinating how The Castle of Otranto is considered to be the first Gothic novel and how Walpole set a benchmark for romance in novels.

For my final essay, I would discuss about ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ in Pamela by Samuel Richardson. Even though ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ came out in 1973, which was much later than the time the book Pamela published in 1740, the relationship between main character Pamela and her master Mr. B assumes aspect that syndrome. She was in situations that can cause the syndrome, which were being aware that Mr. B was life-threatening but also sometimes he was kind to her, being isolated from people except for Mr. B and his people, and recognizing that she cannot escape from Mr. B.

Pamela says that she realized that she had been falling in love with Mr. B as like Mr. B fell in love with her but I thought that’s because Pamela would feel safety when she believed that she was already falling in love with Mr. B. Also, if she believed that she is falling in love with him, she can marry him, which could be the way to protect her religious faith about her virginity and morality (protecting her virginity before marriage). She has kept protecting her faith as like her life under lots of threats, so persisting threaten above her virginity from Mr. B could lead to conclusion that she should love him.

When I searched ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, it says that especially when attacker (Mr. B) being nice to victim (Pamela) during victim is under the situation being threatened, victim’s ego considers that kindness as the only way to survive.  And victim builds attachment relation because the victim thanks to attacker not have harmed (Mr. B didn’t actually rape her before they married).

‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is described as giving up freedom on consciousness (mind or spirit). Some victims who have aspects of the Stockholm Syndrome defend their attackers or kidnapper when they make a statement about them because they already equate themselves with kidnappers and sympathize them deeply.

So, with this all situations above my central question is ‘how explain Pamela’s fear of Mr. B turned away to love him?’ and ‘Could reader think that love is true love?’

In Joseph Andrews, Henry Fielding provides an incredibly rich commentary on a variety of topics such as: society, politics, religion, and morality of the 18th century. With the satirical approach, using Pamela by Samuel Richardson as the inspiration, Fielding blends all of these topics into a rich novel. However, for my final paper, I intend to narrow my focus on a political analysis of Joseph Andrews and even Henry Fielding himself.

With how contentious this most recent election became towards the end, I’m of the strong opinion that dissecting a political commentary of the 18th century could be fascinating, especially if I can use this commentary as a means to further understand the political landscape that we have today. In order to begin the first stage of research for my paper, I’m going to look more in-depth into the concept of Parishes and the settlement within them, which was used as a theme towards the end of Joseph Andrews. From there, I will also begin to connect my conclusions from this to the political ideas and divides within our society today. I also intend to use secondary sources, a few of which I’ve already found that might prove useful, in this endeavor.

As a centrist for most of the political topics of today, I really want to use this paper as an opportunity to learn about the merits and criticisms that Fielding had of the 18th century political landscape, and whether they would be classified as either liberal or conservative by today’s standards. This could be a strong point of the paper, and would allow a potential reader to be able to more closely follow my analysis, given that they may already have an opinion on certain aspects of 18th century politics, if provided with appropriate comparisons to issues we face today. From the brief analysis we’ve already had on the system of parishes as they existed in the 18th century, it’s apparent that this system has (by today’s standards) both conservative and liberal beliefs operating within it. So, what would be the criticisms and merits of the parish, and to what extent have the political parties of today learned from this commentary, if at all.

But another question that could come from this topic, aside from one of charity and welfare within a society (or community), could be a critique on the leaders of these parishes, and how they compare to the leaders we have today. Does the critique of politics and the ruling class that shaped it, from the 18th century, provide any further insight into the leaders and their motivations that we find ourselves with today. Have the critiques paved the way for more efficient governing by those in charge, or has the ruling class, whether it was the royalty of the 18th century or the democratically elected officials we have today, changed in name only.

I’m confident with the appropriate secondary sources, and a second reading of the text with a focus on the political aspects of the each scene, I will be able to answer these questions and more in the final paper.