Say what you will about Shamela- that it’s long, tedious, repetitive, etc…. In my opinion, it was an interesting read. Yes, it is true that these kinds of stories are long, but that does not necessarily make it “boring” in any sense.
Written by Henry Fielding in 1741, Shamela purports to be “the true story” of Pamela Andrews, the title character of Samuel Richardson’s Pamela. Unlike the latter’s depiction of the protagonist as as a young girl of virtue and chastity, Pamela (whose real name is Shamela) is a scheming, manipulative young woman who plots to trap Squire Booby (the obvious “real name” for Richardson’s Mr. B) into a marriage. Like the original work that inspired it, Shamela is written in the form of various letters, but unlike Pamela, it is composed up of several characters’ points of view. This is different from Richardson’s novel, because we could only rely on the writings of a young girl.
Fielding is exposing us to the moral failures that he found in reading Pamela, and he does so through his use of satire. Richardson’s theme of a young girl’s chastity is a valuable commodity was played out through having Pamela resist the romantic seductions of “Mr. B.” In response, Fielding reverses the situation to have the heroine (if we can call her that) be the one making the moves on her master, and it seems appropriate for him to be called “Squire Booby,” since he is something of a boob. As an author, Fielding was more interested in showing the hypocrisy of society, social classes, and values rather than examing the internal conflicts or vices.
Overall, Shamela is worth taking a look at. It might appear to be long, but you can understand it after considering Fielding’s intent was to expose the moral failures and problems with society. Even the name Shamela (a sham) tells the reader that this novel is most definitely a parody of sorts. In fact, Fielding must have shown this when he published under the psuedonym Conny Keyber.
