What do you think?
Rate this book
Joseph Andrews جوزيف اندروز
Joseph Andrews refuses Lady Booby's advances, she discharges him, and Joseph and his old tutor, Parson Adams (one of the great comic figures of literature), sets off to visit his sweetheart, Fanny. Along the way, they meet with a series of adventures in which, through their own innocence and honesty, they expose the hypocrisy and affectation of others.
عربي/انجليزي
عربي/انجليزي
599 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1742
About the author
Henry Fielding
2,554 books360 followersHenry Fielding was born in Somerset in 1707. The son of an army lieutenant and a judge's daughter, he was educated at Eton School and the University of Leiden before returning to England where he wrote a series of farces, operas and light comedies.
Fielding formed his own company and was running the Little Theatre, Haymarket, when one of his satirical plays began to upset the government. The passing of the Theatrical Licensing Act in 1737 effectively ended Fielding's career as a playwright.
In 1739 Fielding turned to journalism and became editor of The Champion. He also began writing novels, including: The Adventures of Joseph Andrews (1742) and Jonathan Wild (1743).
Fielding was made a justice of the peace for Westminster and Middlesex in 1748. He campaigned against legal corruption and helped his half-brother, Sir John Fielding, establish the Bow Street Runners.
In 1749 Fielding's novel, The History of Tom Jones was published to public acclaim. Critics agree that it is one of the greatest comic novels in the English language. Fielding followed this success with another well received novel, Amelia (1751).
Fielding continued as a journalist and his satirical journal, Covent Garden, continued to upset those in power. Throughout his life, Fielding suffered from poor health and by 1752 he could not move without the help of crutches. In an attempt to overcome his health problems, Henry Fielding went to live in Portugal but this was not successful and he died in Lisbon in 1754.
Fielding formed his own company and was running the Little Theatre, Haymarket, when one of his satirical plays began to upset the government. The passing of the Theatrical Licensing Act in 1737 effectively ended Fielding's career as a playwright.
In 1739 Fielding turned to journalism and became editor of The Champion. He also began writing novels, including: The Adventures of Joseph Andrews (1742) and Jonathan Wild (1743).
Fielding was made a justice of the peace for Westminster and Middlesex in 1748. He campaigned against legal corruption and helped his half-brother, Sir John Fielding, establish the Bow Street Runners.
In 1749 Fielding's novel, The History of Tom Jones was published to public acclaim. Critics agree that it is one of the greatest comic novels in the English language. Fielding followed this success with another well received novel, Amelia (1751).
Fielding continued as a journalist and his satirical journal, Covent Garden, continued to upset those in power. Throughout his life, Fielding suffered from poor health and by 1752 he could not move without the help of crutches. In an attempt to overcome his health problems, Henry Fielding went to live in Portugal but this was not successful and he died in Lisbon in 1754.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 289 reviews
December 19, 2019
Yesterday I had a small insight concerning my impressions of Joseph Andrews: when I picture Joseph and his friend Parson Adams traveling the English countryside, the weather is always clear, the sunlight a welcoming gold. Yet when I see Don Quixote and Sancho Panza on their similar journey through Spain, the sun looks thinner and sharper, above all less forgiving. This is all the more remarkable when I consider that 1) Joseph ends the first day his journey in a punishing hailstorm, and 2) everybody—even the sparsely-traveled me—knows England has fewer sunny days than Spain.
I am sure this is because the world Fielding creates brings with it the impression of an hospitable sun. Cervantes loves his two main characters, but they are eccentrics easily duped by people who delight in the pair's delusions. and both are saddened and reduced by the end of their adventures. The three main characters of Fielding's novel, on the other hand, the two honest young people Joseph and Fanny and their naive friend, Parson Adams (perfect embodiment of the book's sunniness), each endure hardships which make them wiser, but they remain whole and healthy at book's end. The thoroughly evil people are few (Joseph's robbers, Fanny's would-be abductors), whereas the others who do evil (Lady Booby, Madame Slipslop, Lawyer Scout) are motivated by fits of passion and a policy of self interest, qualities that sometimes work against our heroes, but sometimes work for them too. Somehow—under the beneficent sun—everything turns out right in the end.
There are many reasons I love this book—the welcome intrusions by the sensible narrator, the mock-heroic language of its “epic battles,” the good natured bawdy of its most risque passages, its central message that “virtue” is the will to do good, not the jealous guarding of a sexual commodity—but more than anything I love its genial English country atmosphere, with a friendly sun shining upon all.
The following version of “The Good Samaritan” from Book I, Chapter 12 is an excellent example of how the battle between pettiness and self-interest (plus one small genuinely good act) saves poor Joseph, after he has been beaten and robbed and left by the side of the road:
The postillion hearing a man's groans, stopt his horses, and told the coachman, he was certain there was a dead man lying in the ditch, for he heard him groan. "Go on, sirrah," says the coachman; "we are confounded late, and have no time to look after dead men." A lady, who heard what the postillion said, and likewise heard the groan, called eagerly to the coachman to stop and see what was the matter. Upon which he bid the postillion alight, and look into the ditch. He did so, and returned, "that there was a man sitting upright, as naked as ever he was born." — "0 J — sus!" cried the lady; "a naked man! Dear coachman, drive on and leave him." Upon this the gentlemen got out of the coach; and Joseph begged them to have mercy upon him: for that he had been robbed and almost beaten to death. “Robbed !” cries an old gentleman: "let us make all the haste imaginable,or we shall be robbed too." A young man who belonged to the law answered, "He wished they had passed by without taking any notice; but that now they might be proved to have been last in his company; if he should die they might be called to some account for his murder. He therefore thought it advisable to save the poor creature's life, for their own sakes, if possible; at least, if he died, to prevent the jury's finding that they fled for it. He was therefore of opinion to take the man into the coach, and carry him to the next inn." The lady insisted, "That he should not come into the coach. That if they lifted him in, she would herself alight: for she had rather stay in that place to all eternity than ride with a naked man." The coachman objected, "That he could not suffer him to be taken in unless somebody would pay a shilling for his carriage the four miles." Which the two gentlemen refused to do. But the lawyer, who was afraid of some mischief happening to himself, if the wretch was left behind in that condition, saying no man could be too cautious in these matters, and that he remembered very extraordinary cases in the books, threatened the coachman, and bid him deny taking him up at his peril; for that, if he died, he should be indicted for his murder; and if he lived, and brought an action against him, he would willingly take a brief in it. These words had a sensible effect on the coachman, who was well acquainted with the person who spoke them; and the old gentleman above mentioned, thinking the naked man would afford him frequent opportunities of showing his wit to the lady, offered to join with the company in giving a mug of beer for his fare; till, partly alarmed by the threats of the one, and partly by the promises of the other, and being perhaps a little moved with compassion at the poor creature's condition, who stood bleeding and shivering with the cold, he at length agreed; and Joseph was now advancing to the coach, where, seeing the lady, who held the sticks of her fan before her eyes, he absolutely refused, miserable as he was, to enter, unless he was furnished with sufficient covering to prevent giving the least offence to decency — so perfectly modest was this young man...
Though there were several greatcoats about the coach, it was not easy to get over this difficulty which Joseph had started. The two gentlemen complained they were cold, and could not spare a rag; the man of wit saying, with a laugh, that charity began at home; and the coachman, who had two greatcoats spread under him, refused to lend either, lest they should be made bloody: the lady's footman desired to be excused for the same reason, which the lady herself, notwithstanding her abhorrence of a naked man, approved: and it is more than probable poor Joseph, who obstinately adhered to his modest resolution, must have perished, unless the postillion (a lad who hath been since transported for robbing a hen-roost) had voluntarily stript off a greatcoat, his only garment, at the same time swearing a great oath (for which he was rebuked by the passengers), "that he would rather ride in his shirt all his life than suffer a fellow-creature to lie in so miserable a condition."
December 19, 2013
Winning the battle with this novel was one of my bigger achievements this year.
July 3, 2016
Joseph Andrews is an 18th century picaresque novel, which means your likelihood of enjoying it will depend largely on your yen for country lanes, coaches, inns, innkeepers, alehouses, firesides, drunkards, con artists, storytellers, highwaymen, and other assorted creatures and landmarks one is likely to meet on an 18th century journey through the English countryside. There is no plot, per say, but rather a series of episodes and encounters undergone by a trio of wanderers as they make their way by coach, horse, and foot from London all the way back to a country estate where Andrews hopes to marry his childhood sweetheart, Fanny. Along the journey, they are robbed, fooled, entertained, attacked, educated, and even occasionally moved by the people they meet, the places they stay, the struggles they face, and the stories they hear.
Neither Andrews nor Fanny have any personality to speak of, but they aren't the real draws here, anyhow. That role is filled amply by Andrews’ lifelong pastor Adams, an earnest, naive, and highly argumentative man who constantly delivers sermons regarding the importance of “good works” in a Christian life to anyone who will listen. He carries his sermons in one pocket and his copy of Aeschylus in the other. Sometimes entire chapters are taken up by Adams and some stranger engaged in a heated theological debate by a fireside over a mug of ale in the sitting room of a country inn. Other chapters consist of the travelers sitting around the kitchen table in the house of some farmer who invited them to stay the night. Some of the chapters involve encounters with ruffians or rogues, leading to attacks and escapes, and one section inevitably involves the rescuing of Fanny from a mob of potential rapists. Fanny, incidentally, faces the prospect of rape at least four times throughout the journey, but not to worry - her virtue is always defended in time. She and Andrews serve very little purpose for most of the novel, if truth be told, but Adams, this crazy, lovable pastor, is a forceful and memorable character, and the novel is worth reading for the joys of Adams alone.
Another great joy to be found here is the opportunity to read a novel written before the tropes of the genre had yet to be standardized. Fielding’s 3rd person narrator, for example, often speaks directly to the reader. He takes an entire chapter to justify his use of chapter divisions. He expresses difficulty uncovering certain biographical facts about his characters. He reveals the tricks of the trade, including how to make short chapters seem longer. He goes on chapter-long asides to philosophize about this or that. Fielding clearly had a blast making this up as he went along, unaware that, as he jumped from whim to whim, he was establishing the form of the novel for the next three centuries and counting. Joseph Andrews isn't as brilliant as the Dickensian picaresques that came a century later, but it was the first of its kind in the English language, and it really is intensely charming. If a charming and intelligent, if meandering, adventure through 18th century rural English life and values appeals to you, I think you’ll find much to enjoy.
Neither Andrews nor Fanny have any personality to speak of, but they aren't the real draws here, anyhow. That role is filled amply by Andrews’ lifelong pastor Adams, an earnest, naive, and highly argumentative man who constantly delivers sermons regarding the importance of “good works” in a Christian life to anyone who will listen. He carries his sermons in one pocket and his copy of Aeschylus in the other. Sometimes entire chapters are taken up by Adams and some stranger engaged in a heated theological debate by a fireside over a mug of ale in the sitting room of a country inn. Other chapters consist of the travelers sitting around the kitchen table in the house of some farmer who invited them to stay the night. Some of the chapters involve encounters with ruffians or rogues, leading to attacks and escapes, and one section inevitably involves the rescuing of Fanny from a mob of potential rapists. Fanny, incidentally, faces the prospect of rape at least four times throughout the journey, but not to worry - her virtue is always defended in time. She and Andrews serve very little purpose for most of the novel, if truth be told, but Adams, this crazy, lovable pastor, is a forceful and memorable character, and the novel is worth reading for the joys of Adams alone.
Another great joy to be found here is the opportunity to read a novel written before the tropes of the genre had yet to be standardized. Fielding’s 3rd person narrator, for example, often speaks directly to the reader. He takes an entire chapter to justify his use of chapter divisions. He expresses difficulty uncovering certain biographical facts about his characters. He reveals the tricks of the trade, including how to make short chapters seem longer. He goes on chapter-long asides to philosophize about this or that. Fielding clearly had a blast making this up as he went along, unaware that, as he jumped from whim to whim, he was establishing the form of the novel for the next three centuries and counting. Joseph Andrews isn't as brilliant as the Dickensian picaresques that came a century later, but it was the first of its kind in the English language, and it really is intensely charming. If a charming and intelligent, if meandering, adventure through 18th century rural English life and values appeals to you, I think you’ll find much to enjoy.
June 13, 2019
E’ stata una sorpresa, non mi aspettavo mi divertisse così un romanzo scritto nel 1700. “Joseph Andrews” può dirsi un mix tra un romanzo picaresco, un’opera edificante di contenuto moralistico e una critica severa ai costumi e alla società dell’epoca. Ed in più voleva essere soprattutto, nelle intenzioni dell’autore, una satira del coevo Pamela di Samuel Richardson.
Mi ha divertito leggere le disavventure e le peripezie del povero reverendo Adams, amico e protettore di Joseph Andrews, fratello virtuoso di Pamela, povero cameriere con la colpa di essere bello come il sole; mi ha incantato leggere le pagine in cui l’autore descrive l’amore casto ed innocente di Joseph per la bellissima e virtuosissima Fanny; mi ha indignato leggere i comportamenti dei possidenti dell’epoca, gli Squire, personaggi per lo più idioti e prepotenti con tanto di scagnozzi al seguito, parassiti abituati alla prevaricazione sui più deboli. Certamente Fielding ha calcato la mano per creare personaggi eccessivi nella negatività, quale un ricco signore che, in epoca di guerre anglo-spagnole, spara a un povero cagnolino solo perché spagnolo o quello, il peggiore di tutti, che in una battuta di caccia guida un branco di viziosi a cacciare le grazie di una giovane fanciulla; ma non penso che la realtà inglese dell'epoca fosse molto diversa.
Certo, prevalente è l’intento moralistico dello scrittore, e dunque la maggior parte delle pagine è dedicata a formulare pensieri edificanti, o direttamente dalla bocca del reverendo Adams, sempre onesto, generoso, altruista e attento ai precetti delle Sacre Scritture, o indirettamente, attraverso dei racconti all’interno del romanzo, o attraverso dialoghi aventi evidenti finalità di condanna dei costumi. In sottofondo, ovunque, c’è l’ironia dello scrittore che la quarta di copertina definisce “quell’indefinibile, ineffabile quasi, humour che è da sempre prerogativa inglese”, e che non annoia mai.
Mi ha divertito leggere le disavventure e le peripezie del povero reverendo Adams, amico e protettore di Joseph Andrews, fratello virtuoso di Pamela, povero cameriere con la colpa di essere bello come il sole; mi ha incantato leggere le pagine in cui l’autore descrive l’amore casto ed innocente di Joseph per la bellissima e virtuosissima Fanny; mi ha indignato leggere i comportamenti dei possidenti dell’epoca, gli Squire, personaggi per lo più idioti e prepotenti con tanto di scagnozzi al seguito, parassiti abituati alla prevaricazione sui più deboli. Certamente Fielding ha calcato la mano per creare personaggi eccessivi nella negatività, quale un ricco signore che, in epoca di guerre anglo-spagnole, spara a un povero cagnolino solo perché spagnolo o quello, il peggiore di tutti, che in una battuta di caccia guida un branco di viziosi a cacciare le grazie di una giovane fanciulla; ma non penso che la realtà inglese dell'epoca fosse molto diversa.
Certo, prevalente è l’intento moralistico dello scrittore, e dunque la maggior parte delle pagine è dedicata a formulare pensieri edificanti, o direttamente dalla bocca del reverendo Adams, sempre onesto, generoso, altruista e attento ai precetti delle Sacre Scritture, o indirettamente, attraverso dei racconti all’interno del romanzo, o attraverso dialoghi aventi evidenti finalità di condanna dei costumi. In sottofondo, ovunque, c’è l’ironia dello scrittore che la quarta di copertina definisce “quell’indefinibile, ineffabile quasi, humour che è da sempre prerogativa inglese”, e che non annoia mai.
December 29, 2016
A universal rule: college books are always the worst.
THE END.
THE END.
March 8, 2013
Oh lucky Henry Fielding!
Henry Fielding is really one of those blessed people who can count themselves lucky since in Samuel Richardson he had found a man he could despise and abhor – or at least if he could not the man, then his works. When this spirit of enmity, abhorrence and scorn is felt by a man who can lay claim to intelligence and wit, instead of just hatred and physical power, inspiration is never far down the road.
This was also the case with Fielding and his novels “Shamela” and “Joseph Andrews”, both of them meant as playful criticism of the epistolary novel “Pamela”, which Fielding regarded not only as an awkward literary fashion but also as an instance of moral hypocrisy. I am not so sure whether Fielding, by writing “Joseph Andrews” can really be regarded as the creator of the intrusive narrator – as is stated in some reviews –, because I would venture to say that we can also meet this writing technique in Cervantes’s “Don Quixote”, whom Fielding explicitly names as a source of inspiration, but in the end, there is not a whole lot of things I am sure about.
Fielding tells the story of decent and coy young Joseph in the noblest and most honest of human intentions, the intention to mock and to deride. Resisting the determined attempts from both the widow of his former master, and her lady-servant at seducing him, Joseph Andrew is dismissed and thrown into the world. He decides to find back his true love, Fanny Goodwill, and to marry her. On his way, he meets the excellent parson Abraham Adams, who wants to sell some of his sermons, and both men now travel together. Before finding Fanny and rescuing her from the hands of some brutal highwaymen, Andrews and the cleric have to undergo a picaresque chain of adventures, and even afterwards, their tribulations do not come to an end, one of my personal favourite episodes being the heated meeting between the parsons Adams and Trulliber.
Their story is never to be taken completely seriously, yet at times there are more serious tones, and we can also read some tales of romance and unrequited love, but mostly the novel thrives on the hilarious incongruity of the trivial matters that are reported and the elaborate, epic style of the narration.
What you must give this 18th century masterpiece is a lot of time and contemplation, which is one of its special charms, as it dates from a time when people still were versed in the art of reading at leisure.
Henry Fielding is really one of those blessed people who can count themselves lucky since in Samuel Richardson he had found a man he could despise and abhor – or at least if he could not the man, then his works. When this spirit of enmity, abhorrence and scorn is felt by a man who can lay claim to intelligence and wit, instead of just hatred and physical power, inspiration is never far down the road.
This was also the case with Fielding and his novels “Shamela” and “Joseph Andrews”, both of them meant as playful criticism of the epistolary novel “Pamela”, which Fielding regarded not only as an awkward literary fashion but also as an instance of moral hypocrisy. I am not so sure whether Fielding, by writing “Joseph Andrews” can really be regarded as the creator of the intrusive narrator – as is stated in some reviews –, because I would venture to say that we can also meet this writing technique in Cervantes’s “Don Quixote”, whom Fielding explicitly names as a source of inspiration, but in the end, there is not a whole lot of things I am sure about.
Fielding tells the story of decent and coy young Joseph in the noblest and most honest of human intentions, the intention to mock and to deride. Resisting the determined attempts from both the widow of his former master, and her lady-servant at seducing him, Joseph Andrew is dismissed and thrown into the world. He decides to find back his true love, Fanny Goodwill, and to marry her. On his way, he meets the excellent parson Abraham Adams, who wants to sell some of his sermons, and both men now travel together. Before finding Fanny and rescuing her from the hands of some brutal highwaymen, Andrews and the cleric have to undergo a picaresque chain of adventures, and even afterwards, their tribulations do not come to an end, one of my personal favourite episodes being the heated meeting between the parsons Adams and Trulliber.
Their story is never to be taken completely seriously, yet at times there are more serious tones, and we can also read some tales of romance and unrequited love, but mostly the novel thrives on the hilarious incongruity of the trivial matters that are reported and the elaborate, epic style of the narration.
What you must give this 18th century masterpiece is a lot of time and contemplation, which is one of its special charms, as it dates from a time when people still were versed in the art of reading at leisure.
January 5, 2018
Had this book not been required for class, I would have gladly swung it out the window from the beginning.
March 1, 2012
Sue me, but I found this book almost impossible. Only my obsession with actually finishing books I started kept me going, and the occasional whiff of genuinely funny sarcasm.
Joseph Andrews was, in my mind, a much worse book than Tome Jones, even though it was supposed to be an obvious parody. Tom Jones is satire - Joseph Andrews is slapstick. The entire thing oscillated between the absurd and the genuinely tedious, and only in a very few moments - when Fielding put a velvet glove on his sting - did I find it to be genuinely a funny read.
Joseph Andrews was, in my mind, a much worse book than Tome Jones, even though it was supposed to be an obvious parody. Tom Jones is satire - Joseph Andrews is slapstick. The entire thing oscillated between the absurd and the genuinely tedious, and only in a very few moments - when Fielding put a velvet glove on his sting - did I find it to be genuinely a funny read.
April 26, 2011
Henry Fielding devoted a fair amount of literary energy to satirizing his contemporaries, in particular Samuel Richardson, whose Pamela is considered one of the earliest instances of the English novel. After the more overtly satirical Shamela, Fielding invented the character Joseph Andrews, brother to Pamela, in what might be called the first work of fan fiction.
In her own history, Pamela is continually pursued for her attractiveness and preserves her virtue with great effort; Fielding puts her imaginary brother in a similar position as he improbably maintains his innocence despite being literally pulled into bed by every woman he encounters, from the baroness to the chambermaid.
The title page explains that this is also a tribute to Don Quixote and Joseph and his equally virtuous sweetheart Fanny are joined by the forgetful and hapless Parson Abraham Adams. The three wander the countryside getting themselves in and out of a picaresque string of escapades and slapstick brawls. The narrative gets a bit disjointed as the intent seems at times principally to pile one improbable low comedy vignette onto the next, but an overall story arc of conflict and resolution emerges via a Shakespearean climax of changed identities, foundling babies and the like.
In a twist that we see well into the 19th century (Disraeli and Dickens for a start), virtue is rewarded not only with true love and a happy marriage but the modest central characters are revealed to be higher-born than they thought and financial ease also follows – if only!
In her own history, Pamela is continually pursued for her attractiveness and preserves her virtue with great effort; Fielding puts her imaginary brother in a similar position as he improbably maintains his innocence despite being literally pulled into bed by every woman he encounters, from the baroness to the chambermaid.
The title page explains that this is also a tribute to Don Quixote and Joseph and his equally virtuous sweetheart Fanny are joined by the forgetful and hapless Parson Abraham Adams. The three wander the countryside getting themselves in and out of a picaresque string of escapades and slapstick brawls. The narrative gets a bit disjointed as the intent seems at times principally to pile one improbable low comedy vignette onto the next, but an overall story arc of conflict and resolution emerges via a Shakespearean climax of changed identities, foundling babies and the like.
In a twist that we see well into the 19th century (Disraeli and Dickens for a start), virtue is rewarded not only with true love and a happy marriage but the modest central characters are revealed to be higher-born than they thought and financial ease also follows – if only!
May 22, 2008
Lady Booby.....I can't think of the name without grinning.
September 20, 2016
If I ever wanted to murder a book, I would choose this one.
June 18, 2019
Joseph Andrews’ın başına gelen olayları sürükleyici ve mizahi bir şekilde okuyucuya sunan "Joseph Andrews", "Don Quijote"den aldığı ilhamla bir yandan pikaresk türünü başarılı bir şekilde sürdürürken diğer yandan kendinden sonraki Laurence Sterne’in "Tristam Shandy Beyefendi’nin Hayatı ve Görüşleri" veya Voltaire’in "Candide" eseri gibi bir sürü romana ilham olmuş bir İngiliz klasiği. İngiliz edebiyatının yapı taşlarından biri olan Henry Fielding’in eserinde soyluların yanında çalışarak hayatını geçiren Andrews, evin hanımı Lady Booby’nin ona aşık olmasıyla bir anda kendini sokakta buluyor. Peder Adams’la birbirinden farklı maceralara yelken açan Andrews, çocukluk aşkı Fanny’yi bulmasıyla olaylar iyice karışıyor. Lady Booby’nin kıskançlığı yüzünden bir türlü Fanny ile evlenmesine izin verilmeyen Andrews, Shakespeare vari tesadüflerle okuyucuya eğlenceli bir olay örgüsü sunuyor. Özellikle finalinde Fanny’nin kardeşi olduğu iddia edilmesi üzerine dünyaları başına yıkılan karakterin anne babasının da farklı olduğunu öğrenmesiyle işler komik bir şekilde yoluna giriyor. Soyluluk üzerine bir hiciv olarak düşünüldüğünde bile değerli olan "Joseph Andrews", kesinlikle okuması gereken İngiliz klasiklerinden biri.
İstanbul, Türkiye
16.06.2019
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
İstanbul, Türkiye
16.06.2019
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
July 10, 2019
I would set this book on fire but I borrowed it from the library.
I think it would also be safe to say that I hate Fielding.
I think it would also be safe to say that I hate Fielding.
September 8, 2021
This time me a really long time to read, but doesn’t reflect how much I enjoyed this book. Henry Fielding’s books slap. The man knows how to write a funny comedy interspersed with these really moving yet hilarious epic similes and tales. I know these are supposed to be jokes but when you remove them from the source material they are just fascinating and I think about them a lot in my spare time.
April 30, 2016
OMG! I laughed a lot!!
It's really important to read something like this every now and then!
The funny thing is that this was written as a response to another novel "Pamela"!
It's usually said that it is easy to mock something, but it is difficult to create something new! That is why Fieldings is truly genius! He proved that he can satirize a novel and create a new novel at the same time!
Though it is really long! But I recommend it!
February 4, 2017
Although it took me a while to finish this book it was still fun!
February 21, 2017
I suppose that I could just say for this review 'Not nearly as good as Tom Jones and leave it at that but it probably deserves a little more.
Firstly, this really isn't a stand alone - it's a parody of Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded (although you don't really have to have read it - I haven't yet - so long as you know the general plot) and focuses on the virtuous brother of Pamela, Joseph Andrews, who becomes the object of lust to his wealthy mistress (who just happens to be the aunt of the man pursuing the virtuous Pamela) and who flees her shameless clutches and heads out into the world with only his innocence to shield him. Which doesn't do a very good job really, the world being populated at every turn by cheats and hypocrites, thieves and would be rapists of virtuous maidens.
Joseph doesn't have to face these perils alone, he has the trusty companionship of the worthy Abraham Adams, a poor parson who makes up for what he lacks in shillings by an overflowing storehouse full of words, sermons and good advice. Sort of good advice. Advice which he freely gives out but doesn't necessarily follow himself anyway. And when the words of this sagacious man fail to move those around him to virtuous action, Parson Adams can always to counted on to pull out his stout stick and break a few heads. Doubtless the word of the Lord goes in easier when the thick skull has previously been cracked open.
They have such an eventful journey that I marvel that anybody in England would dare to travel during those lawless times. Poor Joseph doesn't go three hours together without being assaulted or deceived by somebody or other. His first robbing leaves him bleeding and naked in a ditch and could have cost him his life save for the fortunate arrival of a stage coach and the reluctant agreement of that company to pick him up. Extremely reluctant as it seems that it was only the threat of possibly being liable in law for his death by failing to render assistance which moves these good Samaritans to render even minimal assistance. Fielding positively delights in this short novel at skewering the Christian virtue of charity - something which everyone lacks in this book saving those who have nothing to give and are always regretting it.
I found this to be quite amusing, and, even if not up to the standard of the peerless Tom Jones, was still very worthy of being read. Besides, it's really very short.
Firstly, this really isn't a stand alone - it's a parody of Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded (although you don't really have to have read it - I haven't yet - so long as you know the general plot) and focuses on the virtuous brother of Pamela, Joseph Andrews, who becomes the object of lust to his wealthy mistress (who just happens to be the aunt of the man pursuing the virtuous Pamela) and who flees her shameless clutches and heads out into the world with only his innocence to shield him. Which doesn't do a very good job really, the world being populated at every turn by cheats and hypocrites, thieves and would be rapists of virtuous maidens.
Joseph doesn't have to face these perils alone, he has the trusty companionship of the worthy Abraham Adams, a poor parson who makes up for what he lacks in shillings by an overflowing storehouse full of words, sermons and good advice. Sort of good advice. Advice which he freely gives out but doesn't necessarily follow himself anyway. And when the words of this sagacious man fail to move those around him to virtuous action, Parson Adams can always to counted on to pull out his stout stick and break a few heads. Doubtless the word of the Lord goes in easier when the thick skull has previously been cracked open.
They have such an eventful journey that I marvel that anybody in England would dare to travel during those lawless times. Poor Joseph doesn't go three hours together without being assaulted or deceived by somebody or other. His first robbing leaves him bleeding and naked in a ditch and could have cost him his life save for the fortunate arrival of a stage coach and the reluctant agreement of that company to pick him up. Extremely reluctant as it seems that it was only the threat of possibly being liable in law for his death by failing to render assistance which moves these good Samaritans to render even minimal assistance. Fielding positively delights in this short novel at skewering the Christian virtue of charity - something which everyone lacks in this book saving those who have nothing to give and are always regretting it.
I found this to be quite amusing, and, even if not up to the standard of the peerless Tom Jones, was still very worthy of being read. Besides, it's really very short.
May 20, 2014
I couldn't even finish this one. I gave up about one-third through it. I can't quite put my finger on why but I could not get the point as to where it was going and I found it plodding and uninteresting. My apologies because this is a clasic for most readers but I just couldn't get into it.
October 8, 2015
Bad news: I had to read this book. All of it.
Good news: I now have a new cure for insomnia to try on my next bad night.
Good news: I now have a new cure for insomnia to try on my next bad night.
December 13, 2015
The character Parson Adams travels everywhere with his handwritten copy of the plays of the author Aeschylus, who happens to have had as his subject matter tragedies, such as tales based on ancient Greek stories about the Odyssey of Odysseus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesch...
If Adams was as sophisticated as he is boringly pedantic, he might have seen he was in the middle of a similar odyssey while traveling in the company of the chaste 23-year-old 'Joseph Andrews'. Although he is a good-hearted gentleman of 1742 (when this proto-novel was actually written by Henry Fielding for the gentry, which included both of the English classes of nobility and merchant), he sees the world with the eyes of a simple rural curate. He also is a touch disorganized, not that it slows him down in his unplanned meanderings. His friends who travel under his protection (as he sees it) are as distracted and wayward as himself, and their shared innocence of hidden motives begins a trip of many incidents and meetings of odd or suspicious characters who either harm or help them in their travels depending on caprice, class or malice. Along the way, every aspect of 1742 English society is comically explored, exposing the polite surface of religious mores and customs, while the folks they meet fail (though some do not) to live up to the professed decencies.
Joseph Andrews is what we, gentle reader, would call today a hottie. Unfortunately for his widowed employer, Lady Booby, he wants to remain pure of heart, along with other body parts, for his childhood love, and fellow servant, Fanny Goodwill, his unlettered betrothed. When he rejects Lady Booby (as well as Mrs. Slipslop, an uncouth servant also in Lady Booby's employ) and her offer of becoming her boytoy, sadly he is fired. Gorgeous Fanny was previously let go earlier and she had returned home to her simple village, so that is where the young beauty Andrews decides to go.
When he runs into Adams, a man much responsible for Andrews' education, they decide to travel home to their village together. Meanwhile, Fanny has left the village to meet up with Joseph, having heard he was fired.
So begins a series of comic accidents, and nefarious plots of opportunistic revenge, malice and misunderstandings, made worse by the loss of whatever small amounts of coin each of our poor benighted heroes originally possessed.
This is not a satire in my opinion, as it is missing the savage bite common to satire. It is more of an amused, if mildly scolding, gentle fun fable with which I think the author hoped to chastise readers while entertaining them with a genre novel of his times. I believe 'Joseph Andrews' is a pure example of what English readers of his time called a 'romance', perhaps an early (yet more developed than books I read written some decades before this book) example of a type of book that is different but clearly a predecessor to what I recognize as a novel belonging to either literary or Chic-lit categories.
To readers of today, some of the characters, especially Adams, seem to have dialogues which are disguised speeches that are pages and pages too long. From some of the information I have read on the Net about this book, some of these speeches are the same as the author's viewpoints (as well as disguised autobiography), but most of it appears to me to be actually a comic setup for Adams in preparation for an upcoming plot point of comeuppance or pratfall. Adam generally starts off in good fellowship with the people he meets, but soon he has insulted almost everyone with whom he has talked, and more comedy follows.
This novel is fun to read as long as the reader is flexible and open to 18th century writing, joking and genre styles. While it is funny, it also is, apparently, a disgruntled response to another popular novel of the times, 'Pamela', which I haven't read, but the author did and disliked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamel.... The professional critics say Fielding turned all of the elements in the book 'Pamela' into a farce. I suppose it's true because what I saw in 'Joseph Andrews' felt like Fielding was making mild fun of many things that were conventionally representative of English pieties.
Whatever. I enjoyed reading this book very much.
March 14, 2020
Free download available at Joseph Andrews, Vol. 1 - Project Gutenberg.
Free download available at Joseph Andrews, Vol. 2 - Project Gutenberg.
From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
Episode 1 of 4
Of Mr Joseph Andrews, his birth, parentage, education, and great endowments, with a word or two concerning ancestors.
Henry Fielding's 18th century comic masterpiece is a riotous journey through the morals and manners of high and low society.
In this opening episode, Joseph accompanies the flirtatious Lady Booby to London whilst Parson Adams campaigns to educate him to achieve his potential.
Episode 1 of 4
Mr Joseph Andrews is the most handsome of all the footmen but wishes to remain uncorrupted.
Episode 2, 3 and 4 of 4
Henry Fielding's comic masterpiece about the morals and manners of high and low society.
Joseph ...... Cornelius Garrett
Lady Booby ...... June Barrie
Parson Adams ...... John Franklyn-Robbins
Henry Fielding ...... John Rye
Sir Thomas Booby ...... William Fox
Mrs Slipslop ...... Anne Jameson
Mr Peter Pounce ...... Peter Woodthorpe
Mr Grogblossom ...... Bill Wallis
Mr Mockgallant ...... Graham Blockey
Lady Tittle ...... Tessa Worsley
Lady Tattle ...... Karen Ford
Dramatist: John Scotney
Director: Shaun MacLoughlin
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in April 1986.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000...
Free download available at Joseph Andrews, Vol. 2 - Project Gutenberg.
From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
Episode 1 of 4
Of Mr Joseph Andrews, his birth, parentage, education, and great endowments, with a word or two concerning ancestors.
Henry Fielding's 18th century comic masterpiece is a riotous journey through the morals and manners of high and low society.
In this opening episode, Joseph accompanies the flirtatious Lady Booby to London whilst Parson Adams campaigns to educate him to achieve his potential.
Episode 1 of 4
Mr Joseph Andrews is the most handsome of all the footmen but wishes to remain uncorrupted.
Episode 2, 3 and 4 of 4
Henry Fielding's comic masterpiece about the morals and manners of high and low society.
Joseph ...... Cornelius Garrett
Lady Booby ...... June Barrie
Parson Adams ...... John Franklyn-Robbins
Henry Fielding ...... John Rye
Sir Thomas Booby ...... William Fox
Mrs Slipslop ...... Anne Jameson
Mr Peter Pounce ...... Peter Woodthorpe
Mr Grogblossom ...... Bill Wallis
Mr Mockgallant ...... Graham Blockey
Lady Tittle ...... Tessa Worsley
Lady Tattle ...... Karen Ford
Dramatist: John Scotney
Director: Shaun MacLoughlin
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in April 1986.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000...
August 16, 2020
"تصف الدواء لذي السقام وذي الضنى كيما يصح به وأنت سقيم"
أستاذ هنري بيسخر من رواية باميلا وهو روايته أضحوكة وسخيفة ومملة ومحدش يقولي برضو دة كاتب ساخر وبتاع، لامؤاخذة فاللفظ لامؤاخذة ف ايه؟ ف اللفظ
دي سخرية مخرية.
شخصيات مستفزة وحبكة فمنتهى السماجة و"لفظ وحش".
طبعاً مراجعة عاطفية بعض الشئ نظرًا لإني وخداها في إطار منهج دراسي مع دكتور نمطي ممل أبعد ما يكون عن دكاترة شرح الأدب وتحليله؛ فاطبيعي يحصل فيا كدة.. يااارب نخلص من أم نتيجة الأبحاث وننتهى من السنة الكابوسية دي بقا
سلام🚶🏻♀
أستاذ هنري بيسخر من رواية باميلا وهو روايته أضحوكة وسخيفة ومملة ومحدش يقولي برضو دة كاتب ساخر وبتاع، لامؤاخذة فاللفظ لامؤاخذة ف ايه؟ ف اللفظ
دي سخرية مخرية.
شخصيات مستفزة وحبكة فمنتهى السماجة و"لفظ وحش".
طبعاً مراجعة عاطفية بعض الشئ نظرًا لإني وخداها في إطار منهج دراسي مع دكتور نمطي ممل أبعد ما يكون عن دكاترة شرح الأدب وتحليله؛ فاطبيعي يحصل فيا كدة.. يااارب نخلص من أم نتيجة الأبحاث وننتهى من السنة الكابوسية دي بقا
سلام🚶🏻♀
July 8, 2012
Joseph Andrews improves upon Pamela by taking up charity instead of chastity as a virtue, leading us on an episodic journey through affectation and vanity. Not exactly a breezy read, but accessible and actually funny. Nicely done!
July 31, 2009
A classic comedy of errors.
March 16, 2016
i had some laughs but ,in general, it's extremely boring .
if you still insist on reading it ,you should read Richardson's Pamella.
if you still insist on reading it ,you should read Richardson's Pamella.
August 4, 2018
I reeeeeally love the style! Ironic yet full of lessons and hidden meanings. Though pretty long, I really enjoyed it.
November 21, 2011
On Fielding's Joseph Andrews and the Real Genesis of Role Playing Games Such as Dungeons & Dragons
Many commentators and critics hail the present book under review as one of the first "novels" to be written in the English language - along with its progenitor Pamela: Or, Virtue Rewarded by Richardson along with Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. The similarity between Fielding's and Richardson's works are only superficial - they share characters ("Joseph Andrews" and "Pamela") and situations - but their styles are radically different.
Richardson's two novels are examples of the epistolary novel - a novel in letters. Fielding's Joseph Andrews is the opposite - it is a novel in numbers. Or more precisely, a novel written with the aid of the numbers found on a twenty-sided dice. Hitherto my present discovery the happenstances that the Andrews/Adams party met on their adventures were understood as not very well crafted (imho) conflicts intended to illuminate the hypocrisies of the stock characters of 18th Century England. Under this model, Fielding himself created the various dramatic, tragedic, and comedic set pieces to skewer his parodied targets.
I endeavour to turn this thinking around. It is apparent to this 21st Century reader that Fielding's true achievement was in being history's first Dungeon Master. Imagine a London coffeehouse, circa 1740, smoky (or "smoaky") and bustling. Off to the side, back against the wall, is a smug character, entrenched behind a leather bulwark. Periodic clinking and rolling sounds cut through the boisterousness of the coffeehouse.
Circled around the Master are a coterie of Geeks, as Fielding I'm sure called them. Each one of these Geeks possess a Character - one is Joseph Andrews (Good and Chaotic, +5 on Chastity), another Fanny Goodwill (+20 Charisma), a bumpkin is taking on Parson Abraham Adams (+10 Greek, -20 Commonsense), an unfortunate one is the troll Mrs. Slipsop (-20 Intelligence, -50 Language), but the real prize is who gets to be the Sex-Obsessed Lady Booby (Evil and Chaotic, -100 Consistency, +50 Snobbery). Sprinkled throughout the DM's map are NPC's such as Highwaymen, Parsons, Gentlemen, Servants, Innkeepers (inaugurating a treasured tradition in Dungeon Mastery) and Justices.
Fielding as DM guides these characters through encounters with various "monsters" and "dungeons". Some monsters seem like angels at the time, e.g. a Parson (-50 Charity) who knows the Bible but not how it applies. A Squire (+75 Viciousness) who embodies every evil the DM can think of (Rape, Assault/Murder, Theft, Kidnapping, Overacting). Dungeons are prison cells, castles, or dark roads where Highwaymen have 10 out of a d20 roll of doing grievous harm to the party.
The resulting document of the Role Playing sessions that Fielding led has been edited so that the various die rolls are left out - but their traces remain. What are the chances Joseph will live? No doubt there was a crucial roll for that one. Will Adams defeat the Squire's henchmen with his cudgel? What are the chances that the rambling Pedlar who reveals all will happen to meet the wandering crew? Sometimes Fielding left in the DM instructions when for example it is written "A light is seen across the field" and the next adventure takes place in the inn.
One would like to believe that the "novel" came out of Fielding's own experiences and wit. But the nature of the episodic chapters (equivalent to a single day of role playing), preposterously consistent characters and random adventures and coincidences all point to a more mundane explanation. While others applaud Fielding as one of the first novelists - I choose to laud him as the first Dungeon Master!
Many commentators and critics hail the present book under review as one of the first "novels" to be written in the English language - along with its progenitor Pamela: Or, Virtue Rewarded by Richardson along with Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. The similarity between Fielding's and Richardson's works are only superficial - they share characters ("Joseph Andrews" and "Pamela") and situations - but their styles are radically different.
Richardson's two novels are examples of the epistolary novel - a novel in letters. Fielding's Joseph Andrews is the opposite - it is a novel in numbers. Or more precisely, a novel written with the aid of the numbers found on a twenty-sided dice. Hitherto my present discovery the happenstances that the Andrews/Adams party met on their adventures were understood as not very well crafted (imho) conflicts intended to illuminate the hypocrisies of the stock characters of 18th Century England. Under this model, Fielding himself created the various dramatic, tragedic, and comedic set pieces to skewer his parodied targets.
I endeavour to turn this thinking around. It is apparent to this 21st Century reader that Fielding's true achievement was in being history's first Dungeon Master. Imagine a London coffeehouse, circa 1740, smoky (or "smoaky") and bustling. Off to the side, back against the wall, is a smug character, entrenched behind a leather bulwark. Periodic clinking and rolling sounds cut through the boisterousness of the coffeehouse.
Circled around the Master are a coterie of Geeks, as Fielding I'm sure called them. Each one of these Geeks possess a Character - one is Joseph Andrews (Good and Chaotic, +5 on Chastity), another Fanny Goodwill (+20 Charisma), a bumpkin is taking on Parson Abraham Adams (+10 Greek, -20 Commonsense), an unfortunate one is the troll Mrs. Slipsop (-20 Intelligence, -50 Language), but the real prize is who gets to be the Sex-Obsessed Lady Booby (Evil and Chaotic, -100 Consistency, +50 Snobbery). Sprinkled throughout the DM's map are NPC's such as Highwaymen, Parsons, Gentlemen, Servants, Innkeepers (inaugurating a treasured tradition in Dungeon Mastery) and Justices.
Fielding as DM guides these characters through encounters with various "monsters" and "dungeons". Some monsters seem like angels at the time, e.g. a Parson (-50 Charity) who knows the Bible but not how it applies. A Squire (+75 Viciousness) who embodies every evil the DM can think of (Rape, Assault/Murder, Theft, Kidnapping, Overacting). Dungeons are prison cells, castles, or dark roads where Highwaymen have 10 out of a d20 roll of doing grievous harm to the party.
The resulting document of the Role Playing sessions that Fielding led has been edited so that the various die rolls are left out - but their traces remain. What are the chances Joseph will live? No doubt there was a crucial roll for that one. Will Adams defeat the Squire's henchmen with his cudgel? What are the chances that the rambling Pedlar who reveals all will happen to meet the wandering crew? Sometimes Fielding left in the DM instructions when for example it is written "A light is seen across the field" and the next adventure takes place in the inn.
One would like to believe that the "novel" came out of Fielding's own experiences and wit. But the nature of the episodic chapters (equivalent to a single day of role playing), preposterously consistent characters and random adventures and coincidences all point to a more mundane explanation. While others applaud Fielding as one of the first novelists - I choose to laud him as the first Dungeon Master!
October 17, 2018
MY FIRST REVIEW
Why on earth have I not read Henry Fielding before now??!! This book is delightful. The characters are charming. The good are so wonderfully good and sometimes surprising, as when the Parson Adams turns out to be quite ready with hands and stick or when Joseph becomes impatient with him, and they argue. The wicked are deliciously spiteful and poison-tongued; yet, their behavior is, in fact, understandable, given their premises. The twists of narration, along with the excellent authorial asides and sly addresses to the reader, are absorbing and entertaining. The language --- vocabulary, syntax --- is superb and, after more than two and half centuries, completely understandable.
I think this must be a good book to start a journey through Fielding's works with. It is relatively short and has relatively few characters. Try it!
MY SECOND REVIEW
I read it again, this time for book group, and I find that I see more interesting things in it. First, I loved one the the book's themes -- can a young man save himself for marriage? This is an issue that actually gets the plot rolling right at the beginning. And it introduces one of the book's great characters -- Lady Booby who is by far the most conflicted and complicated person in the book.
I also liked very much Fielding's voice and thoughts interjected into the book. But I thought his first chapter on the topic of comedy was magnificent. Fielding writes that the source of comedy is the ridiculous which its own source in affectation founded on either vanity or hypocrisy. He then contrasts comedy with the burlesque (or what we might call slapstick).
I faintly disagree with Fielding on comedy. I'd say that the ridiculous is the source of some characters in comedy. But many characters in comedies are not comic. I feel that comedy is something broader -- perhaps a story in which things turn out all right -- as in, let's say, "The Marriage of Figaro" or "Cosi' Fan Tutte," both of which are just a few years younger than Joseph Andrews.
Nonetheless, Fielding made me think about why the characters in Dickens are actually so believable, not caricatures at all. Perhaps it is because of Fielding's claim about affectation. That is, comic characters always or almost always present themselves as something that they are not. Here we have Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop (great name!) and we have Fagan, but not Oliver Twist.
The contrast of the comic with burlesque is also interesting. When we laugh at Laurel and Hardy (geniuses!) or at some of the funny/awful fates of Wiley Coyote, we are not in the world of Fielding's ridiculous. But I'm not quite sure how to define that place. Perhaps it's the exaggerated stretching of the logical -- a piano and a house fall apart in a piano delivery -- or just the funny punishment or comeuppance of the bad guy who himself is hapless and quite likeable -- Wiley falling off a cliff with a stick of dynamite.
Now, I'm thinking out loud and I'll just close this review. Once again I say, as I did in my first review, read Joseph Andrews. You'll like it!
Why on earth have I not read Henry Fielding before now??!! This book is delightful. The characters are charming. The good are so wonderfully good and sometimes surprising, as when the Parson Adams turns out to be quite ready with hands and stick or when Joseph becomes impatient with him, and they argue. The wicked are deliciously spiteful and poison-tongued; yet, their behavior is, in fact, understandable, given their premises. The twists of narration, along with the excellent authorial asides and sly addresses to the reader, are absorbing and entertaining. The language --- vocabulary, syntax --- is superb and, after more than two and half centuries, completely understandable.
I think this must be a good book to start a journey through Fielding's works with. It is relatively short and has relatively few characters. Try it!
MY SECOND REVIEW
I read it again, this time for book group, and I find that I see more interesting things in it. First, I loved one the the book's themes -- can a young man save himself for marriage? This is an issue that actually gets the plot rolling right at the beginning. And it introduces one of the book's great characters -- Lady Booby who is by far the most conflicted and complicated person in the book.
I also liked very much Fielding's voice and thoughts interjected into the book. But I thought his first chapter on the topic of comedy was magnificent. Fielding writes that the source of comedy is the ridiculous which its own source in affectation founded on either vanity or hypocrisy. He then contrasts comedy with the burlesque (or what we might call slapstick).
I faintly disagree with Fielding on comedy. I'd say that the ridiculous is the source of some characters in comedy. But many characters in comedies are not comic. I feel that comedy is something broader -- perhaps a story in which things turn out all right -- as in, let's say, "The Marriage of Figaro" or "Cosi' Fan Tutte," both of which are just a few years younger than Joseph Andrews.
Nonetheless, Fielding made me think about why the characters in Dickens are actually so believable, not caricatures at all. Perhaps it is because of Fielding's claim about affectation. That is, comic characters always or almost always present themselves as something that they are not. Here we have Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop (great name!) and we have Fagan, but not Oliver Twist.
The contrast of the comic with burlesque is also interesting. When we laugh at Laurel and Hardy (geniuses!) or at some of the funny/awful fates of Wiley Coyote, we are not in the world of Fielding's ridiculous. But I'm not quite sure how to define that place. Perhaps it's the exaggerated stretching of the logical -- a piano and a house fall apart in a piano delivery -- or just the funny punishment or comeuppance of the bad guy who himself is hapless and quite likeable -- Wiley falling off a cliff with a stick of dynamite.
Now, I'm thinking out loud and I'll just close this review. Once again I say, as I did in my first review, read Joseph Andrews. You'll like it!
March 3, 2022
My critiques for this book stem from its lack of relatability. When I read novels, the first thing I look for is how close I can understand the characters and their struggles. Due to the picaresque form and comedic nature of this novel, I was not rewarded with any version of intimacy with the characters. Also, there is something about the intrusive narrator within the text that hinders my understanding and enjoyment of the plot line. This narrator, as ever present as he is throughout, makes the text feel cryptic.
July 19, 2020
I enjoy Fielding's sense of humor & loved the author's introductory commentary in each 'book' as well as the satirical melodrama of the plot. The humor of this book is enhanced if the reader is familiar with Richardson's Pamela (Joseph is supposedly Pamela's brother).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 289 reviews