Henry Fielding was the author of one of the most popular novels of early English literature, "Tom Jones". Before that, however, came "Joseph Andrews", his first published novel. It shows. Fielding hadn't quite mastered prose narrative yet, though he came mighty close.
This story has to do with Joseph, of course, who begins as a servant in the household of Sir Thomas Booby. (Don't laugh – I didn't make up these names.) He attracts attention from Sir Thomas because of his virtuous ways, and from Lady Booby because of his physical beauty, and he shortly gets a place in the house itself as a footman. After Sir Thomas' death, Lady Booby's passion for Joseph's charms gets the best of her. She offers herself to him, but he's too innocent to understand what she means, and this apparent rejection of her body gets her so furious that she fires him.
He decides to go to London, on the way joining with his local pastor, Abraham Adams, who is going to London to get his sermons published. Pretty soon they're joined by Fanny, the girl Joseph loves. Hijincks, as you might expect, ensue, largely from those who consider themselves Joseph and Mr. Adams' social superiors. That, of course, is not even to mention the notice that Fanny, an (of course) exceptionally beautiful girl, attracts from those who want to satisfy their desires on her and expect her to cooperate because they are rich and she is poor. Oy.
This is a charming story, and frequently very funny. My biggest complaint is that it's terrifically episodic – it doesn't hang together exceptionally well, but instead reads like three or four shorter tales featuring many of the same characters. This isn't too much of a problem because of Fielding's writing skill even this early in his career, and he would quickly learn to do better, but it is noticeable.
Speaking of Fielding's skill as a writer, the narrator of "Joseph Andrews" takes on the status of another character in his own narrative. He frequently comments on the action he describes, and from time to time leaves his story to remark on the way stories get told in his own day. Today, we might say that this strategy distracts from the story; in this case it doesn't seem to do that too much, maybe because the narrator is so involved in his story himself. His concentration is such that it adds to ours rather than detracting from it.
Another distraction is the fact that for about half its length, this story is Parson Adams' rather than Joseph's. For several chapters in a row, Joseph doesn't even appear – he's upstairs in bed, for instance, recovering from a violent robbery – while Parson Adams sits by the fire downstairs smoking a pipe and discussing religion with whoever else is staying at the inn. This is a bit more of a problem than the episodic structure, because Parson Adams, virtuous as he is, tends to lecture whoever's in earshot on morals and religion, whether such lectures are appropriate or not. On the other hand, this storytelling strategy is at least comprehensible; Joseph is such an innocent that if he were the primary character all the way through, it might get a little boring, not to say annoying. At times, you want to grab his shoulders, shake him, and shout "Pay attention!"
Finally, without giving too much away, like many fictions from the 18th century, "Joseph Andrews" concludes with a wrap-up of all the good guys' problems that's close to miraculous, Fielding had enough sense to set up these astonishing coincidences several chapters in advance, instead of dropping them from a clear blue sky onto the reader's head, which is probably about the best one can expect from this kind of writing.
Bearing in mind, then, that "Joseph Andrews" is an example of early English novel-writing, it remains tremendous fun. One cares about these characters. When someone does them wrong, it's easy to sympathize with them, and when they triumph we rejoice with them. And, as I said, Fielding's style is a hoot. For a plain good-guys-versus-bad-guys story, this one will do quite well, thanks.
Benshlomo says, Give pioneers credit for their efforts, even (or especially) if they don't know all the rules perfectly yet.
Comments