Clarissa - first 20 Letters...

...Or 5%. Although no-one on the Goodreads forum has commented yet, and I am kind of too shy to make the first move! I admit, this is not the easiest book to get into and you can't really read it quickly, but once you get into it, it seems to become easier and the archaic language makes a bit more sense.

Anyway, Clarissa is currently under a massive amount of pressure from her money-grabbing family to marry the odious Mr. Solmes, her only comfort being her clandestine letters to Miss Howe describing her treatment and the appalling way her siblings are behaving. Our heroine is trying to be as reasonable as possible, but to no avail. Mr. Solmes has cunningly promised either an exchange of estates with James (Clarissa's brother) or that he will buying the northern estate, increasing the family's land. Her mother has been roped into persuading her, and Clarissa hoped to bring her mother over to her way of thinking, but alas, as Clarissa tells her, she has the will of her father's relations rather than her mother. Her mother married for love, but she has very little will of her own, as she says herself, although her husband is a good man 'he will not be controuled [sic]; nor yet persuaded.' She lives in a state where she has to accede to his every whim. Surely, this is no recommendation to Clarissa to wed? She evidently wants to avoid her mother's example, as she puts it, 'those who will bear much, shall have much to bear', that through her passivity her mother is allowing her father's tyranny, and in extension, the unchecked, strong wills of her other children as well. Clarissa believes that as she is in the right to refuse Solmes, she is not being stubborn. She offers to either not marry at all (lamenting that as the family are not Catholic, she had no recourse to entering a nunnery), or only marry with her parent's consent. However, her pleas fall on deaf ears and there seems to be little she can do to improve her situation or avoid marrying Solmes. 

The reader really feels for her here in the way that her family seem to treat her as a bargaining chip rather than a person with feelings. She is completely disgusted with Solmes and finds his physical appearance and character repugnant. I guess some of the original people reading it would probably side with her parents though, and find it surprising that someone who is portrayed as being so obedient should be so against doing what her parents want. Her parents seem to believe that she is rejecting Solmes out of some sort of crush on Lovelace and that by forcing her into marriage quickly she will be out of the way of the man that James hates.

 

What fresh lunacy is this?!

So, having put the dreaded Proust on hold for the moment due to the weight of book and lack of time, and being bogged down by the penultimate Barchester chronicle as well as numerous other rather large volumes, I have gone and joined a reading challenge group on Goodreads and committed myself to a six month reading of the dreaded Clarissa. It's a bit naughty, but I was hoping that I would be able to not only get through this behemoth, but also discuss it with some other readers. I'm not sure anybody has actually started it yet, but so far it's not going too badly. I'm a aiming for about five per cent per week so that I can hopefully read it in about five months and I'm reading it on the Kindle fire, which somehow makes it less intimidating. Only thing is, I have a free edition so I miss the footnotes of the paperback edition I have previously tried to read. Still, I can always refer to the other edition, and there is no danger of the spine breaking as it is prone to do on the paperback.
I think Clarissa is  quite a difficult book to judge by modern standards, as the age makes some of it seem very distant to the way people think and behave and read novels. From studying Defoe and Richardson's other novel, Pamela I know that the novel as a form was just taking off and was generally frowned upon for being frivolous and untrue. Writers tried to make it seem as true to life as possible and containing a strong moral message. The messages of Clarissa are that a rake cannot be reformed by marriage and that parents should not treat their children too harshly, I imagine this  would have been quite a controversial proposition for parents of the period. 
It's an understandably difficult book to read, not just in terms of the length but also the way it's written in the epistolary form. So far, I've found that this does give the narrative a sense of urgency, as the letters are written immediately after the events, often the in the evening after the day's events have unfolded. Clarissa is a bit of a contradictory character in that although she is a dutiful, obedient daughter she is dead set against the suitor that her parents have chosen. In fact, there is a sense that Mr. Solmes is not really the person that her parents would have chosen, the family is seemingly controlled by her bachelor uncles, who are concerned with the financial prosperity that a match would bring, and, surprisingly by the older children who act out of jealousy of Clarissa's inheritance from her grandfather, and a hatred for Mr. Lovelace, Arabella's former suitor who briefly tries to switch courting Clarissa (at least this is how Clarissa herself reads the motives of her siblings). She writes about Lovelace, but not as if she considers him a suitor, as he has a bit of a reputation. Mr. Solmes on the other hand, she immediately abhors. 
Mr. Lovelace is another rather contradictory character, although he is considered a rake from the start, Clarissa describes how he gives money to a family in need. He may be putting on a face for the family, but it does serve to slightly warm him towards Clarissa, and she sees him a few times when she is visiting her friend Miss Howe. Miss Howe is a great character, the kind of naughty best friend who contrasts nicely with Clarissa's virtuousness.
Anyway, 3% in and although I know where the plot is going (I saw the TV series years ago and did modules in uni that at least alluded to it, although no-one was brave enough or daft enough to use it as a set book, Pamela was bad enough!), I still think I will be glad to read it.

What women want?!

Finally finished Fifty Shades Freed this morning. So Mr. Arrogant and Mrs. Self-Obsessed ride off into the sunset with the perfect children and perfect house etc. etc. etc. I don't think they would be very nice people in real life, after all, many of the people they meet want to kill/kidnap/impoverish the pair of them. Ana only has Kate as a friend (I had trouble with Ethan, who was he???), or Jose, who just wanted to stalk her (I guess E. L. was always on team Eddie. Shockingly couldn't remember his name there. Team Adrian? Who has a vampire hero called Adrian?!). Christian also came across as a bit of a git in the reverse pov at the end, but then I suppose we were meant to accept that he'd been changed by love (barf).  


Poor old Jose, he got nothing in the end. Everybody else paired up with each other, he didn't even get a half-vampire baby to love. I suppose Ana could've hired him as a nanny to make up for it (although I can't remember if anything happened to the mysterious Ethan at the end...oh, no, didn't he end up with Mia? See, Ethan metal block. The man is some sort of void).
 
Can't be too supercilious though, I have just read the books right to the end. Struggling through the last one, which I thought was quite ludicrous. I guess that's why fairytale writers don't do sequels. Happy ever after gets dull quickly, especially when you're as rich as Croesus. It quickly becomes a litany of holidays, dull work stories, expensive presents, shopping and building new houses together. That, along with the sickly sweet 'oh, my Fifty, you're SO wonderful' stuff makes a dull book. Evidently, you need an accident and a good kidnapping to spice things up. I noticed how she almost couldn't be bothered to write about all the amazing sex they were having. We went from quite descriptive stuff to coying closing the bedroom door in some of it, but then I guess even sex gets boring if you're doing it every three pages. At least E. L. could have a break from smut writing about Ana's angst about Ray and her recovery from the dramatic kidnapping. 

I suppose if I was to go all literary theory, the obvious path would be Ana as a feminist. Richardson warned in 1748 (Clarissa) about the perils of trying to change a man, in that case, trying to change a rake. Does Ana change him? I think that the author wants us to assume that he has been changed by his relationship with her. She doesn't seem to have changed that much in return, although she expects him to trust her she doesn't trust him enough to tell him what's going on with Mia and the kidnapping. Also, she accuses him of behaving like an adolescent after she dresses up like a slut (to annoy him) and flounces about ignoring him rather than talking rationally like an adult about him contacting his ex-dom. Pot calling there, I think. 

Food is a re-occuring motif in the trilogy, as Ana unconsciouly uses it as a weapon almost. I noticed that if she was angry with him she would stop eating or refuse to eat, but during episodes in the book where she was accepting his sexual advances she would either agree to his entreaties to eat or spontanously feel hungry.

As a 'feminist heroine', she's strong-willed, yet obviously attracted to someone who wants to dominate her not only in the bedroom, but also have people follow her about and nag her to eat all the time. In the meeting told from Christian's pov, he recognises that there is a certain element of submissiveness in her character in the way that she looks at him. From reading this it's evident that he has managed to change her appearence to suit himself in the course of the books. Despite the strong personality, I wouldn't think of her as someone to aspire to be like, like Bella in Twilight she can be a bit too stubborn about the wrong things. However, I am not agreeing with Samatha Black, (the woman who is so beautiful no other woman will talk to her) here, another one of my 'friends' from the Daily Mail. Thanks for the warning there Sam, I will make sure I am carefully tucked up in bed with a cup of cocoa and maybe the latest Adele Parks not trying out the dangerous degrading BDSM from this book. Missionary position it is, girls. Suppose I am even more of an anti-feminist now. 


I guess I'm supposed to love the books or hate them. I can't say that I loved them or hated them. The first two were an entertaining diversion, and I'm glad that they provoke discussion. However, I think the last one went downhill. I think you have to accept them as they are, then go watch Secretary. 

Much better! (Wikipedia Link)