Pamela's hand, and perspective based "Truth"

After our discussion on Monday, I started thinking more about the idea of the "hand." We covered this theme pretty extensively, but I'm interested in the specific aspect of Pamela's hand in the context of authority. In essence, Pamela's hand (which really belongs to Richardson) is an omnipotent narrator. Her voice, or her hand, is the supposed voice of authority, or the "True" voice of the novel.


This is where it gets interesting, to me. I've been toying with a thought for a while now, and it seems to relate perfectly to my feelings about authenticity in "Pamela." See, I'm a post-modernist (romantic post modernist?), and I don't believe that there IS a "truth" in this novel. I know that this is NOT a post-modernist novel, or at least wasn't written as one, but I think that it touches on one of the central arguments of post modernism.

For the purpose of this posting, I want to consider the novel as not written by Richardson, but actually written by the young Pamela. (Disregarding authorial intent and the lack of experience Richardson had at being a young girl) Pamela has a version of events that she relays to her parents, and her parents respond to her described events. Now, why should we believe Pamela? What about her letters make her a trustworthy narrator? Personally, I've found a couple of examples of why she shouldn't be relied on for truthfullness. Specifically, Mr. B refers to her as manipulative!! Also, the constant mentions of her beauty and the descriptions of the praises others lavish upon her imply a vanity that is unbecoming to a "virtuous" woman. To me, these numerous glimpses of narcissisom and egoism completely contradict her purported goodness. There's a couple of other instances that I'd like to talk about in class. Also, Pamela's parent's reactions to her letters are only contingent upon what Pamela chooses to tell them, which I believe is important.

Getting back to post modernism, I think that Pamela could actually believe her version of events, but that doesn't make them "reality," or the "Truth." Perhaps Mr. B's actually believes his version of "reality," as well. One's perspective IS their reality, so who's to say that one "Truth" is actually real? Regardless, it's not our place, as the audience, to know the "Truth," not that there really is one in a fiction novel. Regardless, for the purposes of the story, I think that Mr. B should be given as much consideration as Pamela in this instance. Perhaps Mr. B is NOT a "bad man," but merely the victim of a "bad woman," Pamela. Who can say? But I would argue that Richardson leaves a few indications that Pamela is a little whimsical in the brain pan (more on that later, don't have the book with me to make page references!!)

OK, this argument will have to remain a little incomplete; this posting is getting fairly long. As I'm writing, more and more ideas are coming to me. Perhaps this is an idea for my final project: post modernism in the 18th century novel? Either way, I'd love to discuss this theory in class Monday, or continue my post later!