Talk:The History of Sir Charles Grandison

Publication history was incorrect
I don't know the exact details, but the Dublin piracy occurred before any legitimate printing of the book, and no legitimate printing of the book occurred before November 1753. See the _Selected Letters_ ed. John Carroll, p242 for a letter to Lady Bradshaigh, 5 Oct 1753, in which Richardson states "The Reason why I hasten not the Publication is two-fold; one is, it is not an advisable time; the Town empty... The other is, that should I publish it complete, I should give the Irish Rapparees an Opportunity to complete their Edition from mine; whereas now, I think, they cannot have more than three or four Shts. of Vol. VI and about half of Vol. VII (for I stopt, as soon as I was apprized of the Villainy)..."

The Dublin printers had bribed Richardson's press-workers to acquire copies of the novel before it had been published at all. According to a footnote in the selected letters, "Richardson published the first four volumes duodecimo and octavo simultaneously on 13 November 1753" (243). I've edited it accordingly -- but I don't have all the necessary sources right now, so it's going to be sketchy. Solemnavalanche (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

--- I'm wondering what at all the Dublin piracy quote has to do with critical response. Maybe my reading comprehension is low tonight, but I don't see anything in it that says anything about the literary quality of the book. 75.64.194.226 (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dublin piracy information is in the background section, not in the critical response section, so I do not understand your concern. Could you elaborate? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What the heck?
"_note-Sabor_p._149-13"

So, that's Sabor in the CCEL, pages 149 to 113? Isn't that something from backward-world? Further, I checked that reference because it seemed highly screwy that Peter Sabor would say that Richardson thought Fielding had had a vicious character rewarded in Amelia. There is no vicious character in that novel. In fact, like Grandison, it's boring because everyone is angelic. This seems to me to be either a vast mistake on Sabor's part or a very bad citation. Whoever put that note in needs to: Otherwise, it really looks suspicious, jarring, and unreliable. Geogre (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Correct its format
 * 2) Either drop the reference to Amelia or explain it exactly as Sabor does.

Change to the page
In here, "Sir Walter Scott, who favored the bildungsroman and open plots, recounted a friend explaining why" should be changed to state that Carol Flynn is the author of the first quote, and that Sir Walter Scott is only a reference point and not part of the attribution. Flynn states: "An old lady of Sir Walter Scott's acquaintance explained why she enjoyed hearing Sir Charles Grandison read aloud:". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Flynn say where he heard the information? Was it from the old lady herself? (sorry, should have asked that before) Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in a preface by Scott to one of his novels. I can't remember which, but that's exactly the point, here.  Scott is using his "friend" to make fun of Richardson.  Scott is politically, thematically, regionally, and stylistically antipodean to Richardson.  Geogre (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can scan Flynn's book in order to prove that she, and not Sir Walter Scott, said "she enjoyed hearing Sir Charles Grandison read aloud" if I must. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Carol Flynn's source is: "In his two first novels, also, he shewed much attention to the plot; and though diffuse and prolix in narration, can never be said to be rambling or desultory. No characters are introduced, but for the purpose of advancing the plot; and there are but few of those digressive dialogues and dissertations with which Sir Charles Grandison abounds. The story keeps the direct road, though it moves slowly. But in his last work, the author is much more excursive. There is indeed little in the plot to require attention; the various events, which are successively narrated, being no otherwise connected together, than as they place the character of the hero in some new and peculiar point of view. The same may be said of the numerous and long conversations upon religious and moral topics, which compose so great a part of the work, that a venerable old lady, whom we well knew, when in advanced age, she became subject to drowsy fits, chose to hear Sir Charles Grandison read to her as she sat in her elbow-chair, in preference to any other work, 'because,' said she, 'should I drop asleep in course of the reading, I am sure, when I awake, I shall have lost none of the story, but shall find the party, where I left them, conversing in the cedar-parlour.' - It is probable, after all, that the prolixity of Richardson, which, to our giddy-paced times, is the greatest fault of his writing, was not such an objective to his contemporaries." From this page xlv-xlvi. The intro is written by both Walter Scott and James Ballantyne, and the individual pieces cannot be distinguished. Flynn uses Scott as a chronological reference point. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For clarity, perhaps rephrase that so it does not need quotation marks on the bit from Flynn? That will hopefully satisfy both parties. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work. Any change that removes the attribution of Flynn's quotes from Scott would work. That is my only complaint here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes, if you can provide a suggestion for a wording change when you bring up the original issue, that will help to resolve things a bit faster. That way it isn't "my" version vs "your" version but often a new collaborative version.  I know that's not always possible, but it can be really helpful. Can you post a proposed change here? Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the most appropriate change that would satisfy Geogre's original interest is to drop Flynn completely, quote the block of text that I have above, and attribute it to the preface of Richardson's works written by Sir Walter Scott. That way, readers can see 100% what Scott is saying and still have the flavor. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That works very well for me, although, of course, the quote can be tightened somewhat. My concern was this: Scott himself wrote in a way that Richardson would have found offensive, and he had heroes who were much more of the Fielding model than the Richardsonian one.  Virtually every novel he wrote is a bildungsroman or a romance (as in, knights of old, deeds so bold), and his real progenitor is somewhat Tobias Smollett than either of the towering giants of the '40's.  However, I couldn't believe that, even in his later criticism, he would be unironically praising the action of Sir Charles Grandison, and it was a common satirical device to introduce a reader (especially a woman) who just loved it for effect.  I.e. I felt that Scott's intent was being flipped.
 * The only issue that remains, for me, is the mention of Amelia. Geogre (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope it makes sense now that my concern wasn't about what Scott wrote, but about the Flynn quote still being left in there (along with Flynn being ref'd at the end of the line). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Amelia
My concern in note 14 is this: Does Peter Sabor explicitly mention Amelia, precisely, as an example of Fielding's heroes being morally corrupt? If he does, then I would challenge his interpretation and usefulness as a source, there, but I really would like the author of the sentence to be absolutely sure that Amelia is mentioned. It is possible that the author meant "Fielding's novels, such as Tom Jones and Amelia" (examples of Fielding's novels), and not "morally questionable heroes like those in Tom Jones and Amelia." If that's the case, then the sentences should be broken or the syntax clarified.

Amelia is not a morally corrupt heroine, and the hero in that novel is nothing like Tom Jones or Joseph Andrews. Joseph Andrews is satirical and parodic, and it means to invert Pamela, and therefore it inverts Richardson's notions of "virtue" (the very, very precise concept of "virtue"). Tom Jones is meant to further break down Clarissa and continue the critique on Richardson's worldview. It has a hero who is good in his intentions, but who finds himself in endless scrapes and bawdy situations, but he wants only what is good. Richardson, nevertheless, was scandalized at the boy's bastardry, impiety, and carnality. On the other hand, Amelia is a study of virtue. It's a largely static novel, like Sir Charles Grandison, and Fielding means to model "good nature" and a serene mind. Aside from the problem of Amelia appearing after Sir Charles Grandison, I believe, there is the problem that few people, including Richardson, could call it an immoral hero.

I would be flabbergasted if the usually acute Peter Sabor did. Geogre (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I used Sabor over on the Amelia (novel) page, but it was a different article. Here is the excerpt in its context:
 * "Fielding, as narrator of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones, had given much firmer guidance to his readers, and his derison of Richardson's technique of 'writing, to the moment', memorably satirized in Shamela, stems not only from its improbability but also from the loss of authorial control that such a method entails. That Fielding relinquished much of this control in Amelia suggets that Clarissa had made him reconsider the validity of Richardson's technique. But this change did not prevent Richardson from making a rare public attack on Fielding in his "Concluding Note" to Grandison. With novels such as Tom Jones and Amelia clearly in view, Richardson writes:
 * It has been said, in behalf of many modern fictitious pieces, in whic authors have given success (and happiness as it is called) to their heroes of vicious if not of profligate characters, that they have exhibited Human Nature ias it is. Its corruption may, indeed, be exhibited in the faulty character; but need pictures of this be held out in books? Is not vice crowned with success, triumphant, and rewarded, and perhaps set off with wit and spirit, a dangerous representation?
 * These remarks were published in March 1754, three months before Fielding set sail for Lisbon. It is not known whether he read Grandison, but his final attack on Richardson in the preface to the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon quoted above, could have been prompted in part by these hostile reflections on 'vice crownded with success, triumphant, and rewarded'."
 * Sabor p. 148-148. Notes used in the above only give page numbers of the books the quotes were from - no explanatory notes.
 * If it helps, I believe Richardson (if Sabor is correct) would be referring to the actions of William Booth and Miss Matthews (along with other vices that he practices later on). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And Geogre, I honestly mean this - thanks for the copyedit. The article needed it after the large revisions and its hard to find copy editors. Yes, I know we fought over it before, but you did a good job at finding a lot of mistakes. I hope you understand that my concerns were mostly about the attributions and not the grammar. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that.
 * This really gets to me. Richardson wasn't willing to let it go after Amelia?  I am stunned.  That... lowers my view of Richardson, even though I try not to reiterate the polemics of my authors.  Ok, to fix the reference, perhaps we need to be clear that it's Richardson who tosses out the view and that it's discussed in Sabor?  It sounded, perhaps only due to syntax, like Peter Sabor was lumping Amelia in with Joseph Andrews, when there was a vast arc in Fielding's view of the hero between the two.  In fact, it wouldn't be hard to find Battestin talking about how lovely/perfect the characters are, if needed.
 * I just felt that the sentence was jarring, that it was using the editor's voice to endorse something that many readers of Fielding would object to. If you have no objections, I'll take a crack at the sentence to see if what seemed like a red flag can be blanched pink or fuchsia.  Geogre (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this - still 100% of what Sabor says and contextualizes it for an audience who may not understand the tension between the two (and poor Sarah stuck in the middle). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, definitely. It removes some of the shock.  (Well, Sarah got out of the way pretty effectively.  The tragedy is later.  First, without Henry her profile lowers.  Second, the money problems of the family were awful.  Third, she outlives everyone by a long shot, and I'm not sure she ever got to be with her father and his brood.  Fourth, contemporary critics want to make her into things she never conceived.)  Geogre (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Jane Collier page? It was a rough creation, but there is not that much devoted to her. Most of the information on her life seems to come from information from Sarah's life during the whole mess. I have a few books that I want to use to update some of the female writers during this time (as literary figures mostly) - Wikipedia seems to be skimpy on them. What is your area exactly? My boundaries tend to be Constitutional Politics, Anglican Politics, Anglican Poets, and 18th Century Printing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)