Eco Critical Analysis of "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding

Eco-critical Analysis of Lord of the Flies

By William Golding

Ecocriticism is the study of representations of nature in literary works and of the relationship between literature and the environment. As an academic discipline, it began in earnest in the 1990s, although its roots go back to the late 1970s. Because it is a new area of study, scholars are still engaged in defining the scope and aims of the subject. The term has been defined from several perspectives by different critics. However, the most appropriate ones relating to our discussion are that of Laurence Buell, who says that this study must be “conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis.” The other is that of David Mazel, who declares it is the analysis of literature “as though nature mattered.” With reference to William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”, the essay shall discuss the following in relation with the eco-critical study as discussed in Imam A. Hanafy’s article:  environment presented as something pure untainted and untouched, the limited nature of environmental resources and exploitation of these resources, environment as something which is eerily silent all the time but is, at the same time, immensely powerful, the ability of environment to draw out the hidden ‘beast’ inside of us, and the dichotomy of culture and environment.

The term “ecocriticism” was coined in 1978 by William Rueckert in his essay “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” Interest in the study of nature writing and with reading literature with a focus on “green” issues grew through the 1980s, and by the early 1990s ecocriticism had emerged as a recognizable discipline within literature departments of American universities.

The novel “Lord of the Flies” presents an island as a small version of the real modern world, in which man has exploited the nature and environment for the sake of his comfort, progress and also due to his beastly nature. The title of the novel is significant and carries multiple interpretations. ‘Lord’ may represent ‘power’, as we see Ralphs’s and Jack’s group fighting for power. ‘Flies’ may refer to death and decay; which may mean the death and decay having an alliance with power and corruption. However, from an eco-critical perspective, it may be referred to Beelzebub (another name for evil), who is also known as Lord of Filth and Dung. Throughout the novel, the children keep becoming more savage, beastly, dirty and devilish. Also the ‘Flies’ signify death and decay, which may mean the death and decay of nature, environment and their purity.

Nature, according to Hanafy, has been presented as something that is pure, untainted and untouched. It is due to man’s urge for civilization and development that the nature and environment got ravished, tainted and impure. As the island in Lord of the Flies is a miniature of the real modern world, the initial environmental and physical conditions of the island were such that “the shore was pledged with palm trees” and the salty water of the sea was clear. As for the ground, it was “a bank covered with coarse grass, scattered with decaying coconuts and palm saplings”. Before the human activities on earth began, the environment of the earth was quite like that of the island in the novel and its natural beauty and purity was preserved. However, later with the developments and establishment of human colonies, the earth started to get tainted with the marks of so called human civilization which actually is the sole cause of its impurity. This can be paralleled with the part of the novel when the boys “had built castles in the sand at the bar of the little river”, and also when they try to build huts for themselves. “Two shelters were in position” but were shaky. These activities on the island began to taint and contaminate the island as the boys tried to practice their civilization. Some critics are of the view that the arrival of the navy at the resolution of the story is symbolic, as it represents the return of the civilization which actually made the environment and nature impure. Therefore, the arrival of navy according to some critics is ironical, since they come as rescuers; however, they depict civilization, hence representing the cause of destruction of environment and nature.

Imam A. Hanafy, in his article, writes that environment is something that remains still and eerily silent; yet it is immensely powerful and can have a long lasting effects. Since the advent of man, he has been experimenting with nature and his surroundings. As soon as his means of food, shelter and covering were met, man started exploiting nature for the sake of surplus, leisure and in order to satisfy his beastly and curious nature. However, the nature and environment silently observed the man exploiting them, and proved powerful in the climax as man today is at a constant threat of global warming, climatic changes, thinning of ozone and other natural disasters. A representation of this power of environment is evident within Lord of the Flies, when the boys initially make all the rules like civilized English people, and try to set up the facilities they enjoyed back home in their country. For this, they exploit the island in return of which the environment silently practices its strength on them and overpowers them, making them forget all their civil nature and submit to the environment and nature. The environment also possess power of punishing by remaining silent and attacking the minds of the inhabitants. Simon, in Lord of the Flies, gets scared of the cave mystery and pig’s head due to eerier, silent eloquence of the island and runs madly to the other boys. There, he gets killed by the boys as they mistake him for a beast in the dark, killing him brutally with their wooden spears.

Furthermore, Hanafy discusses the ability of environment to draw out the hidden beast inside of the man, that how being one with the environment causes one to lose his humanity and causes him to give in to his animalistic instincts. The phenomenon of man-eating leopards and tigers has a long history in different parts of world (Atkinson 1881; Corbett 1947). But this kind of beastly behaviour cannot be justified for man, as he is born with wits and characteristics higher in degree than that of the beasts. However, as Dipesh Chakrabarty says: “There is the widely accepted point that humans have been putting pressure on other species for quite some time now; I do not need to belabor it. Indeed, the war among animals such as rhinoceroses, elephants, monkeys, and big cats may be seen everyday in many Indian cities and villages”. It may also be seen in the novel, Lord of the Flies, that initially Jack and his hunters are hesitant in killing a pig. But later, when he kills one finally, he makes it a practice to kill the pigs and eat them as a treat. Initially, when the boys find Simon sitting near the bank, they throw stones at him, however took care that it didn’t hit him. But when Ralph cames to Jack’s group later for Piggy’s specs, they throw stones at Ralph brutally in order to show him their might. In chapter nine-the boys think they heard the beast (really simon) they sing a chant “kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!”. Also, when Simon is killed by misunderstanding, Jack’s group becomes a little upset at the killing of a human being. But afterwards, when Piggy and Ralph come to them for retrieving Piggy’s spectacles, one of the boy from Jack’s group throws a huge stone on Piggy, killing him at the spot. At this, no expressions of guilt could be seen on their faces; rather an air of pride, arrogance, shamelessness, brutality and barbarity was evident on their faces. And when Ralph is left alone after Simon and Piggy’s death, Jacks and his boys had become so barbarous that the beast inside them completely overtook them and they run after Ralph to kill him. All these incidents reflect how the nature and the environment brought out the beast inside the boys, which makes them not only kill the pigs but also the human beings without any guilt.

According to Imam A. Hanafy, Golding has presented the island; the microcosmic representation of nature, as something pure; untainted. By doing so, he has set it up as a foil to the impure civilization that society thrusts upon humans. However, at the same time, Golding seems to endorse the fact that letting go of civilization completely causes one to become inhuman. Golding does not seem to place much faith in human nature to begin with, as he comments in the early chapters of Lord of the Flies, that civilization or culture helps humans curb their savage or beastly impulses by providing a suitable outlet for these emotions. In the wilderness, without any authority to check them, the boys easily fall prey to the natural urges inside them, eventually causing them to lose their humanity completely. For instance, Jack’s initial desire to hunt is channeled into the need for food, highlighting how civilization provides an acceptable outlet for such urges. As long as Jack is within the rules of a civilization, he is no threat to the people around him. It is when he out rightly rejects the authority of Ralph and rejects the validity of society that he becomes a true danger for the others. Golding seems to suggest that while savagery is an inherent characteristic of human beings, civilization helps to mitigate its effects to some extent, creating a sort of balance between the natural beastly side of humans and the socially acceptable ‘civilized’ version of themselves. By leaving that culture behind, the boys let go of their humanity, and “reenter nature on its own terms”. Naked and cultureless, their perceptions become irrational, intermixing with the perceptions of the creatures around them, so that, as a part of the natural world they are stranded in, they become inseparable from it. This is evident from Ralph’s first encounter with this new world, he immediately takes off his clothes and leaps into the water. The act of undressing signifies Ralph’s shedding of his former identity – the shedding of his culture; his civilized self – and adopt a new identity; one that is more at ‘home’ in this natural world.

Imam A. Hanafy goes on to suggest that when there is no law and order; when there is no authoritative figure to keep one in check, those curbed urges find an outlet. This can clearly be seen in the attitude of the boys, as their hunts become kills; their need for food turns into pure bloodlust and they begin to thirst for blood. This deterioration begins with the hunts of pigs turning into frenzied ritualistic massacres, and ends with the murder of Piggy. The boys feel no remorse for killing their friend; instead there is only the feeling of extreme satisfaction and contentedness at having made another kill. Golding does not seem to hold much faith in the preservation of one’s humanity while being one with nature. In this way, Golding reinforces the dichotomy between nature and culture.

The rediscovery of ‘self’; the taking back of ‘identity’, the incorporation of culture into the now savage world of the boys comes in the form of the naval officer. He is a symbol of authority; of power, and most of all, of civilization and culture. His appearance causes the boys to remember what they have done; to reflect on how they have turned into savage beasts whose bloodlust is so strong that they hold no remorse for the cold-blooded murder of their friend. Tahmina Mojadeddi writes: “Realization begins with Ralph, as he remembers the deaths of the other boys and the savage ways they turned to. Soon they all begin to cry as they realize that slowly and step by step they got carried away by instinct. Instinct was the only thing that taught them how to survive on the island but they see the faults and errors in it”.

The gist of the above discussion is that man is born in the natural world, yes, but from the moments he gains of consciousness of himself, he is othered from nature and nature is othered from him. He is taught to live according to society’s rules and regulations and to curb his natural desires and urges. In the introduction to The Environmental Imagination, Lawrence Buell remarks that, “Nature has been doubly otherized in modern thought”. Golding reinforces this fact through his novel by showing how, when the boys are separated from their culture and placed in the wilderness, they feel as if they are missing something. It is almost as if a part of them is missing; that part is culture. The tragedy of their life, according to Imam A. Hanafy, is the fact that humans cannot live outside of culture; they are not equipped to deal with a life without culture; without civilization; without authority.

However, on the other hand, Golding also shows the destructive effect culture has on nature. It engages the modern ecologists who see the present ecological crisis as stemming from “destructive habits of thought”. Ralph has explained this predicament when the fire becomes not fun but fatal. While the boys see the fire as a source of entertainment, Piggy and Simon see its dangerous repercussions and warn the boys against it. It is Piggy who suggests the need for smoke as a signal for help, not fire which can set the island on fire. This revolution in thought is what is needed in order for humans’ attitude towards nature to change. When humans choose to perceive something in a new way, they can do so, just as Piggy and Simon can. They begin to understand the relationship between culture and nature at a deeper level. They can see how the two are united at heart, for they are, in fact, variations on the same theme.

Under this new awareness, man is re-imagined as being not only physically dependent on nature – as shown by the boys’ need for food, which is provided by nature – but also as being culturally dependent on it. Furthermore, although it is depending on nature, culture is also a product of nature. Meaning that there is an inherent relationship between culture and nature, wherein neither can exist without the other. Golding, seemingly endorsing this notion, shows that a dual accountability to nature and culture is the best one can hope for: when one lets go of culture completely, the result is death; when one completely embraces culture, the result is also death, when viewed from an ecological viewpoint. Culture is the life-sustaining factor for human beings, according to Imam A. Hanafy, but it poses its own problems as well, because, in its alienation of nature, it poses as a serious threat to the natural environment.

Therefore, Golding delineates the double estate of man – his capacity for harmony with, and alienation from, nature. All human beings hold this faculty; this possibility of going either way, depending on their ‘power of awareness’. Golding, in this way, tries to deconstruct the dichotomy of man and nature on one hand, and culture and nature on the other hand in an effort to ‘re-imagine the self and understand it in relation to nature’.

In the light of above discussion it can be concluded that the environment and nature in itself is a strong force and has a deep effect over the mind and actions of man. In return of exploitation of nature and environment, man is made to bear devastating repercussions. Ironically, man weaves his own destruction by exploitation of his environment. The eco-critical analysis is carried out for the very purpose, and to highlight man’s treatment with his environment and nature. In the novel Lord of the Flies, Golding also endeavours to highlight some aspects of this treatment and its consequences; alarming us of destruction of our environment and tries to explain the might of the environment greater than the might of man.

_______________________________

References:

·         http://gv.pl/pdf/lord_of_the_flies.pdf

·         Ecocriticism and Early Modern English Literature: Green Pastures

Todd A. Borlik

Routledge, 11-May-2011 - Literary Criticism - 292 pages

·                     Creaturely Poetics: Animality and Vulnerability in Literature and Film Anat Pick Columbia University Press, 2011 - Nature - 249 pages ·         “It’s a conspiracy theory and climate change” Of beastly encounters and cervine disappearances in Himalayan India Nayanika MATHUR, University of Cambridge (article) ·         www.prezi.com

Grammar Translation Method

Grammar Translation Method

Historical Background of Grammar Translation Method:

The Grammar Translation Method of foreign language teaching is one of the most traditional methods, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In terms of learning a foreign language in the West, the meaning was generally taken as learning of Latin and Greek. For the acquisition of L2, Classical Method was adopted that focused on the following: grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary, translation of texts, and doing written exercises. In the nineteenth century, the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method. Grammar Translation Method began in Germany, or more accurately, Prussia, at the end of the eighteenth century and flourished as the most trusted and favoured methodology of learning L2.  The Grammar-Translation Method aimed at adapting to the circumstances and requirements of schools. Its focus was to make language learning easier. The fundamental attribute was the replacement of traditional texts by exemplary sentences. Grammar-Translation was the offspring of German scholarship, the object of which, according to one of its less charitable critics, was “to know everything about something rather than the thing itself”.

Techniques used in Grammar Translation Method:

In Grammar Translation Method, the techniques employed in making the learners acquire L2 were as following:

·         Translation of a literary passage (from target language to mother tongue)

·         Reading comprehension questions (finding information in a text)

·         Antonyms, synonyms (finding antonyms and synonyms for words or sets of words)

·         Fill in the gaps (new words or items of a particular grammar)

·         Memorization (vocabulary lists or grammatical rules)

·         Use words in sentences (to illustrate the understanding of mseaning and use of new words)

·         Cognates (Learning spelling/sound patterns that correspond between L1 and the target language)

·         Composition (Students write about a topic using the target language)

Principles and Characteristics of Grammar Translation Method:

Grammar Translation Method, through translation of the classic literature, not only aimed at the learning of L2, but also was seen as a practice for mental discipline and intellectual development. Moreover, the idea of teaching L2 through explicit grammar rules makes one think that learning a foreign language is a matter of mastering the grammatical rules of the target language.  From the four basic receptive and productive skills of a language, reading and writing were the main focus. Written and reading accuracy was emphasized. Words and vocabulary items were taught through bilingual word lists, i.e. the words were written both in L1 and L2. For teaching grammar, deductive method was used and the other tongue of the learner was employed in teaching L2. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue. Little or no attention was given to the pronunciation.

Role of Teacher:

In Grammar Translation Method, teachers are the guides. They are expected to explain rules and patterns of grammar. Teachers are guides since Grammar Translation Method focuses on memorization of rules, operating morphology and syntax of L2. On the part of teachers, fewer specialized skills are needed as the translation tests and marking grammar exercises objectively is easy. The teachers provide students with translation practice, corrects the practice exercises and controls language and structure. The teacher’s attitude towards errors is that the errors are not acceptable as grammar is taught rigorously. One of the teacher’s prime function is that of observation rather than corrective intervention in regards to the learners.

Role of the Learner:

Concerning the role of learners, they are expected to memorize explicit grammar rules and vocabulary items and were supposed to produce the translations of L2 into L1. This practice meant a laborious and painstaking work which often created frustration in the learners. Main activities and controls are stated by the students, he or she is the one who provides the course of the learning process and the status of knowledge as well. Cooperative work and integrated behaviour in learners was essential for the practice. Since Grammar Translation Method focused on the translation of literary texts, academic skills – such as metalinguistic knowledge, knowledge of L1, and intellectual activity – were also needed in the students.

Advantages of Grammar Translation Method:

The Grammar Translation Method has been practiced so widely and has survived so long for its main advantages. First, as many schools still have classes with large number of students, GTM with its focus on teacher centeredness is cost-effective and appropriate. Next, its main technique, translation into learner's L1, along with some sort of accuracy in understanding synonyms helps meaning to be clarified and the possibility of any misinterpretation or misunderstanding removed. Further, this method saves a lot of time because via translation from one language into another the meanings, words and phrases of the target language would quickly be explained. So, even teachers who are not fluent in L2 can teach through this method. Finally, teachers are less challenged because the students understand, and will not have any problems in responding the comprehension questions asked in the first language. This helps teachers to understand whether the students have learned what they were taught or not.

Disadvantages of Grammar Translation Method:

Where there are advantages of Grammar Translation Method, there are some disadvantages of this method which made this method fall from use. Speaking and understanding are more important for learners to communicate in real life situations, but Grammar Translation Method focused on reading and writing. It prefers written language to spoken language. This method uses a graded grammatical syllabus and learners must gradually accumulate and accurate command of each item in the syllabus. This may be a big disadvantage for learners who want to start using the language straight away. Learning through exposure, experience and use found no scope in this method; instead Grammar Translation Method used conscious memorization of grammar rules or vocabulary instead. Furthermore, in this method the teacher and the learners speak mainly in their mother tongue which meant no real interaction practice in L2. Also, it was not always practically possible to translate the literary texts into L1 as the classic texts contained many archaic words and were not ideal for use as the literary language is hardly used in day-to-day life.

Conclusion:

Due to its rigorous grammar training and intellectual development scope through the translation of classic literary texts, Grammar Translation Method remained in practice for a very long time in the history of second language acquisition. However, the inability of the method to ensure comprehensible spoken fluency and its impracticality to deal with real life language problems dropped Grammar Translation Method from use.

References:

The Grammar Translation http://www.unizar.es/elafuen/files_metodologia/tema_2/The%20Grammar%20Translation%20(diapos).pdf.

The Grammar Translation Method.  Accessed 10 January 2010 https://esl-methods.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+Grammar+Translation+Method.pdf.

Grammer-Translation Methods. http://web3.apiu.edu/.

Mart, Cagri Tugrul. 2013. "The Grammar-Translation Method and the Use of Translation to Facilitate Learning in Esl Classes." Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching 1 (4): pp. 103-105.

Mondal, Nitish Kumar. 2012. "A Comparative Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in Teaching English Language." New York Science Journal. http://www.sciencepub.net/newyork/ny0505/013_9247ny0505_86_93.pdf.

Reni Fitriyanti, Apik Soraya. 2011. Grammar Translation Method.  https://novaekasari09.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/grammar-translation-method/.

rights are reserved by Esmaeil, All, and Heydari Asl. "Comparative Study of Grammar Translation Method (Gtm) and Communicative Language Teaching (Clt) in Language Teaching Methodology."

Transition from Literary Criticism to Literary Theory

Literature has always been talked about extensively through the ages in various contexts. However, one of the most widely discussed context is the idea if literature is a unifying force and unifies people all around the globe by transcending the notions such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, nationalism, social class, etc. However, a critical analysis of this idea reveals that literature has been wrongly presented as a unifying, universal force. The idea that literature is apolitical, universal and connects humanity is false. This idea has been promoted in different ages of literature and was upheld by various types of criticisms. The essay shall unleash how literature was promoted as universal and apolitical during different ages and by various schools of criticism, where actually it was serving to uphold the power structures, resulting in the need of Literary Theory to deal with the flaws of literature.

The idea of treating literature as universal and apolitical was found in the tenants of Liberal Humanism. It suggested that gender, race and class apparently may make us look different, but we all have universal human nature defined on the grounds of morality (Barry 21). It says that if literature was political, it would be a source of propaganda. Therefore, literature is apolitical and is not an ideological tool. These ideas of Liberal Humanism regarding literature had been the latent concepts promoted by the literature during different ages.

The industrial revolution of Romantic Era brought mass production, surplus and consumer culture. “A crassly philistine Utilitarianism” (Eagleton 17) was seen as the ruling ideology of the industrial bourgeois class.  However, this revolution imprinted this age with some dark impressions including capitalism, alienation, individualism, fragmentation of society, loss of humanity, greed, etc.  During this age, the valuable writings, such as philosophy, history, poems, etc. were included in literature (Eagleton 15). The Romantics saw literature (poetry) as an individual genius; as a special talent that the writer possesses in order to remove the alienation of society and to restore the human aspects. However, the writings and imagination that reflected the values and taste of a certain social class were considered true literature. This aesthetical concept of literature was apolitical and universal since it emphasized on the individuality of the masses but did not bring to light the evils of capitalism and class distinction. It suggested escapism and empty nostalgia instead of focusing the influence of capitalism. Therefore, it again promoted literature as “ideological” (Eagleton 19).

The shift from Romantic to Victorian Age is marked by the scientific advancements, full blown industrial revolution and religious scepticism. The post-war society brought forth the bourgeoisie as the new class in possession of money. This gave rise to the need of civilizing this class for which literature was used.  Moreover, English studies were bought into prominence owing to “the failure of religion” (Eagleton 20). The unquestioned trust and belief on religion shattered primarily because of scientific discoveries, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, as well as the social change. Therefore, English had three main purposes to serve: delight, instruct, saving souls and healing the State (Eagleton 20), and the idea of nationalism was promoted. Arnold suggested to find such literature in “Hellenism” (Bertens 3), which meant that the Greek literature was appropriate to teach the new rich bourgeois class adequate culture. However, it again resulted in upholding the power structures since the Hellenistic literature was not discernible by the common masses. Moreover, the idea of Nationalism again pushed people to show national unity which meant no retaliation against the power structures. It was suggested that “Literature helps to promote sympathy and fellow feeling among all classes” (Eagleton 20), which again was an apolitical concept. As for Arnold, he also included only English and American literature in the canon (Bertens 12) resulting in the exclusion of literature of the marginalized groups. For Bretens, Arnold is an elitist snob. Therefore, the Victorian age again presented literature as apolitical and universal, and ignored the exploitations of capitalism in the society.

Further, in the Modern era, the society faced identity crises owing to the war between Britain and Germany. Having its roots in Germany, the Great Britain was now having bitter terms with the country of its roots. This provoked the British people to rewrite their history, carefully eliminating any Germanic associations, and thus shaking the sense of identity of the masses (Eagleton 26). To read literature was to get connected with one’s own individual being. During this time, a popular magazine Scrutiny appeared on the scene with the noise of battling against capitalism by making its adherents go to schools and universities. However, the only change it really brought into the society was “education” (Eagleton 29). However, it was only a little population of society that could actually afford to attend universities. Moreover, the literature it prescribed was also Hellenistic which was hardly discernible by the masses. Therefore, “the Scrutiny case was inseparably elitist” (Eagleton 30). In this way, the literature of Modern age also remained apolitical.

The school of thoughts that upheld literature as universal and apolitical were the result of the attitude towards literature in different ages. As discussed in the beginning, Liberal Humanism served as an umbrella, under which other schools of thought rooted, such as Historical Criticism, Practical Criticism and New Criticism. All these forms of criticisms remained apolitical and universal in the end. Liberal Humanism promoted that literature is “timeless and connects humanity” (Barry 20). It presents literature as a mirror of universal human nature which form universal human values, making it apolitical. Focusing the moral aspects of literature, Liberal Humanism ignored its political aspects. Historical criticism did more or less the same. It focused on the biographical aspects of the writer and spirit of age (Tyson 136) in order to derive meaning from the text, ignoring the political and individual aspects that may influence the literature.

Practical Criticism and New Criticism were rooted in Liberal Humanism. Practical Criticism meant “a method which spurned belle-lettristic waffle” (Eagleton 37) and said that the greatness of a literary text can be evaluated if it is divorced from its cultural and historical contexts. New Criticism also focused on the “text itself” (Tyson 136), and emphasized on the formal elements of the text which contribute in creating complexity as well as conflicts in the text.  However, its end product of resolution of these conflicts by giving a universal moral theme which resolves the conflicts created by the literary devices. This approach again treated literature as apolitical and universal, instead of highlighting the social unrest and deterioration caused by capitalism.

All these factors contributed to the need of an approach which deals with these flaws of literature. As a result, Literary Theory was born, which focuses on problematizing the idea and unleashing the latent intentions of a literary text. Theory involves reflexivity, which involves thinking on how identities are created and philosophies are generated (Barry 31). It suggests that reality is only a construct that is constructed using language. According to Jonathan Culler, theory involves complex relations and is not easily confirmed or disproved (Culler 3). It is an unbounded group of texts that includes everything in the globe and encompasses every field in it. It disputes the common sense, universal meanings and ideas and dismantle the structures that rule these ideas. It calls to question the notions or aspects that might be ignored or taken for granted otherwise (Culler 5). The concepts of Foucault and Derrida about the identity as a social construct and about language as a tool of creating binaries, respectively, are among the examples that reveal the political nature of theory.

The backhand purpose of pacifying the masses through literature has promoted literature as an apolitical and universal element. In every age, literature, in one way or the other, has been used to uphold the power structures in the society in order to ensure the rule of the elites and the capitalists. Criticism during this time; be it Historical Criticism, Practical Criticism or New Criticism, promoted the idea of universal morality. To deal with these flaws of literature, Literary Theory stepped in an acknowledged the political concerns of the society. The shift from Literary Criticism to literary Theory thus brought forth the political and autonomous aspects of literature.

_______________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.       Tyson, Louis, 1950- Critical theory today : a user‑friendly guide, Taylor & Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

2.      Bertens, Hans, Literary Theory: The Basics, Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

3.       Barry,Peter, V.(Ed) 1995, 2002 Beginning theory An introduction to literary and cultural theory

4.      Culler, Jonathan, Literary Theory: A very short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York.

5.      Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory: An Introduction (criticism) 1983

A Comaprison of Joseph Andrews by "Henry Fielding" and Adam Bede by "George Elliot"

A Comparison of

Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding

And

Adam Bede by George Elliot

The novels Joseph Andrews and Adam Bede are the two classic pieces of literature by Henry Fielding (18^th century) and George Elliot (19^th century). For Fielding, novel was a newly born genre in his age and yet he triumphantly made the best use of it, producing exemplary works. However, Elliot, having a number of writers to read, maintained to secure her unique place among her contemporaries and produced some of the finest pieces of literature under the genre of novel.

The two above mentioned works by these two writers mark certain similarities, yet have their own unique differences in other respects. This essay shall give a comparison of the novels Joseph Andrews and Adam, discussing various elements of the plots, social background and its influence on these writings, style, structure, form, themes, language, setting and a few other elements that shall describe how the two writers manipulated their characters and story line in order to convey the desired message to the reader.

Before initiating any debate on rest of the elements of these novels, we shall first analyze and compare the titles. The titles of both the novels suggest that the story shall revolve around the male characters, which are going to dominate the progression of the plot. It gives an idea of a male dominant society back in Fielding’s and Elliot’s time.

Henry fielding was a neo classical writer. Neo classical was the age when the works of Greek and Roman writers were imitated. Henry Fielding was one of the earliest novelists. He was among the pioneer novel writers of the age. His intellect and perception forced him to give a totally new wave to neo classical literature. He did copy the writing style of Greek and Romans; rather he made his narrative a “comic epic in prose”. He totally deviated from the track followed by his contemporaries rather created his own path by giving a new direction to his writing. He included all the characteristics of classical writings but presented them in such a way that the reader is prompted to laugh by exaggeration of the trivial incidents. This exaggeration was an essential feature of classical narratives but Fielding style of representation mocks it. His themes, though very grievous, are presented in amusing way. Besides giving amusement these themes impart a very important moral and social lesson to readers. They also depict moral and social events of that time. George Eliot on the other hand does not deviate from the norms of her age. Her literature is a classic example of Victorian age’s literature. She tries to highlight all the domestic and social problems which other writers of Victorian age also tried to represent tin their writings. She has made her writings a more powerful influence on human progress by allowing universal themes to take the hold of her narrative. The Victorian age deviated from “art for art’s” sake and focused more on moral purpose. The same can be seen in the major themes of Adam Bede. Eliot was a psychological analyst. Most of her writings present psychological analysis of her characters and the whole plot is united by this technique. Most of her themes become clear too by adopting this technique.

Joseph Andrews is a novel that is primarily a picaresque novel. . The picaresque novel (Spanish: "picaresca," from "pícaro," for "rogue" or "rascal") is a genre of prose fiction which depicts the adventures of a roguish hero of low social class who lives by his wits in a corrupt society. However, we also find some of the traits of an epistolary novel in it. An epistolary novel is a novel written as a series of documents. The usual form is letters, although diary entries, newspaper clippings and other documents are sometimes used. While, on the other hand, Adam Bede is a bildungsroman, which is a novel dealing with one person's formative years or spiritual education.

Following the above mentioned definition of a picaresque novel, we find Joseph Andrews a true example of a picaresque novel. We have Joseph Andrews as the roguish hero who belongs to a low social class as we see he is presented as Lady Booby’s footman as the novel opens. When Joseph leaves Booby house and sets on his journey to find his Fanny, the reader finds Joseph at the mercy of corrupt society of 18^th century England.  A detailed face of this corrupt society is revealed to the reader within the twelfth chapter of the first book, where Joseph is maltreated by different people including coachman, lady, old gentleman, and a lawyer (Fielding 40). It is also one of the characteristics of a picaresque novel that it talks of people from lower class and from different professions. In Joseph Andrews, this characteristic can be quite vividly seen as we see a coachman who, after seeing Joseph lying lifeless, says: “Go on, sirrah, we are confounded late, and have no time to look after dead men” (40). The comments of a noble lady follow those of the coachman as she discovers that Joseph is naked: “O J – sus! A naked man! Dear coachman, drive on and leave him” (40). An old gentleman, on finding that Joseph was robbed, adds: “Robbed! Let us make all the haste imaginable, or we shall be robbed too” (40). And the lawyer, no less in his meanness, suggested that they must help Joseph since they all “might be proved to have been last in his company; if he should die they might be called to some account for his murder” (40). Furthermore, we meet clergies including Parson Adams, Parson Barnabas and Parson Trulliber who depict no religious inspiration rather serve as a satire on the clergymen.  Nearly all the afore-mentioned characters are from varying professions as well as from the lower class. Yet another element of picaresque novel, i.e. realism, is an integral part of Joseph Andrews. Realism (or naturalism) in the arts is the attempt to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, implausible, exotic and supernatural elements. In this novel, the vices of the society have been presented in a real setting rather than a superficial one. It can easily be discerned that Fielding intends to present 18^th century England, and this fact is evident from the choice of places, names, costumes, designations and religion. Furthermore, the characters themselves show a real picture of the age Fielding intends to satire on. Some critics are of the view that Joseph Andrews doesn’t become a picaresque novel till Joseph leaves Booby House which is a good chunk of eleven chapters of the first book.

Adam Bede also goes out, meets certain people; however, he is not left at the mercy of the world, rather he as a hero of a bildungsroman has to do his own development. When Adam’s father was alive, he did not understand his worth. But when his father died, Adam regrets for his harsh behavior towards his father. He thought “what the old man’s feelings had been in moments of humiliation, when he had held down his head before the rebukes of his son” (Elliot 219). He learns the importance of his father in his life, and most importantly Adam learns to control his anger as he faces many incidents due to it. One of his friends at the workplace cracks some joke with Seth, at which “in a moment Adam turned him round, seizes his shoulder and pushing along pinned him against the wall” (Elliot). Furthermore, Adam also learns the difference between outer beauty and inner, as he comes to know the real character of Hetty who was outwardly beautiful unlike Dhina; however, she was inwardly corrupt and presented a negative character of females. Such incidents, and many other, make Adam Bede a bildungsroman.

But Joseph Andrews has a more complex form as compared to Adam Bede. As discussed earlier, Fielding also makes use of epistolary form in his novel. The first two letters appear in the very first book of Joseph Andrews, written by Joseph himself to his sister Pamela Andrews. In the first letter he tells Pamela about Lady Booby’s intentions and what passed between them in Lady Booby’s room (Fielding 17). The next letter is also addressed to Pamela in which Joseph tells her that his “mistress is fallen in love with” him (Fielding 34). Later on we see letters written by Leonora and Horatio within a digression chapter 4 of the second book (Fielding 92, 93), and a few others in the later chapters.

A number of themes have been presented in both the novels. One of the major themes employed by Fielding in Joseph Andrews is satire on religion. Through different religious figures he points out the religious conditions of that time and all the incidents show the corrupt religious institution and author’s dissatisfaction with the present religious conditions of the time. As in the preface it is said that he novel is going to be comic epic in prose and it will teach manners to the people reading it. Religion gives us a code of ethics so focus on manners readily involves religion in the discussion. Comic epic suggests that though a theme which in this case religion will be discussed but it will be discussed in a satirical and humorous way. Parson Adams has been mentioned in preface which directly implies the fact that the major area of focus of writer will be religion. Parson Adams is presented as person who has a high moral personality. He follows all the moral values of Christianity and practically implies them in his life. The writer fulfills his half purpose by his introduction. Full purpose is accomplished when Adam’s innocent and foolish nature is revealed. Adam though is a preacher but he is unaware of worldly affairs and worldly vices due to which people easily make a fool of him. He “was at the same time as entirely ignorant of the ways of this world as the infant just entered into it could possibly be” (Fielding 5). But the writer does not only end up here rather to give a complete picture of religious corruption of his time he introduces other clergyman representative of church’s moral degradation. Mr. Barnabas who comes for Joseph’s salvation after being robbed is more interested in food rather than the needy person. “Mr. Barnabas was again sent for and with much difficulty prevailed onto make another visit” (Fielding 36). Barnabas puts all Christian values aside and gives importance to worldly desires.  Parson Trulliber is parson just on Sundays and for the rest of week days he is a pig dealer. His harsh attitude with Adam and refusal to do any sort of help reflects his shallow character which is very unworthy on part of parson. By using different examples Fielding satirically presents religious trends of his time.

Eliot on other hand has a totally different view of morality. Morality for her is not concerned with religion rather it is concerned with an individual. Victorian age was the age of Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle was extremely critical of the growing Victorian attachment with materialism. People were distractingly crazy for comfort and happiness. They hardly believed in the dignity of work. Victorian people were neglectful of the fact that the worker should derive pride and joy from the work they do. During Victorian times the workers were becoming increasingly mechanical. To correct his age Carlyle introduced, the most repeated and very much hallowed maximum work is worship. To work is equal to worshipping, God. Through your absolute belief in work you can make God happy. It is a work which links you with God. Eliot was influenced by this motto that is why she said that hard work is worship. For her following a preacher was not important to earn God’s grace rather trivial acts of kindness which we commit in our daily life also link us with God and make us capable of earning God’s grace. Adam says, “If a man does a bit o’ jobs and o’ working hours- builds a oven for  ‘s wife to save her from going to the bakehouse- he’s doing more good and he’s just as near to God as if he was running after some preacher” ( Eliot 36). Though she has satirized on religious institution by introducing Mr. Irwine but she balances the situation by introduction of characters which are eager to reform the society through their individual acts; Dinnah and Seth. Dinnah and Seth are Methodists and follow Christian preaching but unlike Adam, Barnabas and Trulliber they also use these teachings to reform their society. We find Dinnah saying, “God has called me to minister to others; not to have any joys and sorrows of my own, but to rejoice with them that do rejoice and to weep with those that weep” ( Eliot 36).

Charity is another theme most pronounced in joseph Andrews. Fielding through certain sermons of Adam makes it clear that for him charity holds a central place in Christian moral code of conduct. When Trulliber refuses to help Adam he says him that you are not a good Christian as charity is central theme of the religion. Through Parson Adams’s comment we come to know of importance of charity as he says, “Now, there no command more express, no duty more frequently enjoined, than charity. Whoever therefore is devoid of charity I make no scruple in pronouncing that he is no Christian” (Fielding 127). He also engages in discussion about charity with Pounce. In this discussion Fielding presents two different schools of thought. For Adam riches without charity are worthless and says that his “definition of charity is a generous disposition to relieve the distressed” (Fielding 216).

 Elliot takes charity in a totally different meaning compass. She presents hard work as charity. For her hard work is a charity to future generation. This is evident in Adam’s character who believes that hard work is a way of paying tribute to God. Hard work makes the life of the upcoming progeny easy and can be taken in charitable terms. The main purpose for changing notion of charity was her belief that man’s actions are cause of his comfort or distress. Pounce can be compared to Hetty. Hetty also thinks that working hard is useless and wants to get rich by marrying a rich man. “She thought if Adam had been rich and could have given her these things, she loved him well enough to marry him” (Elliot 106).

Fielding makes upper class a constant victim of criticism in his novels. Through certain characters he expresses the hypocritical nature of aristocrats. Lady booby though is a respectable upper class lady but she tries to seduce a much younger boy just seven days after her husband’s death. When her servant overhears the conversation between her and the boy whom she tempted she gets afraid that her character will be blemished. “She had the utmost tenderness of her reputation, as she knew on that depended many of the most valuable blessings of life” (Fielding 23). This shows the hypocrisy of higher class that they want to commit all immoral acts behind the scenes while preserving their purity in front of their class. Elliot also highlights this feature in her novel. Mr. Arthur is squire of the area and lays eyes of affection upon Hetty. He indulges in a secret relationship with her. He does not make his interest public because of fear of facing embarrassment among his class. He tries to seduce her. All this is kept a secret which depict his hypocritical and weak nature.

The plot of the Joseph Andrews takes place in the eighteenth century England. Being primarily a picaresque novel, we see a variety of settings depicted by the writer in Joseph Andrews. The settings include the Booby House, inns, gentleman’s house; Mr. Wilson’s living place, court, and a few other places. However, in Adam Bede, almost the whole novel takes place in Adam’s house, Hall Farm and Night School. Unlike Joseph Andrews, the story of Adam Bede happens within the limits of a small village. Moreover, Fielding’s novel has the modernization as its settings are all in urban area of England, while Elliot’s novel is all about the countryside.

When we talk of the characters of both the novels we find certain similarities and differences between the both. Since the hero of a picaresque novel is left at the mercy of a corrupt society, therefore, Fielding introduces a variety of characters in his novel. As discussed earlier, these characters are from different social classes and belong to varying professions. However, nearly all the characters depicted in Adam Bede are from the lower working class of Victorian age, and primarily earn their livelihood through farming, cattle rearing or a few other jobs that do not involve education. The characters in the Fielding’s novel are learned and educated, as we meet a lawyer, parsons who write sermons and books, a book dealer, a judge, and most importantly the hero of the novel himself is educated as we see him writing letters to his sister Pamela Andrews. On the other hand, the characters in Elliot’s novel lack education and learning, and are unaware of the simple physical facts of the earth, such as time and weather change. Moreover, the hero of the novel, Adam Bede, himself is not educated and works as a carpenter, since this jobs needs skill rather than learning.

Furthermore, both the writers employ a number of characters in their novels. In Joseph Andrews, we have Joseph, Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, Betty, Parson Adams, Parson Barnabas, Parson Trulliber, Mr. Wilson, gentleman, surgeon, Fanny, Pamela Andrews, Beaus, robbers, some characters in digression, and yet a lot more to be listed. Adam Bede also has a number of characters including, Adam, Seth, Lisbeth, Hetty, Dinah, Arthur, Massey, Martin, Mr. Mrs. Poyser and their children, Molly and a few others. However, both the novels have a different justification for the employment of such large number of characters. As for Joseph Andrews, the hero of the novel is to go through different adventures, as a consequence of which he meets a lot of characters. Also, Fielding intends to reform the society from different evils, for which he needs the depiction of different people from different social classes and professions. But fro Adam Bede, Elliot’s hero is to learn and develop morally as he goes through different experiences of his life meeting different people. Therefore, to teach her hero, Elliot has to introduce him to a number of varying characters possessing varying personalities, each of which is going to add to Adam’s development as a hero of a bildungsroman.

To debate further on the characters, we find certain similarities in the depiction of the characters of both the novels. Both the writers seem to depict the clergies, as we find Parson Ryde and Parson Irvine in Elliot’s novel; and Parson Adams, Parson Trulliber and Parson Barnabas in Fielding’s novel.  Parson Ryde, Parson Barnabas and Parson Trulliber depict the corrupt clergies, while Parson Adams and Parson Barnabas depict the way the clergies ought to be as the representatives of religion. Moreover, we have characters such as Molly (Adam Bede) and Betty (Joseph Andrews) who are the maids and reveal the maltreatment of the society with the lower class. The heroes of both the novels share similar traits, as they both are from lower class, poor and strugglers.     

Discussing the language employed by both the writers, we find simplicity in their writings. We do not find many literary terms, heavy vocabulary or artificial use of elevated language in these novels. Perhaps, since Fielding’s intention was the reformation of the society, and that of Elliot was to unleash the suppression and problems of the lower class; therefore, they remained simple in their writing as to make the lay-man understand them. In both the novels, we find the use of archaic language, such as thy, dost, thee, yonder etc. However, Elliot’s language contains more of the street and slang words since she depicts the illiterate working class of the Victorian era. We also find her depicting varying dialects of English in her novel.

In his novel, Fielding primarily focuses on the manners of the people as he says, “I declare here, once for all, I describe not men, but manners” (Fielding 179). However, Elliot’s main focus is people’s emotions as we see her depicting how we feel in our youth and how it changes as we grow old. She most emotionally describes how Lisabeth (Adam’s mother) feels when Adam leaves her rudely in a haste to meet Hetty. Talking of the lower class, she emphasizes that “it is so needful we should remember their existence, else we may happen to leave them quite out of our religion and philosophy, and frame lofty theories which only fit the world of extremes.” (Elliot 195). For the working class she says that they are hard working and sincere people. And when such workers pass away, the master who employed them say, “Where shall I find their like?” (Elliot 232).

Henry fielding wrote Joseph Andrews in neo classical age. This was also known as the age of Enlightenment which emphasized logic and reason. This was the period of comfortableness in England. People mostly discussed about the social and political issues in the coffee houses. This feature can be seen in Joseph Andrews. Fielding has most of the times described inns in his plays. Joseph after being robbed is brought to an inn. There a surgeon and a parson have discussion about their field of expertise. This shows that people considered inns a comfortable place for discussion on any matter. Adam has discussion about heaven and hell with inn keeper. This shows that how inns were also a platform of religious preaching. Two strangers tell a story to Adam in the same inn. This shows that how these inns were very important places of social connection where strangers met and built up their ties. Contrary to Joseph Andrews, Adam Bede was written by George Eliot in Victorian age. Victorian age was the age of dramatic change that brought England to its highest power of development as the world power. In Queen Victoria’s period the population of England increased from 2 million to 6.5 million. This drastic increase in population shows England’s emergence as an economically established state. Industrial revolution was the most pronounced feature of this age. Landlords built factories on their lands and the people who earlier worked in their lands as farmers lost their jobs. To get another job they moved to cities to work in factories thus increasing the population of cities dramatically. This sudden rush of people to cities brought many adversities along with it too. Many of the jobs created in the port during the 19th century were badly paid. Others were seasonal or casual, which meant that people were only paid when work was available. As a result, the people and their families lived in poverty. Under these conditions, Elliot penned down her novel Adam Bede, where we see a constant depiction of the suppressed lower and working class in England.

Poverty is the factor highlighted by Eliot in Adam Bede. She presented a society of hard working people in her novel. Some of the people are farmers in the world of novel while others are carpenters. All people inhabiting the area do petty jobs. They do not get paid much as a result of it. This aspect of Victorian age is highlighted in novel. The protagonist of novel is poor around which the whole story revolves. Dinah, who appears as second major character, also belongs to a poor family. Aspect of industrialization is highlighted in the novel when Dinnah says that in Snow field she works in a factory to earn her livelihood. She says to Mr. Irvine, “It is changed so far as the mill has brought people there, who get livelihood for themselves by working in it, and make it better for the trades folks. I work in it myself and have reason to be grateful” (Eliot 94). On the other hand, in Fielding’s time, social conditions were also no less devastating. Most of the social institutions were corrupt. People working in different institutions worked as puppets at the hands of aristocrats. For example Justice Frolick tries to change the law and tries throwing Joseph out of city at orders of Lady Booby. Lawyers twist the law just to serve the upper class. They can make an innocent guilty and vice versa.

Acquiring education in Victorian times was a tough task. Only children from rich families went for formal education. But these ones were not many. Boys were in famous schools like Eton where education was very strict. Eton is a big school near London in front of Windsor. Girls didn't have the same education as boys. They were kept at home and taught singing, piano playing and sewing. Although some did go to Sunday schools which were run by churches. Children from rich families were luckier than poor children. Nannies looked after them, and they had toys and books. This difficulty in gaining education and illiteracy among poor is highlighted in the novel. Most of the dialogues between the characters are in Latin dialect. Lisabeth Bede has all her speech in Latin. Adam and Seth also have fragments of Latin in their speech like all other people living around. As this is the community of hard working people doing petty jobs. It reflects their social status. They are from lower class. As lower class did not have access to education in Victorian times, the same is highlighted in the novel through the dialogues of characters in old archaic language. Lack of education means lack of civility and modern values. Those people did not have access to education so they were unaware of the words used in modern dialect which was mostly prevailing among aristocrats who could acquire education. Compared to Elliot’s time, education became very important during Fielding’s time and it prevailed as this was the age of logic and reason. Instead of accepting the things as such people tried to find out the logic behind certain happenings. This logical thinking opened the door of vast thought process. People became more rational. This rationality is reflected in the character of Joseph. He does not at once perceive lady Booby’s intentions as evil rather he takes time to think that for what reason a lady of higher sort will indulge in such an act with him. He believes her only after she explicitly states her purpose. But as Henry Fielding deviates from the common style of prose writing followed by his contemporaries he also makes some characters irrational.  Adam for example is irrational. He does not think logically rather believes on whatever the people say to him. For example a man makes him fool by pretending that he is very much inspired by Adam’s religious knowledge and behavior and promises to give him horse sin the morning. But in morning Adam comes to know that he has been befooled.

Fielding and Elliot appear similar in their style of writing; however, some of their style traits differ, and secure them their unique place in the history of novel writing.  Fielding is less explanatory when it comes to the description of characters or places. However, we find Elliot dedicating pages to the description of merely one place in a single course of incidence. Both the writers, heartily debate over the themes they tried to depict in their novels, and do not hesitate to dedicate a whole chapter for giving explanations, justifications and reasons for their content and ideas, since they intend to make the reader understand what they want to promote or reform. However, when it comes to the story, Fielding includes a lot of happenings and incidents from time to time; sometimes multiple incidents within the same chapter. On the other hand, Elliot includes a very few incidents within the entire book of the novel, hence moving the plot very slowly. In Fielding’s style, we see self-reflexivesness, yet an intentional distance created by the writer between the characters of the novel and the readers. Fielding wants the readers to understand the vices he has sugar coated with humor, instead of sympathizing or empathizing with the characters, forgetting the purpose of the novel. He has pointed out some serious vices of a corrupt society in a very light and humorous manner. He has made people laugh on their own follies and made them realize their vices in a friendlier manner. He doesn’t intend to offend or humiliate, rather to correct and reform. In the first chapter of book 3, he states the difference between a satirist and a libeler: “for the former privately corrects the fault for the benefit of the person, like a parent; the later publickly exposes the person himself, as an example to others, like an executioner” (Fielding 180). Fielding considers himself a satirist rather than a libeler. Therefore, he remains light and humorous while pointing out the vices in the human beings. Comparing Elliot with him, we find her more serious in her tone. We do not find humor in her writing, rather she talks of people’s problem in the Victorian age in a serious manner saying “The women, indeed, usually entered the church at once, and the farmers’ wives talked in an undertone to each other, over the tall pews, about their illnesses and the total failure of doctor’s stuff, recommending dandelion tea, and other home-made specifics, as far preferable – about the servants, and their growing exorbitance as to wages, where the quality of their services declined from year to year, and there was no girl nowadays to be trusted any farther that you could see her – about the bad price Mr. Dingall, the Treddleston grocer, was giving for butter, and the reasonable doubts that might be held as to his solvency.” (Elliot 210) Moreover, neither of the writers’ style is didactic, rather they more suggestive and leave the reader to reflect and compare themselves with what depiction of human beings they have given within their novels.

Both the writers have varying inspirations or driving forces for writing these novels. Fielding adopts the tool of mockery while writing this novel. Joseph Andrews is a mockery of Richardson’s Pamela, where in the later we find the emphasis on the female chastity and male chastity in the former one. In one of the concluding chapters of the last book we clearly see this mockery when we find Pamela’s comments about Fanny in these words: “She was my equal, but I am no longer Pamela Andrews; I am now this gentleman’s lady, and, as such, I am above her” (Fielding 296). However, Elliot’s drive was the Industrial Revolution and she got her inspiration in depiction of the lower class from Dutch paintings, as she says in the first chapter of the second book of Adam Bede, “I delight in many Dutch paintings, which lofty –minded people despise. I find a source of delicious sympathy in these faithful pictures of a monotonous, homely existence, which has been the fate of so many more among my fellow-mortals than a life of pomp or of absolute indigence, of tragic suffering or of world-stirring actions” (Elliot 193). Further, justifying her inspiration she says, “I turn, without shrinking, from cloud-borne angels, from prophets, sibyls, and heroic warriors, to an old woman bending over her flower-pot, or eating her solitary dinner” (Elliot 193).

A lot more literature can be produced on the discussion of comparison between Joseph Andrews and Adam Bede. Elliot’s motive is not merely to produce a thick volume of literary genre; rather she intends to teach us and improve us through depiction of various characters in Adam Bede. Likewise, Fielding also intends to reform the society from the vices of hypocrisy and vanity. If one seeks to have such pleasure in these novels that he/she gets from popular fiction, they shall find them monotonous and too descriptive. However, if people with some nerves for classic works dive into these works, they shall find Elliot and Fielding doing justice to this genre and shall enjoy every minute description of it.

__________________________