like how much of the mock-epic parody, the meta-commentary would've been take as such by the readers? and, for all that deferring to the concept of TRUTH (fielding is a biographer, not an author, he can't transcribe certain conversations between characters cos they didn't directly relate them to him), why are the 'joseph andrews' characters given incredibly fake didactic names like mrs. slipslop and mrs. grave-aires?
the eng lecturer kept talking about certain 17th century conventions of thought and behaviour that seem kind of contrary to what fielding does, like asking you to constantly second-guess everything in age apparently extremely concerned with the validity of facts and history and actuality, privileging fact ovah fiction. prof-sanctioned comparisons w (relatively meta-lite) moll flanders seem to fall through upon closer inspection.
make me see better.
― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 17 November 2002 01:38 (twenty-three years ago)