d by the eighteenth century philosophy of deism which actually depicted God as an outstanding watchmaker who carefully constructed the world and allowed it to keep ticking along its foreordained course. Deity was to be seen as non-interventionist. In Pamela Richardson, whose earliest career was as a printer, presents the tale of virtue retained as chastity is preserved as if he is merely representing what is already visible to the eye. The author here functions as if a printer appearing to reproduce mechanically what is given to him without additionally modifications. He does not question the morals of his age but allows their unexamined prejudicial stances to dictate his choice of subjects and plots. In contrast, Fielding whose first literary influence was Alexander Pope presents a tale which intentionally seeks to chip away at Fielding's ludicrous veneer of propriety as presented in Pamela. Indeed, a comparison between Pope's "The Rape of a Lock" and Fielding's Joseph Andrews would capture their shared desire to shock the public through laughter even as they demanded a re examination of the all-too-often petty base of high morals.
The esteemed modern critic, F. R. Leavis, echoes Johnson's dismissive stance when he asserted "life isn't long enough to permit one's giving much time to Fielding" (Leavis as quoted by Alter 2). Yet contemporary critics such as Mark Spilka, Robert Alter and Neil Rhodes are intent on revitalizing Fielding's reception by suggesting that less emphasis be placed upon his loose serialization of plot and more upon how he uses
...