![]() The novel embodies what it imparts that is, its disjointed form reflects its understanding of persons as changeable and self-contradictory. The State in which a victim is located is responsible for. Readers are thus compelled to experience continual, sometimes abrupt change in a manner that parallels the characters' own tumult. by linking it to an obligation to cooperate that victims may not be willing or able to meet. The novel enacts dynamic flux at two levels-form (the narrative's recurrent genre-shifting between mock epic, so-called "social protest" novel, romance, novel of sensibility, and more) and content (the ever-changing status of consent). Fielding's complex novel encourages skepticism towards treating even verified instances of consent as reliable indicators of the entirety and future direction of an individual's desires and intentions. ![]() By contrast, the essay shows that character face and foment risk in both the public and the private spheres, and that the sexual and non-sexual scenes mutually reinforce each other, reiterating the instability and enigmatic nature of volition. Some scholars characterize the novel's domestic sphere as a sanctuary from the danger that proliferates in the public realm others analyze the novel's sexual episodes separately from non-sexual instances of consent. ![]() The essay both builds upon and questions previous interpretations of Amelia. Sexual encounters retroactively disavowed as non-consensual abound in Amelia. Amelia reveals the degree to which notions of single-minded "formal Persons" are both legal fictions and narratological distortions upon which law and novels in general frequently depend. This essay demonstrates that Henry Fielding's final novel, Amelia (1751), challenges a prevailing model of consent, a model based on presupposing harmony of will.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |