[Child of God]: 416.Essays.Johnson vs Fielding

Of fiction, or familiar histories, in the eighteenth century, many critics, including Samuel Johnson, found cause for alarm. Due to the realism contained in such novels, there was great concern of the impacts upon the reader as a result of reading such material, and the responsibility of the author to present only what may be considered the best examples to prevent the ill effects examples were thought to possibly produce if not of the better breed. Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews however, demonstrates what becomes of fiction when such is attempted through his characters, most notably the hero Joseph Andrews and heroine Fanny, and the scenarios which they encounter. Fielding demonstrates that, when the best example is always presented the work becomes unrealistic, and distances the reader in presenting such absurd and unrealistic representations of persons and reality, diminishing and/or losing any virtuous effects which the reader may have otherwise gained. A familiar history is no longer familiar when the reader becomes estranged from the characters, events and resolutions taking place. Because the characters are portrayed with such excellence, and the scenarios and circumstance resolve so perfectly at the end, an unrealistic example of life is presented and any positive example which may be portrayed is dismissed along with the absurdity of the material itself.

Fielding’s heroine, Fanny, presents a similar problem as her hero counterpart, although to a lesser extreme than Joseph Andrews. We find in her physical description not that of perhaps the ancient beauty which is found in Andrews, but a flattering description none the less. A more naturalistic beauty in comparison to Andrews, Fanny offers a more realistic description for her physical character. Not to be so far below Andrews though, Fanny of course was graced with “a Countenance in which . . ., a Sensibility appeared almost incredible; and a Sweetness, whenever she smiled, beyond either Imitation or Description” and “had a natural Gentility, superior to the Acquisition of Art and which surprised all who beheld her.” (133) Through all of the obstacles which befall her, she remains true to her virtue, though along with her innocence, it was being constantly under attack. Continuously referred to as a very “handsome” girl, who has even the ability to cause a Gentleman to send pursuers after her (IV ix) and stop one in the middle of his track (265), it is made clear that her previous description was not near generous enough, should the beauty of her person be this great. It is evident that Fanny is clearly no ordinary servant girl. Fanny, as with Andrews, is a representation of how things should be, but are not. Women should uphold and protect their virtue as Fanny does against all opposition, but they do not. Apart from some physical features which arguably are or are not desirable in beauty, Fanny appears faultless. She has no vices, only virtue, which makes her appear unrealistic to the reader, who is quite aware of the faults of the female species. By Fielding presenting her as such a great example, as called for by Johnson and others, the reader is distanced from the character, making her unfamiliar in a supposedly familiar history and causing him to overlook anything which may produce any desired good effects.


The hero, Joseph Andrews, is described as the most pleasing person, both in appearance and morals. Described as “the highest Degree of middle Stature” with a “Countenance [which] had a Tenderness joined with a Sensibility inexpressible” and “an air, which to those who have not seen many Noblemen, would give an Idea of Nobility.” (33), Joseph is presented as the embodiment of the perfect hero, those of the ancient
heroes. Handsome and virtuous, he stands as an example to all around him, the ideal of young men which is to be strived for, if not in looks, then at least in virtue. Joseph is the one of “the best Men [who] are but little know, and consequently cannot extend the Usefulness of their Examples a great way” (17), one whose character should become the measure of all others. Throughout the novel, Joseph’s virtue is repeatedly discussed in relation to his character, and it is evident that he is most well known for nothing other than his virtue. Like Fanny, this outstanding young man, however, is completely unrealistic to the reader, though with the exception of through imagination. His appearance not so much as his personality and virtue, he embodies what should be of the upper class, but none which in reality exist. Joseph is the persona which many higher people may claim to, but which do not really exist. This is easily recognizable, for he is shown with few faults in his character and unbelievably attributes, representing an eighteenth century knight. He does indeed exhibit the best of human qualities and set the example called for by Johnson and others. However, these qualities are ultimately the source of his unrealism and are cause for any beneficial example to be overlooked as purely unrealistic fantasy. Joseph Andrews is presented as the best of examples for heroes of fiction, but an example which none will seek to repeat nor take seriously due to his unrealism.

Though the exact timeframe of the story is not given outright, the reader can easily guess the events to take place within a very short timeframe. In this time, Joseph is dismissed from the family whom he has served many years with for the sole reason of his Mistresses desire for him (X), robbed on the highway (45), beaten close to death then recovers quickly and completely. He meets up coincidently with not only Parson Adams
but Fanny also, whom he had not seen for a great while and whom he was traveling to, they come across friends to help them with horses and money and are been mistakenly imprisoned at a Justice’s twice, both times of which they are saved. They encounter a gentleman which later kidnaps Fanny who then is miraculously saved once again by a person who is known to her. They just so happen to not only meet the man which later is found to be Joseph’s true father, but discover Fanny and Joseph both are of higher status than previously thought which allowing them to marry without reasonable rebuke. Essentially, they live happily ever after.


All of the above mentioned having taken place, as stated, within a very small timeframe. After having only a basic overview of the more significant events, it is evident how unrealistic it is to suggest that such events, in such extremity, could take place in the allocated time. The story sounds rather more like a fairytale than a familiar history. The circumstances presented, and the resolutions to these circumstances, cause the reader to laugh rather than think, noticing the absurdity of the events. The reader is aware of how unlikely these events are to occur, especially within such a timeframe as presented in Joseph Andrews. It is not the events themselves, however, which make the piece so greatly absurd, but is also due in large part to the characters who are faced with these events. It is highly acceptable for a realistic character to encounter unrealistic scenarios, for such events in the least allow the reader to relate some portion of the character to himself and take some example from it. But when the perfect character encounters the greatest of circumstances which are perfectly resolved, the reader gains no benefit from it, although the best example has been presented, as Johnson calls for. Upon seeing the unrealism of such examples, they, along with any virtuous effects, are discarded as when
a mature reader encounters a child’s fairytale. Though it may make for an amusing story, any moral value is overlooked due to the absurdity of what is presented.
As Henry Fielding attempts to demonstrate in Joseph Andrews, the reader gains nothing from reading about characters which contain only virtue and no vice, since they are unrealistic and no connection is able to be made with the individual reader. The same can be said as to events which occur. Fiction should be presented with the best example possible, but only in a realistic way in which the reader is able to make the necessary connection to the characters and events to reap the positive effects of such an example.


It cannot be said that fiction has no impact on its readers. In saying such though, an impact can only occur if the reader feels some sort of the connection to the story, whether through the characters or the events. However, when only the best of both is presented, as Johnson argues should be, any realism in the story is lost.