Wild the picaro

After finishing Jonathan Wild, I have only a few disjointed reflections.

First, I see evidence of the picaresque sub-genre in the way Wild is portrayed, as he lives on his wits, is adept at trickery, doesn't evolve as a character, and narrowly escapes dangerous situations; all told in often humorous detail. All of these things are hallmarks of the style.

As we discussed in class, Fielding is exploring the ways the novel can manipulate the reader. The picaresque novel allows an audience concerned with vice to overlook it in the hero. Fielding plays with this genre to romanticize the deeds of Wild.

Per our discussion yesterday, vice and virtue are all relative to the culture, to the family, to the individual. However, I do believe there are some core human aversions which exist, murder being the chief among them. No civilization in the world has ever deemed senseless murder acceptable; the same with rape and with few exceptions, pedophilia.

Fielding makes us laugh at rape and murder as the context in which they are presented is humorous. Knowing this, Jonathan Wild is like a picaresque novel on steroids; instead of simply overlooking petty theft and other subversions in the hero, we overlook more extreme things in Wild.

This book was a brilliant commentary on reader manipulation and the ways which sheer presentation can sway opinion. After all, why do we like Tyrion Lannister but not Prince Joffery when both are given to vice? Why do we like Walter White but not Gustavo Fring, when both are equally sinister and ambitious?