Fielding's parody is too well known to be described in detail here. Though his sophisticated wit lashes out in a number of directions, he attacks _Pamela_ on primarily two fronts: in prefatory letters he assails those who would praise Richardson's novel for its moral lessons, while in the body of _Shamela_ he burlesques the psychological motivations of Pamela herself, showing that she is motivated by mercenary "vartue" rather than angelic virtue. In spite of its hasty composition, _Shamela_ clearly displays a kind of literary charm and insight that was soon to characterize _Joseph Andrews_ and _Tom Jones_. Because it lacks Fielding's wit, _Pamela Censured_ is now almost forgotten even though it elicited an even stronger response than _Shamela_ from some of Richardson's defenders and detractors. The "Introduction" to _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ (1741), for instance, airily dismisses _Shamela's_ "low Humour adapted to the Standard of a _petit Maitre's_ Capacity" which has been applauded only "among the Weak and Vicious." By contrast, the same work devotes an entire four pages to answering the various charges levelled by _Pamela Censured_ after first attacking its author for giving readers "such an Idea of his own vicious Inclination, that it would not ... wrong him to think the Shrieks of a Woman in Labour would excite his Passions, and the Agonies of a dying Woman enflame his Blood, and stimulate him to commit a Rape." Aaron Hill, who had apparently ignored the publication of _Shamela_, angrily conveyed to Richardson a rumor that _Pamela Censured_ was a bookseller's contrivance written in order to promote sales among readers with prurient interests. (Richardson, distressed over such a suggestion, emphatically wrote "Quite mistaken!" in the margin of Hill's letter.) But if this stratagem was not employed to boost sales in England, it perhaps was used across the Channel, where _Pamela Censured_, under the title _Pamela, Zedelyk Beoordeeld_, appeared in Holland some months before a complete Dutch translation of Richardson's novel was ever published.[3] To Richardson's contemporaries, _Pamela Censured_ must consequently have seemed a much more serious attack than _Shamela_. The humor of Fielding's parody might be misinterpreted or at least dismissed as "low"; in _Pamela Censured_, the rather personal attack on the author of _Pamela_ and the precise censure of specific passages could not, however, be misconstrued or ignored. Moreover, the critical principle behind _Pamela Censured_ appears quite sound, at least on its most simple level: _Pamela_ is bad because it violates what might be called a literary "truth in labeling" law. Casting himself in the role of "consumer advocate," the author of _Pamela Censured_ systematically attempts to show that _Pamela_ fails to live up to the advertisement on its title page: