Pamela Continued

I must confess that I do not understand quite how Pamela turned out the way it did. The turns of emotion just don't make all that much sense. Even if you trace back the actions of the Squire throughout the novel, and can think, "Perhaps he really did love her and was just incredibly confused at feeling this way," why, or how, does Pamela just forget all of the events of the novel as soon as Squire B proposes to make her his wife in an honest fashion? The common strain of 'love' between Haywood's Love in Excess and Pamela suggests an idea of love  as uncontrollable, irrational, and confusing. For Haywood, at least, there were examples where love is depicted as being somewhat constant, but then the main character, in both novels, seems only to be truly in love with the one woman that continues to reject them.
Still, I found "Pamela Censured" a great deal more disturbing. From this vantage point a few hundred years later, I found the criticisms of Richardson's form of advertising to be rather flat, and somewhat nonsensical. It just seems to be common sense to have only good things about your novel printed inside of the actual novel, regardless of whether or not they are real. Who is going to print their own criticism (except in those rare circumstances where it might help sales)? Which is part of the reason that I found the article disturbing, as from where I am standing the criticism is written in just such a way as to amount to a teaser of the actual novel, including several of the more racy bits of prose, all in a show for just how immoral the novel is. The author himself even seems to be secretly delighting in the scene where Squire B molests Pamela, putting his hand inside of her shirt, while condemning the scene as putting impure thoughts into the readers head that they should never have had otherwise, and now young girls will be running around attempting to concoct ways of putting themselves into similar situations. If indeed a scene like this is so damaging to the morals of youth, why then are you reprinting it nearly in full, in a letter to the editor? Were I think of effective forms of censorship or protest of a work, this is nearly the exact opposite of a book burning.
How effective is a censorship that shows what is deemed to be the worst aspects of the novel? The article reads more as a free advertisement to any not so morally outraged that a teenage girl would behave in a fashion as to drive her master to such lengths to possess her. Which in itself is ignored as a no win situation for Pamela. If she relents, she is shameful, if she resists, she is shameful. I find it quite wondrous that the book could be read as a great 'how-to' guide for ensnaring your employer to enable class jumping, and that this might be portrayed as the most reprehensible part of the story. Sure, the author of "Pamela Censured" addresses that the squire should have known better, but with a 'wink and a nod' he couldn't help himself in his desire. The true moral problem with the novel, is not the attempted rapes, the kidnapping, or the plans for sham marriages. What is morally askew is that a serving girl was allowed, and accepted, as a member of the upper class,and if this becomes a common place who will bring the dinner?