It's a kind of litmus test. Epistolary narrative therefore makes it very hard to present a psychologically convincing character as a firm role model which exemplifies this or that attitude towards life. I'd like to remark here at the start of this year together that the label role model is one I have learned to dislike, not only because it is too simple, but because of the way in which it is used. In my experience, particularly in classrooms, I have seen it so easily twisted into a kind of literal this for that kind of equation. The manipulation is base.
People seek to validate present experience by citing role models.
This seems to me to distort the writer's original intentions, which I am chary of. I do not believe we should judge books by whether we think they condone immoral or moral behavior which really is a matter of deciding whether a book is great in accordance whether it presents behavior we like or can identify with, a vision that is congenial to us. On the other hand, Richardson consistently undermines any basis for confidence in the characters' objectivity and honesty. For example, Anna at first seems to be outside of both of the circles of conflict which surround Clarissa-those consisting of the Harlowes and of Lovelace's family and friends. So, her dislike of the family is not untainted.