Victorians! discussion

I apologize for being late in posting this week's discussion--I was delayed by holiday festivities (in addition to Independence Day, it is also my mother's birthday). Anyway, this week we close out our study of Wilde's best-known play.

Act II introduces us to Cecily, Jack's ward, and her governess, Miss Prism. As Brian posted in last week's discussion, the play enables us to get a feel for Cecily and Miss Prism before introducing Algernon, the complicating factor, into the mix. Algernon, masquerading as Jack's fictional younger brother, Ernest, gets what he came for--an introduction to his friend's ward and, in addition, her heart. Their first meeting ends with their engagement. (Talk about insta-love)!

There are, of course, many humorous lines in this section, with Cecily blithely informing Ernest (Algernon) that they have been engaged for the last three months. She tells him, "Worn out by your entire ignorance of my existence, I determined to end the matter one way or another, and after a long struggle with myself I accepted you under this dear old tree here" (36). She has even created a cache of letters from him. Like Gwendolyn, Cecily projects an air of self-assurance. Algernon is nonplussed when he discovers that his name is a non-negotiable part of the deal--Cecily could not seriously consider marrying anyone who didn't possess the name "Ernest."

As Algernon rushes off to schedule a christening, Gwendolyn arrives. After an initially pleasant beginning, the two girls square off as they realize that they are both in love with and engaged to Ernest Worthing. It is only when the two gentlemen show up that the situation becomes clear. After identities are sorted out, the girls realize that actually, neither of them are engaged to Ernest Worthing, and they reunite and bond in their shared outrage. They retire to the house to nurse their grievances. Act II ends with the Jack and Algy bickering over their dilemma and the muffins being served for tea.

Act III begins with Cecily and Gwendolyn watching Jack and Algy through the window and still maintaining their anger. The gentlemen come in and after promising to get christened under the name Ernest, are forgiven by the ladies. Just as they reunite, their joy is marred by the arrival of Lady Bracknell, determined to retrieve her wayward daughter.

The first engagement brought to her attention is Algy's to Cecily. Lady Bracknell frowns upon it until she is informed that Cecily possesses a sizeable fortune, at which time her demeanor undergoes a transformation and she approves of the marriage. Jack, at this point, voices his opposition to the match and informs Lady Bracknell that as long as she refuses consent to his marriage to Gwendolyn, he will not approve Cecily's marriage to Algernon. Things are at a stalemate until Miss Prism's name is mentioned.

Miss Prism enters and the former mystery of Jack's birth is quickly solved. Miss Prism is the person who left him, by mistake, in the bag at the train station. He is actually the long-lost nephew of Lady Bracknell and the older brother of Algernon, and as such, is welcomed by her with open arms. Jack is overwhelmed at finding his true family after all of these years, and the icing on the cake is when he discovers that his true name is Ernest. On this happy note, all of the couples are brought together and all ends in harmony.

I found a passage in a critical essay that addresses Wilde's delightfully sharp pronouncements, some of which we have already pointed out in our posts. The articles states that "the Wildean epigram . . . is immediately identifiable by a slim spareness, an imperious separateness, and a perverse elegance." They go on to say that the "epigram thwarts real dialogue, cutting itself off from a past and a future in its immediate social context and glorying in its aristocratic solitude." One example of this would be the line we have noticed that Wilde used in two of the plays we read: "All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That is his." The article notes that in a statement such as this, "the iron rod of classification is thrust before us--even if it does not fall where expected. In form and in content, the Wildean epigram is a triumph of rhetorical self-containment. No one in English, or probably any other modern language, has produced a series of utterances more mysteriously delimited" (118).

So what are your thoughts on the ending of this play? How does it compare to the other two plays we have read? What events or lines were you particularly struck by?

First thought at the end was, here we have another instance of British first cousins marrying. I recently examined first cousin marriages while rereading The Forsyte Saga and discovered this on Wikipedia:
"As of February 2014, 24 U.S. states prohibit marriages between first cousins, 19 U.S. states allow marriages between first cousins, and 7 U.S. states allow only some marriages between first cousins." (often allowing only when the couple is beyond child-spawning age).

As to the play as a whole, I thought it was faster-paced and wittier than the previous 2 plays but somewhat more absurd or farcical in its character motivations, such as the desire to love someone named Ernest. While I think I preferred the more realistic human motivations portrayed in Lady Windemere's Fan, this one is a pleasant diversion and has its charms too. Both had humor, wit and social commentary, just at different levels.
For me, to reference two of my favorite British novelists, reading Lady Windemere's Fan was like reading Trollope while The Importance of Being Ernest was like reading Wodehouse. Both have their merits and fit a certain mood.

Brian wrote: "First thought at the end was, here we have another instance of British first cousins marrying. I recently examined first cousin marriages while rereading The Forsyte Saga and discovered this on Wik..."

These days we are revolted at the idea of marriage between two individuals so closely related, but I know it was completely acceptable in earlier times. It was certainly an excellent way to guarantee lineage and upbringing, not to mention cementing familial wealth and power. I would imagine availability also played a part. If you are a wealthy member of the aristocracy with a daughter to marry off, you will be anxious to ensure that she marries well--at least into a family that rivals your own for wealth and lineage, if not into one higher. This would, it seems, be a limited pool in which to go fishing!

There is also the practical side. I'm rewatching Downton Abbey right now and enjoying all the drama involved in trying to maneuver Mary into marrying the heir, Matthew. He's not her cousin (only very distantly) but she was previously unofficially engaged to her father's first cousin's son for the same reason they are now trying to marry her to Matthew--practicality. Without this marriage, the Earl's wife and daughters will be (for them) practically penniless and evicted from their home upon his death. That was the same reason Mrs. Bennett was so anxious to have Elizabeth accept Mr. Collin's proposal in Pride and Prejudice (aside from her obsession in just having her daughters married--to ANYONE). Having one of her daughters as Mrs. Collins would guarantee them a home after the death of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Collins could hardly throw out his own mama- and sisters-in-law! A lot has changed now that women are no longer dependent on marriage as a means of survival!

If we are comparing the three plays, my own view is that they all shine a disparaging light on the hypocrisies of the British upper classes and sometimes using comedy as a vehicle for this can be very effective. The people in power, expected to be looked up to and revered, are being ridiculed because of their selfish motives and perverse behaviour. It intrigues me to know that Oscar Wilde mixed widely with the aristocratic set and was heavily patronised by them and yet he still felt able to attack them, albeit through comedy.
The ‘Earnest’ play is probably the most skilfully crafted in terms of its plot and the wit flows freely. Its subject matter, whilst still an attack on the gentry, is less dark and probably more frivolous than the previous two. A baby was lost then ‘found’ rather than a woman and child abandoned etc.
Overall I enjoyed reading the plays but I might feel a little uncomfortable when watching the first two in the future, knowing how the tyranny of the aristocracy had such a detrimental impact on so many innocent people.

There were many lines worth repeating that made me laugh and I have picked out two of my favourite excerpts.

Cecily Do you suggest, Miss Fairfax, that I entrapped Ernest into an engagement? How dare you? This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade.
Gwendolen [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.

……….

Lady Bracknell Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can’t get into it do that. [To Cecily.] Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend upon. But I do not approve of mercenary marriages. When I married Lord Bracknell I had no fortune of any kind. But I never dreamed for a moment of allowing that to stand in my way. Well, I suppose I must give my consent.

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in the discussion of Wilde's plays and hope you enjoyed it! Please continue to add your observations and questions--the discussion never ends! :)

I finished the place earlier today. I know I read it before and even saw a production, but it's been a long time and I really didn't remember it. I found it dramatically different from the other two plays, both in tone and pacing. Cutting an act certainly sped up the story--I wonder how the other plays would have fared with a similar treatment. I thought that A Woman of No Importance, in particular, got bogged down in the drawing-room scenes early on, even though I rather liked it as a whole.

The difference in tone is especially striking since the characters here just come out and say the subtext aloud. That's why it's more farcical and more obviously comedic than the other two. The lack of subtlety isn't a fault, though. I think it's quite hard to keep up the pace and style that Wilde does here, while also having the witty social commentary along the way. It's no surprise that it's his most popular play.

Now, I think I might round out the summer with An Ideal Husband...

Cindy wrote: "I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in the discussion of Wilde's plays and hope you enjoyed it! Please continue to add your observations and questions--the discussion never ends! :)"

I forgot how completely brilliant this play is. I’m so glad to have reread it for this discussion. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute!

Also, I love how Wilde manages in the end to not only give Jack parentage, but also to make him Algernon’s brother!

I’m also struck by how many performances (esp. movies) get Lady Bracknell wrong. She’s hilarious!

I'm sure I've read or at least seen the play in the past. But I didn't remember any of it. So it was like reading something new.

Renee wrote: "Also, I love how Wilde manages in the end to not only give Jack parentage, but also to make him Algernon’s brother!

I’m also struck by how many performances (esp. movies) get Lady Bracknell wrong..."

How often do movies actually get books RIGHT? That's the REAL question!! *eye roll* :)

ConnieD wrote: "I'm sure I've read or at least seen the play in the past. But I didn't remember any of it. So it was like reading something new."

I have a terrible memory, so that is something I experience often! :) I guess one of the few (or only!) perks of being forgetful.