The Shadow of a Doubt (Wharton play) - buddy read

[Pink]

Here's the discussion thread for the newly discovered play by Edith Wharton, The Shadow of a Doubt: A Play in Three Acts.

[Dan]

A previously unknown play by Edith Wharton has been discovered in an archive in Texas, Here is a NY Times article about the find: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/th...
And a more detailed Guardian article about the discovery: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

Edith Wharton's The Shadow of a Doubt (1901) predates her earliest published novel, The House of Mirth (1905), and is available for free in a PDF here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/e...

This is going to be a very different experience on how to read a classic. Our reading, ratings, reviews, and discussion will be the first ever made (at least here at GoodReads) of this work. That defies the very definition of classic, which is in part a much-read and well-loved story of many previous readings.

One question I think we might want to try to answer, which will hopefully help us visualize the play as we read it, is would this be a good play to try to stage in our time today? It's never been staged before! Would you go see it?

Here's the GoodReads link to the book for rating and review purposes: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

Thanks, Pink. Let the reading begin!

[Dan]

I really enjoyed reading this play. It's not difficult to read in any respect, but I think it best to read it in two sittings of about sixty to ninety minutes each. The first sitting should be for just Act I. The second two acts are shorter and can be read together in under ninety minutes as well.

Here is my review of the play: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I don't think this play would be successful if performed for a live audience, neither today, nor if it had been performed in 1901. I think Ms. Wharton would have been given the feedback early on that her ending didn't quite work. She would not have to change it drastically. Plays can be tragedies and thus have sad endings. But today's tragedies tend to have some element of bittersweet ambiguity about them rather than just be straight-up sad. This play is straight tragedy.

The main change needed to the ending is that consequences would have to be spelled out better. She would have to add a page or two to let us know for certain (view spoiler)[that the Derwents' relationship ended and could not and was not repaired (hide spoiler)]. Wharton also makes heavier use of asides than we tend to these days. Those two considerations aside, the theme of the play is as topical today as it was in 1901. Ethical questions surrounding the issue of euthanasia will never be obsolete.

[Michele]

Ooh, what fun! I heard about this, but didn't know it was available as a PDF. Off to read!!

[Sara, Old School Classics]

I am so delighted that I came across this thread! I love Wharton and rushed off to download this immediately. I will read it sometime during the next week. Many thanks!

[Jaci]

I have finished Act I and am quite intrigued. I have read quite a bit of Wharton’s fiction, but this piece definitely has a different ring to it. Partly, I’m sure, from the format as a play rather than a novel or short story, but also because this is an early work. Bits of the characterization and descriptions seem more novice and a tad overdeveloped compared to her novels. But that said, I think the story itself is quite interesting.

The plot takes off rather quickly and she does a great job using the dialogue to place the reader in the context of the story. Lord Osterleigh is relatable, though it remains to be seen if he becomes likeable. With his daughter’s passing, he certainly has strong opinions regarding his son-in-law Derwent’s second marriage and the impact of that on the family and on Derwent’s career. As he works these thoughts through in a conversation with an old friend, Lady Uske, we see him struggling to be true and to communicate his sentiments in a social structure that was quite confining for the time period. Uske’s comment that they would not be able to talk so plainly with one another if they had been married, rather than just old friends, is a sad truth and speaks to the way society was structured.

The minute Dr. Carruthers enters the room, you know something is up. I loved how he is described in the notes as “dressed with an attempt at smartness, but looking ill, poor and insolent”. And the moment that he makes the effort to explain that he is “not a stage villain trying to frighten the heroine in order to give the hero a chance to rescue her”, you know more than something small is about to happen. (Hello, foreshadowing.)

I also tend to keep an eye out for the title lines in books, and this one came a bit early (though it does become quickly clear as to why). Derwent comments: “It can’t be pleasant for the most adoring husband to feel that there’s even the shadow of a doubt about his wife”. And without including spoilers, you can be sure that a shadow is about to be cast upon them and the play itself.

Looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks so far of this one. Onward to Act II!

[Dan]

Wow! You're reading this play even closer than I did. You make some really insightful observations. I must admit to not giving the title much thought, but your observations about it are right on. I now see clearly why Wharton chose that title.

Your observation about Osterleigh and Uske sharing the feeling that they couldn't have had as open and frank a conversation as they were having if they were more than the friends they had become confused me when I read it and continues to now. Did married people truly not confide in one another during that time as they do now? If so, why not? It's hard for me to believe that married people could not be friends as well as household partners or to see what would prevent that.

While Wharton made a few minor craft errors in her writing of this play--the having characters state lines so that the audience gets the information, for example, especially in the first act--what amazes me about the play are that even though it precedes almost her entire body of work for which she becomes known, her deep characterization and insights into motivation are both so readily apparent even here.

The Derwents and their problem, including the difficulty they have of finding an adequate solution to it given what their characters are, is still vividly in my mind even now weeks after I read the play. What makes this play so Whartonian to my mind is the inevitability of the tragedy that arises between the unfortunate interplay of character and situation. That frustrating inevitability is here in Wharton's first work as much as her last. It's a feature she shares with the way Thomas Hardy wrote his novels.

[Jaci]

Dan wrote: Did married people truly not confide in one another during that time as they do now? If so, why not? It's hard for me to believe that married people could not be friends as well as household partners or to see what would prevent that.

It's odd for me to look at it that way too. But my understanding is that husbands and wives had a little bit of a different dynamic during the times, with a wife having her place in the home and her level of comfort or ability to speak up or speak her mind to/with her husband. I'm sure there were some married folks who were on terms where they could confide in or be frank with each other. Lady Uske's comments don't necessitate that married people can't be honest, but in many cases they held back or had a different dynamic that could prevent them from communicating effectively or speaking freely. (She does end up calling Osterleigh a hypocrite, among other things, to his face. A husband may have had less tolerance for that.)

Agreed regarding the points on characterization. I think, so far, it is a bit over the top. But knowing how her other great works turned out, she seems to have taken this route and refined it. There's a way to paint the picture with detail that just fits vs feeling overdone, and I think this was a really good proving ground for that.

Love the Thomas Hardy reference - definitely on point (Jude the Obscure, anyone?). I am going to work on reading the second act this week. Appreciate the dialogue!

[Michele]

Only a little way in but am enjoying it so far. I admit that it took me a few pages to figure out for certain if Derwent was Lord Osterleigh's son or son-in-law (or, to put it another way, if the girl's dead mother had been his daughter-in-law or his daughter). It could have been either way -- he dislikes the son-in-law's new wife because she's replacing his daughter, OR he really doesn't like his son's second wife and therefore really misses the first one.

[Terris]

I just started and am enjoying it so far. I'm just getting to know the characters, and now need to figure out where the story is going :)

[Terris]

I'm finished! I enjoyed it, it was pretty quick & easy to read. However, I have a question about the ending but don't want to "spoil" anyone's read. So I'll wait till more people have finished to ask :)