Reading the Classics discussion
This topic is about
The Importance of Being Earnest
Past Group Reads
>
The Importance of Being Earnest
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jenn, moderator
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mar 08, 2015 02:33PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
When I was a teacher I always found comedy & especially this comedy very hard to get the class to discuss because you either get the joke or you don't so what's to talk about? Eager to find out what our group will share.
I've always loved this play. I find Wilde's humour so entertaining and this play was actually 'laugh out loud' funny to me.
Are we dividing this up over the space of a month as we've done in the past, or do we discuss the entire play now?
@Bill: "When I was a teacher I always found comedy & especially this comedy very hard to get the class to discuss because you either get the joke or you don't so what's to talk about? "@Nicqui "I've always loved this play. I find Wilde's humour so entertaining and this play was actually 'laugh out loud' funny to me. "
Agree with both. It's indeed laugh out loud funny, but I've never found very much meat to it. It's sort of like a slightly more sophisticated and nonviolent version of The Three Stooges.
I see that 54 people voted for it, so there should be a lot of discussion action here, one would think (and hope).
Everyman, I hope so the discussion will be full. I like that the play is light and breezy. I think it's a good introduction for people new to the classics because it's easy to read and understand. I've found some (most) classics, because of the time they're written, are difficult to read and the content hard to relate to. That's just my observation.
I love this play. Although I'm not reading it at the moment, I have great memories of a school production we had. A very dear friend had the lead role and did an amazing job. She went on to become a professional actress. Wilde just has that comic je ne sais quoi.
Nicqui wrote: it's a good introduction for people new to the classics because it's easy to read and understand. "Well, I'm not sure I would put it in the category of serious classics, but you're right that it's an easy and fun read.
BTW, since it's a play and was intended to be viewed more than read, it's worth noting that there are several versions on Youtube.
I'll have tto check out the versions on youtube. I've never seen it as an actual play before but I love the Colin Firth movie adaptation.
"The truth is rarely plain and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility!"Considering that he was writing this in 1895, I believe, his definition of "modern literature" would be quite different from ours. This was the age of James, Kipling, Hardy. Hardly modernists. There was a bit of more modern drama -- Shaw, though he wasn't produced in England until until after 1900; Joyce was only 3 when Earnest was written; T.S. Eliot was only 7. So what was the "modern literature" Wilde was referring to?
And what did he mean that it would be impossible if truth were either plain or simple? On one level, it sounds like a throw-away remark with no meaning. But on another level, was he saying something he thought was meaningful?
Oh what a brain teaser, Everyman. I suppose that 'modern literature' from the lips of the author can only be subjective. As to truth being of necessity neither plain nor simple, I think that he has a point, although I realise that there are various truths: mathematical, scientific, philosophical, theological etc. For decades, nay even centuries in certain cases, mathematics, science, philosophy, theology et al. stood as fact, depending on the social circles that one inhabited. Nowadays, even science is posing challenges. There are, for example, many phenomena that science has seen as done and dusted until relatively recent times, when physicists, for example, have had to hold up their hands and say "we simply don't know".
In Wilde's case, his flamboyant lifestyle, at least before his incarceration, might not have sat easily with plain and simple truth. Perhaps, if he had seen truth as such, it would, in his mind, have been death to creativity and complex layers of understanding and expression. His lifestyle posed a threat to the Christian values of the era, yet he wrote some of the most moving poetry and fairy stories which undeniably referred positively to the Christ figure.
If he was wrong in his understanding of the relationship between truth, as he sees it, and literature, I, for one, am happy that he was.
Hilary wrote: "Oh what a brain teaser, Everyman. I suppose that 'modern literature' from the lips of the author can only be subjective. ..."True. After all, to Wilkie Collins, Dickens was modern literature.
Yes indeed. Now, that's a strange thought.
Where are those 54 people who voted for this book?
Everyman wrote: "Where are those 54 people who voted for this book?"I'm here, but I haven't said anything because I agree with your statement at #5 above that there was no meat to it.
I also have wondered why no discussion developed. I read this play years ago, have seen a number of productions of it, and have never thought it more than a mild entertainment.
Unfortunately few things are as boring as talking about why something is funny.
It's my belief that the natural response to humor is to discount it, and to assume humorous books are lightweight. IMHO, "The Important of Being Earnest" has a lot of heavy things to say about marriage, about hypocrisy, about "little white lies" -- I disagree with Wilde on just about every point he makes, but I do see him as making some statements about serious subjects.Everyman wrote:
"And what did he mean that it would be impossible if truth were either plain or simple?"
I think he meant that there would be nothing to write about if truth were plain or simple -- literature is about conflict, and if truth were plain and simple enough that everyone could clearly see it, then there is no conflict and thus no great literature.
I believe he's wrong, for the record -- I think the truth often IS plain and simple, but it is also COSTLY, meaning there will be some willing to see the truth and act on it despite the cost, and others who do not want to pay the cost and so do their level best not to see the truth.
In other words, truth is plain and simple, but human beings are complex and struggle to see reality from any perspective but their own; being able to truly see from your opponent's perspective will generally reveal what is right and true, but few of us can do it. Literature, to my mind, at its very best takes us out of our perspective and into someone else's; like Travel, it "broadens our minds".
Sheryl wrote: "It's my belief that the natural response to humor is to discount it, and to assume humorous books are lightweight. IMHO, "The Important of Being Earnest" has a lot of heavy things to say about mar..."Tho' analysing how jokes work is a pretty boring enterprise, seeing how Wilde makes his jokes might be worthwhile. Many simply consist of taking a familiar aphorism & turning it on its head, so a Wilde character might take yours & say "Travel so narrows the mind" etc. "To lose one parent might be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness" is more complex - we have wordplay on 'lose' - you don't lose a parent like you lose a piece of luggage (where, remember, Jack was found) but also referring to your parents deaths as losing them ought to occur in serious contexts, so here it's delightfully incongruous as we veer off into sheer dottiness.
Bill, 'To lose one parent...' is one of my all-time favourite quotations.
Hilary wrote: "Bill, 'To lose one parent...' is one of my all-time favourite quotations."Mine too!
I always wondered why all of the women in this story are so ridiculous, but I guess that's part of the silliness. The whole thing is silly, but delightful and funny, and seeing it performed is a delight :)
