Wilde views honesty as a crucial, underrated societal value and in turn, shows the hypocrisy of those who display contradicting actions in this play. An exemplary quote is that from Cecily stating, “ “I don’t [believe him.] But that does not affect the wonderful beauty of his answer”. In this scene Algernon defends himself and even though Cecily does not believe him she falls into his trap because of mere presentation. It is obscene for any gender to recognize a lie yet be too overwhelmed by the pleasing appearance of it to dignify oneself in holding the liar responsible for his or her actions. In this case, Cecily is completely consumed by a man whom she has just met to the extent to which she overlooks his thievery of another man's identity.
Why does Lady Bracknell finally allow Gwendolen to marry Jack? What do you think would have happened if she had not allowed the marriage?
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Lady Bracknell finally allows Gwendolen to marry Jack when his birth name is found. The entire story resorts to some level of truth after Ms. Prism finds that Jack is the baby she had misplaced in a handbag at a railway station in London many years ago. After inspecting “Army Lists of the last forty years” regarding Jack’s father, they find that Jack’s inherited name as firstborn son would have been, “Ernest John”. Lady Bracknell finally gives her approval as Jack is no longer a parentless orphan purposely left in a railway station, but Ernest, a man who was misplaced as a child and is well aware of who his parents are. If Lady Bracknell had not allowed marriage between Gwendolen and Jack, I believe that her instructions would have been followed cautiously. As Gwendolen's mother and any mother during the Victorian era, she made decisions for her daughter and only did so to ensure her family name would not be tainted and so she would stay equally well respected and wealthy. In all without her permission, I do not believe that Gwendolen would have married Jack.
Think back to Algernon’s claim that marriage dooms relationships because “the very essence of romance is uncertainty.” Does the play prove or disprove Algernon’s point? Do you think these marriages will succeed after the end of the play?
I see Algernon's claim to hold throughout the play. All characters interested in love endeavors in this story (Jack, Algy, Gwendolen, and Cecily), do so because they are in love with the idea of love, not one another. Because they all are interested in something unknown and uncertain they fall into the arms of one another. While within the play itself we as readers do not get to know how each relationship plays out between the two couples, we can predict that the expectation they have of love will be shattered as their relationships progress. Their relationships are also projected to be uneventful and business-like considering both Algernon's prediction and Lady Bracknell's reality. Lastly in Act 3 when Lady Bracknell begins to talk about “young Lady Lancing” and her marriage Jack responds by saying, “And after six months nobody knew her”. When Jack sheds light on this poor woman whom no one knew after only six months of marriage, we as readers are meant to understand that this is a common phenomenon in all marriages and therefore what is stopping this sad reality from happening to both Cecily and Gwendolen.
The last line of the play is Jack declaring that he has just realized the “vital importance of being earnest.” Is he being ironic? Has anyone in the play learned any sort of moral lesson?
Great Irony is shown here by Wilde as the main character confesses he has learned the “vital importance of being earnest”, but in reality, he has not overcome honesty or had a defining moment in which he has both decided to and followed through with being earnest. Jack particularly has shown that part of him has yearned to get rid of his false identity or impersonate an imaginary brother yet, he continues to keep it to please society. In the first Act Jack confesses his true identity, Jack Worthington, and adds “If Gwendolen accepts me, I am going to kill my brother”. The key part of this remark by Jack is the use of ‘if”. Jack will only be truthful if he ensures that he will rise into the upper ranks of Victorian society. While Jack strikes up luck and finds his true name is Ernest after all, if his birth name was any different the audience is made to believe that he would deny any other name of low-class, unwealthy standing and dishonestly proclaim himself as Ernest, no matter the immortality of doing so.
All of the characters in Earnest are ridiculous in their unique ways, and yet we always laugh with them, never at them. What is the difference between the two, and why does it matter?
I feel like Wilde phrases the play to where the characters are so abstract we as readers see him relating a message through them rather than merely poking fun at them. Each character is merely a representation of various judgments Wilde holds against society, not against specific individuals. When a reader laughs with the audience we find comedic elements represented through each fictional character, and we then find ourselves laughing at how obscene the reality we have been transported to truly was. When Gwendolen questions if her engagement with Jack holds, he responds with “To dear little Cecily! Of course not! What could have put such an idea into your pretty little head?”. This is an extremely important scene in Act 2 considering the characters again fail to take responsibility for their dishonesty which has transpired into a huge miscommunication. While the miscommunication is not Jack’s fault entirely he is partially to blame. That being said when he questions, “Who could have put such an idea” into her head the reader sees the great absurdity of how dishonesty and hunger for success cause great mayhem.
Importance of Being Earnest lampoons the effects and idiosyncrasies of Victorian high society, and yet it was enormously popular, especially among those whom it parodies. How do we account for this? What about the play’s language and characters make it so enjoyable for the Victorians? What makes it so enjoyable for us today?
I believe that this play was enjoyable during the Victorian Era for many different reasons than it is today. To begin, I believe upper-class Victorian people, whom the play parodies could find it exciting to be written about in a novel for pure entertainment. On the other hand, we find the play so absurd that it is impossible not to laugh at how society functioned during this era. Many idiosyncratic characters are viewed as such in today's society as they represent differing morals than we are familiar with and we may even say they are peculiar. While wealthy Victorians viewed this play as entertaining as it featured men and women like themselves, today we find great irony and satire in this play as it mocks the immoral values that Victorians once held proudly. A very prominent sentence is one where Algernon states, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple”. I believe this is a witty mockery of those Victorians, in that they are watching a play they are being indirectly satirized in, but unknowingly. If those people were confronted with truthful, clear criticism, I believe they would deny and get quite upset at this criticism.
George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde’s friend and fellow playwright, did not like Earnest, calling it Wilde’s “first heartless play.” Do you agree with this critique? What does it mean for a work of art to have “heart?” Does a work of art need heart to be good?
I agree with George Bernard and additionally, I believe it supports his goal in writing this book. This play was meant to be heartless as it judges Victorian idiosyncrasies by relaying figmentations of his wit and relaying them is a satirical work of fiction. The “heartless” aspect only elevates Wilde's work and his critique from Bernard only clarifies that he has gotten his point across. While Wilde aimed to shed light on Victorian ideals he disapproved of, many upper-class individuals did not feel that it mocked them but popularized them. That being said a fellow playwright noticing his underlying message is extremely important in giving this witty play recognition. To have heart would refer to a work of art being emotionally packed, particularly with uplifting positive elements. Oftentimes works with heart have a clear moral lesson in which the fictional characters go through major changes and come out a better person because of them. For example in this story, although Jack says, “I’ve now realized for the first time in my life the vital Importance of Being Earnest”, he has not learned from his mistakes. The importance of being earnest to him is having the name of Ernest, rather than the act of being sincere and purposeful in his convictions. A work of art does not need to have a ‘heart’ to be good in the sense that it does not need to be positive and uplifting. This play has many satirized moments which over time we have learned are immoral, but it still at its core is quite disappointing to see the dishonest and greedy reality Victorian Society’s values were based.
Stuck on your essay?
