The Plays of Oscar Wilde - Essay Example

? The Comedies of Oscar Wilde: Parallels in Victorian Society and Contrasts in Contemporary American Society Introduction The plays of Oscar Wilde, in particular his comedies, including The Importance of Being Earnest, Lady Windermere's Fan, and An Ideal Husband are funny, engaging and satirical. They show the upper crust of society to be a bunch of lazy, silly, hypocritical fools. However, while they make audiences laugh, they also have serious, underlying messages. These messages mean something in the context of Victorian society. They mean something else in contemporary American society. The main male characters reflected society as viewing the rich as being effeminate dilettantes. In today's society, the rich are not viewed in this same way. There was also some indication that the plays contained subversive homosexual codes, in that the main male characters were really gay, and Wilde couldn't show this because polite Victorian society would not have condoned it. It would be different in contemporary American society, as contemporary American society is much more accepting of homosexuality in general, therefore, if a playwright wants his character to be gay, he would just be gay. And there is also a portrayal of the hypocrisy of Victorian society – how the accepted mores of how things should be was in direct contradiction to how people actually behaved. This is similar to American society, where there is also hypocrisy. Thus, the plays of Oscar Wilde reflected Victorian society, and these same plays would mean something different to American society, because American society today is completely different from Victorian society during Wilde's time. Homosexuality Sinfield states that one of the hallmarks of Wilde's comedies is the effeminate man, and that, since Wilde was a known homosexual, this was his way of disguising the content – the content being homosexuality. He couldn't just write about gay men – he had to write about them in a subversive way. As proof that this is what Wilde had in mind, Sinfield states that Bunburying was a term that would denote homosexual activity. Algernon, of course, uses the term Bunburyist to denote using an imaginary brother to get away from his current situation – Algernon invented Bunbury in order to go to the country whenever he wished (Wilde, 668). Algernon's Bunbury, like Jack's Ernest, was allegedly an invalid brother in bad health, who was in constant need of care. Sinfield states that Bunbury not only denotes that Algernon, and Jack for that matter, lived a double life, much like a homosexual, but also denotes homosexuality just by its name – Bunbury. Bunbury could have been British slang for a male prostitute, according to Sinfield (1), and others state that Bunbury could have also been used as slang for a homosexual pickup (2). Furthermore, Algy and Jack in The Importance of Being Earnest demonstrate their feminine qualities, according to Sinfield, by the fact that they are idle, do not care about moral conventions, exploit their romantic devotions to their women and make suggestions regarding future profligacy – such as when Algernon complains about how difficult it is doing nothing (Wilde, 683). Sinfield also states that the play Lady Windermere's Fan contained homosexual subversive messages. Sinfield states that Cecil Graham is a “dandy” in that play (3). This is shown through the language of Graham in the play – he refers to Mrs. Erlynne as being “handsome,” (Wilde, p. 487), and that he, Graham, was “one of her admirers” (487). Further, Sinfield states that when Graham was asked how long he could love a woman who didn't love him back, when his reply was “all my life,” this meant that Graham might “have a preference for relations that never get anywhere” (3). Sinfield further states that there are other effeminate characters in this play. Lord Augustus is one of them – Sinfield states that Lord Augustus is effeminate because he is flabby, other men make fun of him, he falls to easily for feminine charms, has been married and divorced several times, and is infatuated with Mrs Erlynne – even though Mrs. Erlynne has demonstrated to Augustus and all the men that she is not available (4). An Ideal Husband, too, according to Sinfield, displayed homosexual codes. Lord Goring has a “passionate attachment” to Sir Robert Chiltern, according to Sinfield(7). Sinfield also states that, while Goring flirts with Mabel Chiltern, Mabel is usually the initiator of the flirting, not Goring (7). There is also an exchange between Lord Caversham and his son, Lord Goring, in which Caversham berates his son for not being married, and, in the process, implies that he might be gay - “Damme, sir, it is your duty to get married. You can't always be living for pleasure. Every man of position is married nowadays. Bachelors are not fashionable any more. They are a damaged lot. Too much is known about them” (Wilde, 617). To Sinfield, this implies that Gore was gay – when “too much is known about them,” the knowing involves the man's homosexuality. “Damaged lot” is another inference that Goring, like other aging bachelors of the Victorian era, is gay. Moreover, Mabel Chiltern further impugns Goring's sexuality, according to Sinfield, when she notes that Goring does not lead an idle life, because he “goes to the Opera three times a week, changes his clothes at least five times a day, and dines out ever night of the season” (Wilde, 611). If one can read, through subtext, that the comedies of Oscar Wilde are ways of portraying homosexuality without openly discussing homosexuality, then this would reflect Victorian society as a whole. On the other hand, it would not reflect contemporary American society as much. As Cocks states, during the Victorian age in England, homosexuality was repressed. Yet, there was also a certain fascination with homosexual desire, and some men were both attracted and repelled by it, according to Cocks (192). This was shown in the fact that Wilde was convicted in 1895 of gross indecency, merely because he was found to be a homosexual (Ertman, 154). “His conviction for gross indecency pathologized his same-sex sexuality, yet the brutality of the actions taken against him made him the darling of the later gay rights movement” (156). Ertman further states that in the late 20th Century in England, there was an evolution of treating homosexual behavior as being sinful to just being a sign of sickness. For instance, one commentator referred to homosexuality, according to Ertman, as “felonious, wicked, diabolical and against the order of nature” (162). A few decades later, homosexuality was seen as merely sick. Ertman cited the case of Darrel Boyle, who was confined to a psychopathic hospital for being a homosexual, as evidence of this (163). Further, as Ertman notes, Wilde, although he was a homosexual, and his love affair with Lord Douglas, the son of the powerful Queensberry, who initiated the prosecution against Wilde for homosexuality, proved this, still attempted to live a heterosexual life. As Ertman notes, Wilde “married Constance Lloyd and had two children” (157). This would imply a further shame in being homosexual during the Victorian Era – Wilde felt that he had to marry to keep up appearances. This, in turn, could be the reason why his male characters pursued women in all of his plays, if these male characters are, indeed, homosexual – they, like Wilde, would have had to keep up appearances, and the only way to do this would be to maintain a feigned interest in women. Yet Wilde eventually could not hide his homosexuality any longer, as evidenced by his open affair with Lord Douglas, which prompted the Marquis of Queensberry to leave an abrasive card at the Albermarle Club that accused Wilde of “posing as a sodomite” (Dalton, 77). Therefore, if it is true that Wilde was creating code gay characters in his play, then this would have reflected the Victorian times. As this was a time when one could literally end up in prison just for being gay, and homosexuality was repressed, yet held a certain fascination, then this is why Wilde would have created his plays in this manner. It also contrasts Wilde's time with the modern day America. In modern day America, having openly gay characters in a play would not have the same impact. This can be seen in the increasing acceptance of gay marriage. Although the United States has not yet adopted same sex marriage as the law of the land, it is increasingly moving in that direction, partially because of generational shifts. As Shapiro notes, “as some point the people in power will be people who see the world differently with regard to gay men and lesbians than their predecessors did. Gavin Newsom's ability to do what he did [issuing same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco] came as a result of a 35 year gay liberation movement. I say this not to diminish his valiant resistance, but as a reminder that these situations come about only because people affected have organized and vocally demanded their rights” (479). And the United States has been slow on this, according to Shapiro. Shapiro notes that most of Europe has had same sex partnerships of some sort, long before the United States has moved to recognize this, and that some states still will not recognize any kind of same sex partnerships. Moreover, the revered King of Cambodia came out in favor of same sex marriage (478). In other words, the world, in general, is moving and progressing on the issue of gay rights. The United States is, as well, albeit much more slowly than most of the world – it is 2012, and there still is not a law regarding marriage equality in the United States. Yet, even the fact that there is a healthy debate about same sex marriage shows how far society, in general, has come since the Victorian age. While not everybody accepts homosexual behavior, there is not a possibility that one can be imprisoned because of it – Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003) guarantees this. This shows how different our society is in comparison to the society of Oscar Wilde. Nowadays, if a gay playwright wanted to make a comedy about gay characters, he can simply make them gay. He would not have to put in codes that hint to those in the know that the characters are gay, yet ensuring that the homosexuality of the characters goes unnoticed by the audience at large. The Noble Classes and Effeminacy Even if Wilde's plays were not read as being subversively gay, they still portray the noble classed men as being effeminate, and this is a way that the play reflected by Victorian sensibility, yet would not reflect American society today. Sinfield states that during the Victorian era, effeminacy was the hallmark of the noble class. They were “decorative, ethereal, and they dressed in a way that, if members of the lower class attempted the same mode of dress, the lower class members of society would be accused of engaging in same-sex practices” (5). Because of this, the noble classes were expected to be effeminate, and their effeminacy was not necessarily the vestige of a homosexual lifestyle. Yet a lower class person who tries to adopt the same characteristics as the noble man would be considered perpetuating a homosexual lifestyle. What this would imply is that, during Wilde's time, masculinity was seen as a vestige of the lower class, therefore it was seen as being somewhat less than desirable. The desirable class, the wealthy, were effeminate. They were “dandies” and dilettantes who spent their carefree days not taking care of their women, as a masculine man might do, but, rather, lounging around and living the life of a playboy. They went to the opera, changed their clothes five times a day, and so forth (Wilde, 611). If the above characteristics means that a man is effeminate – that he is a playboy, that he doesn't do much with his life, etc. - and this is what was accepted of the upper class in Victorian society, then contemporary American society is much different. In American society, arguably, the noble class is not represented by the dilettante playboys, but by the CEOs. They are the ones who are the movers and the shakers in the America, as America does not have Lords and Ladies. And, in examining a CNN Money article about what makes the best CEOs, it is clear that being lazy and fey are not listed as a trait that would make a good CEO. This article states that CEOs are successful recruiters – the find the most talented folks, and are ruthless about making sure that those who do not pull their weight do not remain; they are hyper-focused upon the key drivers of success; they are committed to learning – CEOs must be “competent, even great, in multiple aspects and dimensions of...business” (1); they are self-reliant; and they have customer empathy (1). Therefore, Americans look upon their rich much differently than did Victorian society. Societal Paradoxes and Hypocrisy Another way that Oscar Wilde's comedies reflect, or, rather, subvert Victorian society is in its use of paradoxes. Wilde's plays, according to Foster, were farces that ridiculed and exposed “the vanities, the hypocrisies, and the idleness of the upper classes” (19). This is especially prominent in The Importance of Being Earnest. Reinert refers to this as “ironic inversion” (14). What this means, in this context, is that the norms that Victorian society purported to have were not the reality, even then – the trials and tribulations of Jack and Gwendolen, Algernon and Cecily assumes “a code of behavior that represents the reality that Victorian convention pretends to ignore” (Reinert, 15). The reality of society was much more coarse than the reality that was on the surface of society. And Wilde's plays capitalized upon this. For instance, consider Algernon's protestations upon going to Lady Bracknell's dinner parties – he didn't want to go because “she will place me next to Mary Farquhar, who always flirts with her own husband across the dinner table. That is not very pleasant. Indeed, it is not even decent” (Wilde, 674). Reinert goes on to note that Jack and Lady Bracknell, on the surface, do not necessarily participate in the inversion of social mores, that reflected actual mores, except that Jack does, when examined further. Jack is not conventional because he was a “confirmed Bunburyist long before Algernon explains the term to him, and Bunburyism is most simply defined as a means of escape from convention” (16). Therefore, even Jack participates in the hypocrisy, and serves as a way to expose true Victorian society for what it was – hypocritical. Reinert goes on to note that the entire play is meant as farce, but that the absurdities of what these characters are saying are essentially lost on the characters themselves – the audience must believe that these characters believe in what they are saying. This is what makes it funny. The characters are also extremely cynical about love and relationships – this reflected the times, according to Reinert, as loveless marriages were the unfortunate norm. Yet, this is something that polite society did not acknowledge (15). As an example of this, that loveless marriages were the norm in society, Algernon talks about how the magic is gone after proposing - “I really don't see anything romantic in proposing. It is very romantic to be in love. But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over” (Wilde, 702). Reinert also states that the girls participate in this inversion of society. For instance, Cecily lectures Algernon on the possibility that he is really good, while pretending to be bad, admonishing that if he is not wicked then “you have certainly been deceiving us all in a very inexcusable manner. I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy” (16). This is certainly humorous, and it is a way for Cecily to bemoan the norms of society – that society demands that people act a certain way, a way that is supposed to be “good.” Yet, that apparently is tiresome for the young girl, because she wants people to be bad. It would be therefore frustrating for her if somebody is acting wicked, yet is good all along. That is presumably the opposite of what society would demand – that if you are bad, you are not to show it, therefore you must act good. That is the typical example of hypocrisy. Cecily has a different view of hypocrisy, and this is what the play derives its humor from. In Victorian society, there were clear ways of acting that were in direction contravention of the ways that people in society were supposed to act. This may also be seen in Lady Windermere's fan – the hypocrisy there was pretending that illegitimate children are not being born, for a woman who bears a child out of wedlock would surely be disgraced. That shaming of the woman who bears illegitimate children is what leads to the ultimate tragedy of the play that is otherwise decidedly comic - Mrs. Erlynne must give up her daughter, even after she sacrifices herself for her daughter, because the circumstances of the daughter's birth, should it be known by “polite” society would mean that Lady Windermere, Mrs. Erlynne's daughter, would be shunned by her own peers. Lady Windermere herself is the character who vocalizes and calls out the hypocrisy of the people of that age. She laments that “so many conceited people go about society pretending to be good, that I think it shows rather a sweet and modest disposition to pretend to be bad....If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If you pretend to be bad, it doesn't. Such is the astounding stupidity of optimism” (Wilde, 664). She goes on to say that she “should be sorry to be on the same level as an age like this” (665). Lord Darlington makes similar sentiments when he says that “good people do a great deal of harm in this world. Certainly the greatest harm they do is that they make badness of such extraordinary importance.” (665). Yet, Lady Windermere sees through the hypocrisy of society, a society that deliberately shuts its eyes to that which is not socially acceptable, pretending that people like Mrs. Erlynne, bearing a child out of wedlock, do not exist, stating that she knows that there is good and evil in everybody and in the world - “there is the same world for all of us, and good and evil, sin and innocence, go through it hand in hand. To shut one's eyes to half of life that one may live securely is as though one blinded oneself that one might walk with more safety in the land of pit and precipice” (Wilde, 711). Earlier, Lady Windermere frets that “how securely one thinks one live – out of reach of temptationl, sin, folly. Then suddenly – Oh! Life is terrible. It rules us, we do not rule it” (704). Furthermore, hypocrisy is exposed when Cecil talks about the devotion of a married woman, which is “a thing no married man knows anything about” (87). The implication of this is clear – that extramarital affairs are the norm in high society. However, this being the Victorian Age, conventional morality would certainly frown upon this. Even moreso that the subject of this sentence was women who have extramarital affairs. This was a period of time when women were literally property for a man, and were discouraged from social activities. The woman's place was in the home, taking care of children and the man, period. She could not even own property during this period (Visweswaran, 598). Women in conventional Victorian society would not be able to have extramarital affairs, and, if they did, their husband could perpetuate violence against them (Visweswaran, 598). Yet, they apparently were having these affairs, because this was the commentary that Wilde was making when he talks about the devotion of married women to men who are not their husbands. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the age, which is exposed with a throwaway line such as this. There is a similar hypocrisy in modern-day America, argues Sardar and Davies. They state that American hypocrisy can be seen in many different quarters. For instance, the Clinton impeachment trial was led by senators who had their own sexual indiscretions (195). Sardar & Davies note that “people around the world see America as being hypocritical because it claims to be “the repository of Goodness, yet have such disdain for the poor and deny them the basic right to food and water? People dying of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa wonder why Americans can afford super computers and stealth bombers but cannot help them afford AZT and other drugs” (p. 195). Moreover, the Florida election in 2000 also highlighted hypocrisy, as America always tells other countries that not counting every vote is some kind of egregious sin. Yet, in Florida, there was a refusal to do just that – count every vote (p. 200). Indeed, hypocrisy can be seen in society in a pervasive way, from the Catholic priests who preach about not having sex before marriage, as they themselves are sexually abusing little boys, to the politicians who claim to be anti-government, then go, hat in hand, to the federal government whenever they have a crisis. Hypocrisy is a condition that is present in any society, not just the Victorian society, and Wilde's comedies were effective in exposing this hypocrisy. Conclusion There are many differences between Victorian society and contemporary American society. Because of this , the plays of Oscar Wilde, while timeless because they are hilarious, mean something different to different societies. They portrayed the rich is a certain way that was probably hyperbolic but still made a point – that the rich are silly and lazy, as shown by the duplicitous Algy and Jack in The Importance of Being Earnest, the gossipy Cecil Graham in Lady Windermere's Fan, and by fey Goring in An Ideal Husband. This is referred to as some commentators as effeminate, and there is strong suggestion that this is how Victorian society expected their noble men to act. Perhaps they were really gay. While that cannot be proved, some commentators enjoy speculating about this. If this is the case, it was because of how Victorian society treated homosexuality. In contrast, contemporary American society does not have the same problems with homosexuality as did the Victorians, and do not view the rich as being dilettantes, as did the Victorians. In Victorian society, the rich were expected to look and act in such a way that, if a lower class individual looked and acted the same way, that lower class individual would be presumed to be gay. Yet, the wealthy men were not necessarily gay, they were just behaving according to the conventions of society. That is in contrast to contemporary American society, where the rich are the leaders of business. These leaders of business do not have the reputation as playboys and dilettantes. They have the reputation as hard-charging business men and women who get things done. What the two societies do have in common, which is another major thread of Wilde's comedies, is hypocrisy – both societies are hypocritical. Hypocrisy, in fact, is the basis of his plays. His characters behave in ways that reflect the actuality of Victorian society, not the conventions. Jokes are made about how married women are devoted to men who are not their husbands. Jokes are also made about how one must not pretend to be bad, when they are really good, the unspoken assumption being that most people behave in the opposite way. Jack and Algy in The Importance of Earnest pretend to be somebody they are not, in order to get out of social obligations that they find stifling. Lady Windermere in Lady Windermere's Fan is able to see, clear-eyed, through this hypocrisy, and the false assumption that people are naturally good, because this is what convention tells them to be. She knows that everybody, even herself, has good and bad qualities, and that, to deny the bad, as Victorian society did, is to deny reality. She is a young girl, yet she is wise beyond her years. Victorian society is not the only society that is hypocritical – contemporary American society is, as well, and, arguably, so is every society in their way. This longstanding hypocrisy is one reason why Wilde's plays are timeless, despite the otherwise changing mores from Victorian society to contemporary society. Works Cited Cocks, Harry. “Calamus in Bolton: Spirituality and Homosexual Desire in Late Victorian England,” Gender and History, 13.2 (2001): 191-223. Dalton, D. “The Haunting of Gay Subjectivity: The Cases of Oscar Wilde and John Marsden,” The Trouble With Pictures, 10.6 (2005): 72-100. Ettelbrick, Paula. “Are We on the Path to Liberation Now?: Same-Sex Marriage at Home and Abroad,” Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 2.2 (2012): 475-493. Ertman, Martha. “Oscar Wilde: Paradoxical Poster Child for Both Identity and Post-Identity,” Law and Society Inquiry, 13.1 (2000): 153-183. Foster, Richard. “Wilde as Parodist: A Second Look at the Importance of Being Earnest,” College English, 18.1 (1956): 18-23. Reinert, Otto. “Satiric Strategy in the Importance of Being Earnest,” College English, 18.1 (1956): 14- 18. Sardar, Ziauddin & Davies, Merryl. Why Do People Hate America? New York: Disinformation Books. Sinfield, Alan. “'Effeminacy' and 'Femininity': Sexual Politics in Wilde's Comedies,” Available at: ecmd.nju.edu.cn/UploadFile/27/13492/wildefemininity.doc “Five Traits of the Best Growth-Stage CEOs,” CNNMoney. 25 March 2013. 28 April 2013. Available at: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/25/5-traits-growth-stage-ceos/ Visweswaran, Kamala. “Histories of Feminist Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26(1992):591-621. Read More