Shaw didn't like The Importance of Being Earnest. He had this to say:
"It amuses me, of course; but unless comedy touches me as well as amuses me, it leaves me with a sense of having wasted my evening. I go to the theatre to be moved to laughter, not to be tickled or bustled into it; and that is why, though I laugh as much as anybody at a farcical comedy, I am out of spirits before the end of the second act, and out of temper before the end of the third, my miserable mechanical laughter intensifying these symptoms at every outburst. If the public ever becomes intelligent enough to know when it is really enjoying itself and when it is not, there will be an end to farcical comedy."
Shaw's problem with Wilde is that his plays are funny, but they lack humanity. His plays are about his words; not about his characters. What do you all think?
1 comment:
Christian, I completely agree. Wilde is all words and wit and his characters are as vapid and flat as the teens of Clueless. But that's really what I love. I feel like underneath it all that's how people really are. But I also feel like maybe he's calling society out on it.
I think Shaw misses the point. The different characters in Wilde's plays are the different faces of the author himself. Through them he reveals something about himself and his unique view of society. He's even credited with saying "Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth." Because the dialogue and situations of Wilde's plays are so tongue-in-cheek, the audience never doubts for a second that the characters represent anything but the passing fancies and opinions of the playwright. He uses his writing to just voice opinions and occasionally advance agendas, again and again. Wilde never says "I am right, you are wrong" or "This is the absolute truth", all he says is "This is what I think, why don't you think about it? Or not. You can just enjoy yourself too. That's fine." And I like that because it opens doors, it's honest and candid and absurd. Because society and convention and everything is absurd, and that's what he's trying to demonstrate.
Shaw on the other hand reveals himself to be arrogant and preachy. In his plays he comes across like an evangelist. His vision is the correct vision, the Fabian-Socialist-Self Loathing Middle class-Outcast Irish vision. He knows what's good for society, the rest of us rabble don't. He's downright tyrannical in the quote you posted. My favorite part is the last sentence where he insults everyone's intelligence and taste. He's basically saying that farce is for stupid losers who don't know better. Shaw is a hypocrite. In his own work he attacks arbitrary distinctions like upper-class and lower-class, commoner and peer, but can't embrace Wilde's camp aesthetic. Georgie is fine to let other arbitrary divisions stand (like high-brow and low-brow, art and entertainment), just because they get in the way of his vision. But it never comes across like it's just his opinion. More like the unequivocal truth. That makes Shaw no better than the aristocrat who looks down his nose at the street urchin.
What's ironic to me about all this is that they held very similar beliefs. They were both socialists. Wilde actively helped the poor by donating and raising money for a dole. He advocated disarmament and pacifism. He believed in free love. He tried to help liberate women from the corset and petticoats, generations before girls were burning their bras. All these traits he shared with Shaw (well, not the corset part). He was even the sole supporter of Shaw's petition to pardon a group of imprisoned anarchists. They worked closely with one another pretty consistently.
But Wilde presented his opinions to the public like Cher from Clueless presented her immigration speech to the debate class. He appeared all fun and flip and cheek. Even at his most sober and convincing it's hard to tell if Wilde is really being serious or just pulling the wool over your eyes. Like his whole life was a comedy of manners (I sort of think everyone's whole life is) and everyone was just playing a part in the biggest improv act of all time ("The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast"). I guess maybe Shaw didn't get it. Maybe all the humor and verbal irony of Wilde lead Shaw to believe his fellow Socialist was less than sincere. But I think Wilde knew that life was hard and could be difficult to tolerate, and laughter is the best medicine. So he wanted to entertain people and voice himself and make a buck. And isn't that all anyone's doing?
I know underneath it all the two were friends. Rivals but friends. I just don't get why Shaw had to be such a stick-in-the-mud. But, oh well. He's still a good guy.
To sum up: Shaw is a dictator; Wilde is a pundit. And I like them both. But Oscar Wilde stole my heart with The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Importance of Being Earnest. So I'm on his side. Or whatever.
Post a Comment