As we saw in this act, Cecily imagined for herself that she had been engaged to "Ernest" for the past three months, with presents, letters, and diary entries to back up this imaginary relationship that both she and Algernon both treated with sincerity. Yet when she found out that Algernon's name was not, in fact, Ernest, she claimed that she was engaged to no one. At some point, this imaginary character of Ernest crossed into reality in the form of Algernon to Cecily, and was unable to return to the imaginary world when the lie was discovered. With Wilde's ideas in mind, Cecily's imagined relationship has been the most real one we've encountered so far. She invested her time, effort, emotions, and money into creating a romance for herself with an imaginary person, more than we've seen any of the other characters invest into their real romances. Cecily is very earnest when she speaks of this engagement, yet it is clearly ridiculous looking from the outside in. Perhaps Wilde is suggesting that the most earnest relationship people can have is with themselves, and when others enter into the equation, one must take up falsehoods in order to hide one's true self, as it will not fit into conventions of society, like Cecily's "engagement" to Ernest. One should not expect these relationships to become reality though, as Cecily does, because like the Wilde fable we read, when it became reality, it was just an imagined facade.
Yet, as we learn from Ms. Prism, one can only lead an introspective life after mastering the great principles of Bimetallism. As both metals are important to the monetary standard, perhaps one can only have a rich, earnest inner-world when one is displaying the proper facade to the rest of society, that both are required in order to have anything imaginary, and thus real. Ms. Prism lacks the imaginary qualities, and as a result does not seem to have the inner-world the other characters do—she finds it distasteful to think for oneself. Though the other characters aren't exactly held up as models, they do have a relationship with themselves, as they understand what they want internally, and try to project it in a socially acceptable way.
(Sorry it's late, folks)
I like the idea that they all have a relationship with themselves. Despite the ensemble cast in the book, none of their relationships with one another are at all front and center. This is obviously not a revolutionary opinion about the play--it is, after all, about two men and their alter-egos--but I think that it is something that is interesting to look at in the secondary characters who do not, to our knowledge, have a Bunbury. I think the interaction between Cecily and Ms. Prism is very telling, because, although they are speaking to each other, it feels like they are not responding to what the other is saying; rather, they are just continuing with their own thoughts. Ms. Prism continues to be sanctimonious and chastise Cecily and Cecily continues to dismiss the virtues of learning and talk about her "wicked" cousin. It doesn't seem like either of them really have any impact on each other; everything is internal.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of the self is one that definitely should be explored when analyzing "The Importance of Being Earnest." While reading this act for the first time, I personally glossed over the deeper meaning, about how one can only trust oneself to be earnest. Everyone in this play seems to concoct versions of themselves to present to people, trivializing their real personalities. Cecily's dedication to the fake engagement includes writing letters to herself, so she literally has a relationship with herself as Lisa described. The flippant and sarcastic tone of the play leads us, or at least led me, to focus on the ridiculous vanity of the characters rather than seeing their true temperaments. However, as Lisa pointed out, Miss Prism seems to lack a defined personality. As I mentioned in class, I don't think her name is a coincidence. Again referencing the Pushkin (sorry if you didn't take Russian Lit!), Miss Prism "makes other minds her own," taking ideas of morality and reflecting them, which is why she so heartily disapproves of Cecily's attempt to think for herself. Since no one else seems to agree with her austere version of morality, her only true connection is with her own self (or rather the ideals she has compiled from others), ironically making her similar to Cecily despite their vastly different characters.
ReplyDeleteYour claim, Lisa, was well-backed by very reasonable and demonstrative evidence. Although I was initially skeptical, I have been swayed to believe that the views you have professed seem to make a great deal of sense. Clearly, there is an ongoing theme of perception (aka imagination) vs. reality in Wilde's work. But now that I reflect upon it, I believe that Cecily's interaction with Algernon is the complete OPPOSITE of Wilde's earlier short story, is it not? After all, in the short story, the young man forfeited his fantastical stories after seeing them appear before his eyes. However, when Cecily is presented with what she perceives to be the real Ernest, she is not disillusioned (as the young man was). Rather, her fantasy is reinforced. I can see how one can argue that "Ernest" (actually Algernon) was merely an extension of Cecily's fantastical dream. However, this does not change the dichotomy between these two events... Therefore, I begin to doubt the validity of this specific piece of evidence.
ReplyDeleteTL;DR - I didn't believe you, then I did, but now I'm not so sure, since the evidence doesn't really stack up
DeleteI think that your point about the insincerity and shallowness of their relationships compliments the overall theme of this play very nicely. Both of these girls were attached to the idea of marrying a man named Earnest, Cecily because of his reputation and Gwendolyn because of purely the name, and so once they discover that neither Jack (or John as he later tells us) nor Algy are named Ernest, they immediately break off their engagements and treat the men with scorn. As Cecily says, the superficial parts of another person are the traits that one must focus on, as their deepest nature will be found out soon after the marriage. The casual nature of these interactions is hilarious, as when Cecily recounts to Algy how she broke off their engagement, immediately followed by "the weather still continues charming." That, coupled with the entire muffin scene (why is there so much food, how fat is Algy?) bring meaning to the message that we've been focusing on so much during class of trivializing the serious and treating all the little things with great seriousness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa's idea about people having an earnest relationship with themselves. The play does not display any real connections between the characters, and it seems that the most important relationship a person has is within himself. For example, Algernon will never further a connection with his peers because of his Bunburyist attitude. He skips out on activities (that may be beneficial to him but do not interest him) through excuses to visit his imaginary friend, Mr. Bunbury. That speaks to his character as well, as he shies away from building a sincere connection with others. Some would argue that marriage is a genuine relationship with another person, but we have learned that marriage is merely a joke in the novel. It holds no importance – a matter that we would consider to be serious is made trivial.
ReplyDeleteThe point about everyone being in a relationship with themselves I think reflects very accurately on the nature of the play. The way people act almost entirely about themselves, and I think that one important fact that points to this was Cecily's journal and what she writes in it. She records every part of her history within her diary, and, even when she is talking about her "engagement" to Algernon's Ernest, she continues to record everything he says, especially the compliments to her. It is important to pay attention to the very little regard to the man she is about to marry, as she is busy writing it in HER diary that only SHE is allowed to read. This situation is vital to the assertion that people are in the relationship with themselves, as it is a powerful piece of evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that the most earnest relationship one can have is with themselves is an interesting point that should be explored. Cecily's imaginary relationship was as authentic as any to her despite it truthfully being fake. The earnest nature she displays towards her herself is in stark contrast to the contrived nature of most the relationships we have seen in the play. Wilde could be pointing out that before forming relationships with others, one must form an earnest relationship with themselves, as most of the characters have been unsuccessful in that regard. Concerning the underlying theme of imagination vs reality in Wilde's work, the only certainty and reality is the self. A person must come to terms with their only reality in order to form relationships with others.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily agree with this idea of a “relationship with oneself” being the most earnest and genuine. I think it is a possibility that this type of relationship would be earnest, but I don’t see evidence of Wilde trying to emphasize this. At most it is speculation that isn’t sufficiently backed up by the text. There is no example of an earnest relationship in the play, and therefore, to assume that Wilde proposes a model is not well supported. Rather, I believe the criticism of being earnest is that the attempt to become earnest collapses upon itself. One is hardly being genuine when one attempts to mold oneself into a certain archetype rather than accepting one’s natural tendencies. Thus, being earnest is not mutually exclusive with having relationships with outside people. A relationship with oneself is not the only earnest relationship. Here, Wilde is simply poking fun at being earnest. He does not necessarily need to provide a solution or alternative to being earnest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa in that Wilde makes no effort to develop the relationships among characters; however, perhaps we are the ones at fault. In the 21st century we feel that marriage is something that should be taken quite seriously. However I've concluded in my fervent research of marriage in the Victorian Era, that marriage is not as "romanticized" and "fairy tail-like" as many novels of the era portray it to be. Perhaps Wilde is the brave one, choosing to illustrate the truth about Victorian Society, where marriage is quite casual, and indeed the consumption of muffins is a subject that should be taken quite seriously, and consequently, should be given a whole page in the play. I further inquired that the English do love their muffins, and that they even have a muffin named after them - the English Muffin. With all of this, I encourage you all to think about the seriousness of Wilde's writing. Perhaps we are misinterpreting Wilde. Perhaps he is completely serious and we are the "all-knowing" characters Wilde is satirizing after all.
ReplyDeleteI also question whether Wilde is promoting that a relationship with oneself is the only genuine relationship possible. I agree with Lisa that the characters display a strong self-centeredness and an inclination towards creating falsehood in order to maintain that individuality. But I think Wilde is trying to do more than merely portraying this situation. I think he also wants to say that this forced internalization of individuality will eventually prove unfulfilling and even backfire. Cecily's imagined relationship fosters her idealization of the wicked but more importantly detaches her from any real understanding of what the wicked is. While Cecily has a distinct personality, a love for unconventional things, her inability to express them and receive recognition forces her down a more divergent road that eventually flattens her unique taste into superficial obsession. As satire often takes an optimistic perspective, I want to think that Wilde is urging a change in the current situation by emphasizing the insufficiency of holding back unique ideas.
ReplyDeleteSachin, your comment about Algy being unable to sustain a relationship with his peers because of his Bunburying makes me wonder about his relationship with Jack. After all, Jack has Ernest, and Ernest is essentially Bunbury. So, because Jack maintains a similar MO, shouldn't the two be able to develop and preserve a significant relationship? Near the end of the act, Jack and Algy are eating those celebrated muffins, and Jack becomes more and more frustrated when Algy refuses to leave (I couldn't leave because I hadn't had my tea, it would be horribly rude of you to force me to leave before dinner, etc.). The scene closes with Jack groaning and then burying his face in his hands. To me, this seems like a reasonable but good-natured frustration - after all, Algy is interfering with Jack's plans to win Gwendolen's affections while also eating his tea snacks and entertaining tangents. So, maybe the relationship between characters is less focused on the traditional romantic pairing and more on the platonic relationship between two men.
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that Wilde does not have much instruction in between the lines of his play other than to make a complete farce out of meaning in the first place. While I do agree that (as is Wilde's inclination) Cecily's relationship with a completely imagined Ernest is the most genuine we have seen in the play thus far, I don't think Wilde is trying to instruct the reader at all in his play, but rather just make a farce out of attempted moral instruction in the first place. In following his own credo of "taking the trivial seriously," Wilde seriously focuses on making everything he can in the play utterly ridiculously, while "making the serious trivial" by having no real moral instruction.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I'd like to take a moment for us to all appreciate Willy's insightful comment and the fervent research that led to it. Well done sir. I believe that Cecily's love of a man she does not know may actually coincide with marriage of the Victorian Era quite well. Cecilly did not fall in love with a man, but instead an ideal. She had an image of what she wanted her to love to be and fell in love with that creation. Marriages in the Victorian Era mostly aided in a families status, and idealistically were perfect. These marriages and Cecilly's are centered around an idealism (these matches seem perfect) even though in both cases reality doesn't translate.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your point on the likelihood of a Victorian marriage relying relatively little on knowing the partner, the book strays from the traditional view in that the families of the potential couples are not particularly involved in the evaluation of the match.
DeleteYour point on the shallow and trivial nature of the relationships fits well with the theme of "the serious is trivial" and "the trivial is serious". In this case, relationships, usually considered serious and of great importance, are treated as trivial by Wilde. In Pride and Prejudice, the majority of the novel concerned relationships in some manner. In The Importance of Being Ernest, a questionaire shorter and and less detailed than most internet surveys is considered sufficient to determine if someone would be a good match.
ReplyDelete