The Warnings and Underlying Messages I took away from a Wilde Classic
Image retrieved from: https://frogkun.com/2015/02/23/on-objective-reviews-and-the-importance-of-being-earnest/
The Importance of Being Earnest, written by Oscar Wilde towards the end of the 19th century, a satire of society and comedy of manners. When I was handed my copy to read and become familiar with over the summer of last year I found myself visibly dreading having to read it. A witty commentary on Victorian society with a few jokes that would struggle to make my grandma laugh? Yeah I’d really rather not… how wrong I was. It only took reading half of the first Act for me to be thoroughly invested in the bizarre and hilariously ridiculous events taking place. And the excessive superficiality and obsession with an outward façade made it impossible for me not to draw parallels between it and the 21st century. It almost felt like I was reading an exaggerated script for an episode of Made in Chelsea, and that’s when it hit me. It was. All the petty drama, the twisted set of morals, and the situations that could quite easily have been avoided by just being earnest. It was all matching up. The messages and underlying warnings within Wilde’s play are still relevant to today, and clearly some people haven’t listened or taken them into account so, let me tell you some of the more important ones (at least in my opinion).
Marriage should be for love, not for materialistic reasons
Marriage, or any relationship for that matter, shouldn’t be based or because of something as superficial as a name or one’s income. This is a key theme and pretty obvious throughout the play, characterised by both the relationships of Jack and Gwendolen as well as Algernon and Cecily. As obvious as it sounds its sort of scary to think that marriage to some people really is a business deal, and even scarier is to realise that mind set wasn’t left in the 1800s. I personally have always believed that a relationship is simply the shared love between two people, and until that love is compromised the two would stay together forever. So when I read the hilarious dispute between Jack and Lady Bracknell as he asks for her daughter’s (Gwendolen’s) hand in marriage I found it even funnier and ridiculous that he was refused simply because he didn’t know his parents and thus had no inheritable social status. If Gwendolen and Jack were truly in love wouldn’t it not matter? Well not unless Jack got a name change ASAP, because turns out Gwendolen wouldn’t even consider the marriage if his name wasn’t Ernest. The whole marrying for status and clout (or just because of your name?) definitely sounds like the past… But there are plenty of people out there who still take money, family background and social influence into account above real love in the relationships they embark on. But Wilde is right, it’s ridiculous and downright unproductive, because let’s be honest. You’ll never be happy if all you want is stuff. Stuff is easily replaceable, real love is rare and irreplicable.
Social Status and Possessions shouldn’t actually be that important (Clout ≠Happy)
This message connects completely to the one I mentioned before. Much like marriage, happiness shouldn’t be based on the things you own or the status in society you hold. In my opinion the happiest character in the whole play was the lovely yet annoying Algernon, and although he was presented as a well to do person with relatives in high places neither of those factors mattered to him. The man was in debt, on the run from the police, and yet he had time to indulge in music, and of course fall in love with Cecily. Dandy as he was he didn’t let the material goods get in the way of his happiness. He had what he wanted if it was there, food being the most common, and his care for the approval of the people around him was non existent. Now, I’m not saying by any means that we should all live life like Algernon and disregard the law in order to be the happiest we can be. All I’m trying to get across is that our possessions shouldn’t define us, we shouldn’t live to buy that new phone or those new shoes in order to be happy. Happiness should be derived from doing things we love with the people we love, and that’s something money could never buy.
Overall it’s pretty clear, the messages of the Victorian age are still the messages of today. We as a species are getting better, slowly but surely valuing time with family and loved ones more than the stuff we can buy, but I’m noticing a slip. The world is more than just what you can purchase and show off the people you don’t enjoy spending time with. Life's too short to waste it being unhappy. In conclusion, don’t be a Bracknell, be a Moncrieff.