Restoration Comedy Central
For those of you attending a School for Scandal...
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 8:27 AM
29 comments
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Previous Posts
- Group 5 is...last? Any synonym for brilliant?
- Group 4 is, frankly, remarkable.
- Group 3 is Mahhhvelous!
- Group 2 is Astonishing!
- Group One is Brilliant!
- Act III of R and G
- R & G Act II
- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead...or they wi...
- Q & A for 2.2 and 3.1
- Hamlet Goodies Culled From the Web
29 Comments:
Like Tania mentioned, gossiping in this play parallels with the gossiping in Pride and Prejudice, which was a characteristic of the Restoration period. One of the main things the “haves” did during the period was to meet up and gossip as a pastime. But by putting such a bad light to Lady Sneerwell’s gossiping, Richard Brinsley Sheridan pokes fun at her pathetic ways of trying to create scandals in town and trying to get Charles to love her.
There is also another parallel I noticed between The School for Scandal and Pride and Prejudice which we mentioned during the Game of Love discussion group today—Lady Sneerwell is very similar in character to Miss Bingley in their evil schemes and trickery. Miss Bingley obviously tried to ruin Jane and Mr. Bingley and Elizabeth and Darcy, and Sneerwell, besides trying to ruin Maria and Charles’ relationship also tries to ruin a great many other townspeople’s lives by spreading fake rumors and causing scandal.
The characters mentioned so far are amazingly hilarious. Lady Sneerwell is such a faker—when she is with the people she trusts, she can be so openly and casually evil such as on page 10, where she tells Joseph, “In the meantime, I’ll go and plot mischief.” But in front of company, she acts as if she’s never plotted scandals in her life such as on page 8 where after Crabtree tells her of the Miss Piper story (which reminds me of the game Telephone), Lady Sneerwell exclaims, “Strange, Indeed!”—what a faker! This also relates to the outside vs. inside discussions we had about P & P.
And Mrs. Candour is hilarious too. What she says and how she acts are completely the opposite and quite hypocritical. At one point, she says, “Tale-bearers are as bad as the talemakers—‘tis an old observation, and a very true one,” but just two lines later she goes babbling on about all these rumors with Mr. and Mrs. Honeymoon, Miss Tattle, Tom Saunter, and a million other people.
Good job on the insight, fellow bloggers.
I liked Erica's comment about sweeping things under the rug, it's fitting because rugs can easily be uncovered, and if you get far in to the play, you'll get my allusion!
I just want to make a quick comparison between Mr. Collins (our beloved fool) and Sir Peter Teazle. Sir Peter is an old man with money, he had nothing left to do besides get married. He ended up marrying Lady Teazle, but this marriage may have solely been founded on wealth.
I believe Sir Peter had past his prime and got nervous once he realized that finding a wife may be difficult. He makes sly comments throughout the play saying how he wants to save all of the old bachelors from marrying young women (I shall find the quotes later). It is evident that both Sir Peter and Lady Teazle loathe eachother and that their marriage is entirely lacking in love.
The end of Act 2, Scene 2 really confuses me and I don’t get what’s going on. Why was Joseph on his knees talking to Maria before Lady Teazle came in? And what are Joseph and Lady Teazle talking about when Maria leaves?—What does “the judgment on my library” mean? And what is Lady Teazle referring to when she says, “it would be imprudent?” Can someone please explain these parts to me?!? I thought things might get cleared up for me if I read on…but after reading another 30 pages, I still can’t understand this part.
Anyways, this play so far has greatly ridiculed the wealthy/wealthier class, which all these “Ladies” and “Sirs” are a part of. Poor Sir Peter has to live through such hard times (and at such an old age) with Lady Teazle, when he expected to actually live the rest of his life happier. And the women in this play seem to not have anything to do but gossip in their “school of scandal,” spread false rumors, or spend money to stay in fashion as Lady Teazle does. Some of the men are also part of this scandalous group, such as Sir Benjamin and Crabtree. And the fact that they actually think highly of themselves only further humors the audience. Most likely, like in Pride and Prejudice, all their ill doings will only backfire on them, hopefully teaching them a lesson to stop causing scandal everywhere.
And the auction scene of the family portraits is quite hilarious, especially when Sir Oliver quickly switches from disgust to satisfaction just because Charles refuses to sell the portrait of him, even though Charles already sold all the other family portraits which should still, I believe, make Sir Oliver a little upset.
"Sir Peter is an old man with money, he had nothing left to do besides get married. He ended up marrying Lady Teazle, but this marriage may have solely been founded on wealth"-Dana.
Haha, nice connection Dana, between Mr. Collins and Sir Peter. The author is clearly showing what a terrible effect marrying for money can have, as Austen did in Pride & Prejudice.
Okay so I just wanted to talk about the middle part of the book, when Sir Oliver pretends to be a broker to his nephew Charles. This part has been a little confusing for me. I understand that Charles is clearly selling off his family portraits for next to nothing, but why is it exactly that Oliver is pretending to be a broker? Is it because he knows Charles wants his money, or something like that? It's a little confusing but I do know that Charles is being shown in a bad light, and that Richard Brinsley Sheridan is exposing how the rich do business in a negative way.
If any one could clear up for me the details maybe, that would be great? Maybe I should just re-read.
To answer Erica’s question, Sir Oliver is pretending to be a broker in order to test the character(s) of Charles (and Joseph), since on page 12, Sir Peter asks Rowley, “But does he still enjoin us not to inform his nephews of his arrival?” and Rowley replies, “Most strictly. He means, before it is known, to make some trial of their dispositions.” Sir Oliver wants to know if the rumors of Charles being an extravagant person are true, because, I believe, he wants to choose between Charles and Joseph to inherit his money/property when he dies; this is shown on page 37, when Charles says, “They tell me I’m a prodigious favorite [of Sir Oliver], and that he talks of leaving me everything…the moment Sir Oliver dies.” Hopefully this answers your question.
Okay, thanks Cora. I knew it was something like that, haha.
Okay I'm a bit behind on blogging. Sorry all. Anywho...
So in conjunction with everybody else, there are so many parallels thus far in the book. I agree with Cora in that the characters are extremely fake. Lady Sneerwell reminds Joseph "you are going to be moral, and forget that you are among friends"(3) and Joseph responds with an "Egad, that's true! -- I'll keep my sentiments till I see Peter" (4). He is reminded that he is among one of the devious schemers and that he doesn't need to pretend to care about what's happening between Maria and Charles. Then as soon as Maria comes to Lady Sneerwell's place, Joseph and Lady Sneerwell are both concerned for Maria even though Lady Sneerwell admitted that she "is no hypocrite to deny the satisfaction [she] reaps from the success of her efforts. ... [she has] since known no equal pleasure equal to the reducing others to the level of [her] own injured reputation" (2). She's a clear example of a person who experiences schadenfreude only at other people's expense. (Thanks Ms. Clapp!)
There is also so far a parallel with P&P with people looking up to Lady Sneerwell thus far. The way that Joseph refers to Lady Sneerwell as "a person of your ladyship's superior accomplishments and understanding"(4) sounds like something a brown-noser would say. He is either being fake right now or he just feels inferior to her because he puts Lady Sneerwell on such a higher pedestal.
Has everyone finished the book yet, or no???
Dana, I did finish School for Scandal, and I'll post more on the ending later.
So now that I’ve finished the play, I’d say that the ending was quite a satisfying one—the bad people have bad endings and the good people have the good endings, and everyone’s true characters are revealed. By having such an ending, Sheridan may be implying that creating scandal is a very wicked and evil thing, and though it does cause a lot of chaos, confusion, and deception, in the end, it doesn’t truly work—it was only a waste of time since it ends in failure.
Going off topic a little, I felt that one of the most appealing characters (at least to me) in the novel was not a main character, but rather the character Snake. Though he was only being a nice person for once because he was paid to reveal the truth, he still does not want it to spread around since he lives “by the badness of [his] character…and if once known that [he] had been betrayed into an honest action, [he] should lose every friend” (75). This is completely ironic compared with the rest of the play. While others like Joseph try soo hard to appear honest and likeable, Snake here actually fears being known as a good guy. It seems like it is these people that are most “good,” for they do good behind the scenes with no intention of making his good deeds known to the world.
So I just finished the book also, and I wanted to say that I agree with Cora: the number one lesson one can learn while enrolled in The School for Scandal is is that.. it does not work!! Anything you have learned in the school, especially Joseph, had turned against him in the end.
However, before the ending even happened, I did find one direct lesson from the school that Joseph was supposed to learn to help benefit his scandalous nature. On page 48 Joseph teaches Leady Teazle that she "must sin in my own defence, and part wih [her] virtue to secyre her reputation."
However, this statement is very ironic coming from Joseph, as we will find out shortly later in the book. This is exactly what Joseph had done while in the presence of Sir Peter and Mr. Stanley, but in the end his plans only backfired on him.
I also agree with Cora, that Snake was a very interesting character. Snake was the only one in the play who admitted that he based his reputation on being bad; although this is not something to admire, it does make him one of the most real and honest characters we meet.
Also, on another note, I would like to comment about the incident in which Sir Peter finds Lady Teazle and Joseph together, and its repercussions; immediately after their upper class friends hear about the scandalous event, they twist and turn it into something completely untrue.
For example, Mrs. Candour insists that Charles was the lover, because of his assumed bad character, and that Joseph was supposed to reveal this. However, appearances once again being deceiving, Joseph is infact the nasty one.
Also, Sir Benjamin even insists that Charles and Sir Peter had a sword fight, when Crabtree "corrects" him in saying that it was, infact, a right with pistols!
After hearing both of these accounts, Mrs. Candour clearly does not have a mind of her own, and immediately agrees with the public, saying that "I knew Charles was the person."
Although slightly irrelevant, this reminds me of when Mrs. Bennet immediately changes her opinion on somebody right after she hears something new about the person, or if the public has changed their mind about the person. For example, up until she found out that Elizabeth was going to marry the rich Mr. Darcy, she despised the man. However, afterward finding out the news, she immediately like him despite her original perception.
Tht scene that Erica was mentioning about how Mrs. Candour, Crabtree, and Sir Benjamin were talking about when Sir Peter found Lady Teazle was quite interesting. Not only does their story get out of hand and ridiculous but they continue to believe their own stories even though they see Peter right before them in perfect health!! They buy so much into their own gossip that they can't even see the truth.
Of course I have to agree that the moral of this lesson is that it doesn't turn out well if one conspires and decieves people. We saw that with Lady Teazle and Joseph who were sneaking around and finally got caught.
I have to admit I am a bit saddened for Sir Peter though. He tried to make peace with Lady Teazle several times, but she just ends up getting angry and storming out, but not before blaming it on him. He even drew up legal deeds to give her money in life and even after life! All this while his wife has been having a fashionable affair with Joseph. He can't win because society laughs at him for marrying such a young woman and for choosing a woman most unloyal.
i agree with a lot of the comments made, especially the one made my Cora about the ending, where everyone seems to get what they deserve. It reminds me of an earlier analogy made by dana and erica about the truth being swept under the carpet and then uncovered. I think thats a really good way to put it because this is exactly what happened. This is kind of a general observation but i think its interesting that there are so many literary works (well pride and prejudice and school for scandal are the ones we've covered so far, but i am sure there are others) that mock this sort of money-hungry loveless society, and yet, after discussing the options that people were given at the time, it seems a bit insensitive to punish those who, though perhaps unethically, try to gain wealth...perhaps i am being naive but a lot of times its very difficult to rise about society's standards.
After reading about characters getting what they deserved, perhaps Sir Peter has also gotten what he deserved.
He spent most of his life as a bachelor, simply living for the moment and not attempting to have lasting relationships with women. If anything, Sir Peter used women and was able to do so because of his extreme wealth. Since Sir Peter probably moved from woman to woman, karma took over and gave him Lady Teazle as his wife.
Though the audience feels sorry for Sir Peter, it is important to note that he put himself in his position by living a bachelor's life far too long.
I think Sheridan was trying to point out that people need to find a passionate companion before it is too late. Since Sir Peter waited too long, he had no choice but to settle for Lady Teazle and live with his punishment.
I’ve completed both plays, but I realized a few patterns between the two plays and all that we've learned about restoration writing.
I've realized that upper class society must have been extremely absurd in order for writers to depict it as so. I know that we read ironic pieces of writing, but the actual society must have been pretty close to authors' depictions. It seems that marriage and courtship were the only areas of interest amongst most of the upper-class during this time period, and that matrimony was more like a business deal than a bond of affection.
It seems that if one wasn't the first born male of the family, then chances of maximum wealth were incredibly diminished. In Pride and Prejudice, the Bennet girls all had to be married off ASAP because they would not have any means of support after Mr. Bennet died. Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre was forced to find his own wealth (and marry Bertha Mason) because his father had given all of his wealth to Rochester's older brother. Speaking of men who seek fortunes, let’s not forget Wickham from P&P; he constantly attempted to seduce women into giving him money. In She Stoops to Conquer, Mrs. Hardcastle wants Miss Neville to marry Tony because of Miss Neville's fortune in jewels, despite the fact that the pair are cousins and loathe each other. There are, of course, countless other characters in restoration and 19th century literature that get shuffled around as if their monetary value accounted for their entire character.
Hard work is never mentioned when talking about the upper-class of this time. It is as if all the money was earned before the 19th century and it cascaded through multiple marriages, allowing a few generations little need to do any work at all. Can anyone support or challenge the idea that the upper-class of this time period was self-sustained through intermarriage and absurdity?
Hello! I just wantd to comment on some of class differences I noticed within She Stoops To Conquer; in Act III, Hardcastle and Miss Hardcastle discuss their different meetings and first impressions with Marlow. Because Marlow assumed that Hardcastle was an inn keeper because of Tony's deception, Marlow treats him somewhat rudely, or according to Hardcastle, with "old fashioned impudence.(18)". However, around Miss Hardcastle, Marlow appears modest and innocent.
During their meeting, the two discuss their first impressions of Marlow, the daughter immediately liking him, while the father immedieatly disliking him. Here, it is shown how someone such as Marlow of higher class would treat an "inn keeper," with little respect while ordering him around. Although Marlow is not a pompous person, he still treats the man this way. With Miss Hardcastle, though, Marlow knows that he must impress her, and being of a higher class than the "inn keeper," Marlow treats her with respect and acts almost inferior in different parts of their conversation.
During Miss Hardcastle and Hardcastle's conversation, it is clear to see how differently someone of the upper class may treat someone "lower" than him, and someone equal to him, or of high rank in general. There is a large gap in the treatment of these two figures, and Goldsmith exposes how Marlow, or many wealthy men, may have acted during the scene between the father and daughter.
I just wanted to tag onto what Tania said about the difficulty of rising in status. Its seems like everyone is trying to work there way up, from the bottom to the top of the social ladder. For example, in the School for Scandal, most of the characters are well off. They are not impoverished. In my opinion, Charles was the “gold-digger” in the story. I found it amusing when he wanted to sell paintings to Premium (Sir Oliver), who he didn’t even know was his own uncle. This shows the difficulty of Charles to rise in status by trying to sell such paintings. Also, he wants to marry Maria for the same reason. This brings into play the women. In order for women to rise in status, they basically just have to marry a man of a higher status. However, the difficulty here is WHO will they marry. Not all of the men are easily accessible. Everything comes down to money, money, and more money. Men increase their lot by using their “hands,” unless of course they inherit loads of riches. On the other hand, women do not have to do much work like their male counterparts, but wait for the “right one.” This mainly applies to this book.
Speaking of Snakes, Snake’s character relates to the Chinese Zodiac Calendar. Well, let me just tell you that I was born on the year of the snake. My aunt used to always tell me how the snake was very very sneaky (reminds me of Mr. Deeds “Veryy Verryy sneaky”) like a fox, she would say. This definitely made me think of Snake in the book because he too was the same, although he only appeared at the beginning and end of the book. However, that doesn’t mean I’m like him!!! Oh no, no.
Another thing I wanted to add about Snake dealt with society’s expectations. The reason why he acts the way he does is because that is how society expects him to act. This reminds me of society today as teens are looked down upon at times. They are thought of as irresponsible and “wild” if I shall say. Of course I will not disagree that teens are a bit wild, but there are some that are quite tranquil. Thus, as it can be seen, the name “teens” and “Snake” pertain to specific meanings. It’s sorta like when Red Sox fans hear the “Yankees,” they have this feeling of rivalry. Get the drift?
I just wanted to mention, what is up with the characters in both books mistaking one person for another? For example, in the School for Scandal, Sir Oliver kept disguising himself as different people. It was not until the end when everyone realized who he was. In the beginning of the second book, Mr. Hardcastle was confused as a host for an inn.
I have to agree with you Wanyi, in both books there is a large element of deceit among characters. In School for Scandal, Sir Oliver mainly uses it for his own purposes, to sneakily gain insight into his relatives, whereas in She Stoops To Conquer, Tony deceives Hastings in order to show him in a bad light to Mr Hardcastle. Tony rejects what his famiyl expects of him, and so tries to exploit the wealthy Hastings whom he does not agree with.
Also, I wanted to make a connection between Pride and Prejudice and She Stoops To Conquer. When Mr Hardcastle and Miss Hardcastle discuss Hastings, the most important thing both of them discuss is their first impressions of Hastings. As in P&P, first impressions prove to be extremely important. While Miss Hardcastle asks whether her fathers opinion of Hastings would change if he found out better things about the man, Hastings replies, "If we should find him so-But that's impossible. The first appearance has done my business. I'm seldom decevied in that. "
Although Hastings is a nice man, Hardcastles first impression of him has immediately determined him as a bad character. However, as in P&P, when everyones first impression of Darcy also proved to be wrong, misleading first impressions can often be a very unfortunate thing.
In society at the time, I feel as though people based too much upon first impressions, leaving no room to form one's own true opion on someone, supported by actual evidence beyond one conversation.
Like Wanyi and Erica, I noticed that deceit played a big role in both plays. I remember someone mentioning that "mystery" was an important topic in literature of this time period. I think the reason for this relates back to what Erica said about first impressions. Miss Hardcastle wanted to find out the true nature and character of Marlow and sees deceit as the only way to do so. Her plan works in that Marlow's behavior proves to be completely different from what she expected. Similarly, in School for Scandel, a disguise of identity allows for a revelation of the truth. People are oftentimes based on first impressions without realizing that those impressions may not reflect the person's true character.
I really liked She Stoops to Conquer because it showed how people are differently in varying societies. For example, Marlow was described as a modest man and proved to be so around women who were considered of upper class, but around Mr. Hardcastle, he acts like a complete jerk because he regards himself as inferior to him.
At some points I was really confused, especially about who was in on the prank. Did Hastings know that they were not really at an inn but rather at the Hardcastle's home?
I have to agree with the idea that deceit was an integral part in both plays. Another parallel is that in both plays, deceit never ended up well. We saw in School for Scandal that Lady Teazle ends up getting caught by her husband and she is practically begging for forgiveness. In terms of She Stoops to Conquer, when Mr. Hardcastle saw Marlow grabbing Kate's hand, Hardcastle was so shocked and already agitated by Marlow's behavior that he was not going to let Kate marry him. Although it did bring out the true side of Marlow, Kate almost jeopardized her future with Marlow because Marlow thought Kate was somebody she wasn't.
To answer Tania's question, Hastings did in fact know that they were in Hardcastle's house. If you look on page 19, he is conversing with Miss Neville and she is the one that actually tells Hastings. Miss Neville is the one who wanted to keep Marlow "in the deception". By the end when Marlow figures it out, he confronts Hastings. He tells Hastings, "you knew of my mistakes, yet would not undeceive me" (47).
I have to agree with Dana about the recurrence of marriage in She Stoops to Conquer. Mrs. Hardcastle simply couldn't understand that Miss Neville and Tony didn't like each other. I have to hand it to Miss Neville and Tony because they were able to convince Mrs. Hardcastle that they were falling for each other even though they were conspiring behind her backs, especially Tony.
My own question concerns Marlow. Is he purposely acting shy to all of the women or is he just a shy fellow?
To answer Bonita’s question on Marlow: Marlow acts really “impudent” with women of lower class, but when he is “in the company of women of reputation,” he is “such a trembler” (13) and is actually shy. Women of reputation “petrify” him, making him always feel like stealing out of the room. So Marlow does not purposely act shy, but just acts so when conversing with upper-class women. For example, when he first meets Miss Hardcastle, he barely looked at her first at all (hence, Miss Hardcastle was able to fool him as a barmaid later on). He just stared at the floor the whole time and was “so buried in his fears” (22).
And now, to comment on She Stoops to Conquer, I liked it better because it was more interesting than The School for Scandal and it was less confusing.
And, like the rest of you, I also found some parallels between the two plays. Mrs. Hardcastle reminds me a bit of Lady Teazle: they both love to be in fashion and like to follow gossip. On page 23, Mrs. Hardcastle says, “There’s nothing in the world I love to talk of so much as London, and the fashions.” She continues by saying, “I take care to know every tête-à-tête from the Scandalous Magazine, and have all the fashions as they come out.” (By the way, the name of the magazine was hilarious to me). It is apparent that women during this time period focused much of their time in trying to be “in fashion” and knowing the gossip of the town.
Following up on what Cora said about women and gossiping, I think that is a direct result of their free time. They aren't really expected to do anything, especially the women in the upper class. They don't need to find jobs because they are already comfortable on their husband's money. All they can do is talk with other women who have nothing but time on their hands. This even applies today considering women are known to be the gossips.
Thanks Cora!
By the way, when I came to think about Marlow, I realized he was a bit shallow. When he first met Miss Hardcastle, he could hardly complete his own sentences. The first encounter was strictly Miss Hardcastle finishing his sentences with her words. However, when he thought she was the barmaid, things were different. He was telling Hastings how Miss Hardcastle was "too gave and sentimenal" (33) for him. Miss Hardcastle interrupts him incognito but he basically tries to shoo her away until he looks at her face(34)! By just looking at her, he already wanted to kiss her. Maybe it's the exhilaration of having a relationship with a woman who isn't of high class or maybe it truly is beauty, but it disturbs me how Marlow came on to Miss Hardcastle so readily.
Ugh, men.
Post a Comment
<< Home