“Wilde’s characters are nothing more than caricatures, two-dimensional – and therefore oversimplified – representations of upper class vice and folly”
I disagree with the prompt while the play is extremely humorous and slightly ridiculous the characters still have recognisable characteristics from one another with different backstories as well as varying levels of intelligence and seriousness making them have some depth. In pretty much all literature characters serve a purpose whether it is to further the plot or to create irony. In this play, the characters are used to poke fun at the upper class and while the actual play might not be the most meaningful it still is able to make many comments on the behaviours and attitudes of the upper class. Anyone who watches the play could recognise the shallowness of the characters or the pretentiousness of some opinions of the upper class and therefore even though the play/characters make light of a lot of these things I think it is still able to have meaning. (My response)
I don’t think so – one has to keep in mind that Oscar Wilde always said he never wanted his art to have any meaning other than beauty, so any degree of meaning the audience gets is theoretically entirely of our own making. I don’t think the reductive nature of the characterisation impacts the morals of the play because they symbolise ideas more than characters. The play, like most, demonstrates thematic concerns through characterisation – these characters don’t have to be reality, just the echo of reality as all art arguably is. We can see truth in the echo of life no matter how ‘simple’ it may seem to be – verisimilitude. (Lila)
I find myself agreeing with this statement to a certain extent, as Wilde’s characters bear exaggerated similarities with the upper class of the Victorian era. This limits the social commentary of the play as a whole, as the lack of depth in their characters and thus the quick resolve of conflict is easy to laugh at but difficult to make a lasting impact on the social class it criticises. A more complex characterisation would perhaps include nuance in terms of the way individual characters feel about conforming/rebelling against societal expectations. However, their ridiculous behaviour and cleverly absurd lines both seem to be fully intentional. I don’t think Wilde was trying to make genuine social commentary, but rather, a piece of art that is beautiful and enjoyable—in which he absolutely succeeded. (Henah)
Although the characters that Wilde constructs are parodies of the upper class I think the messages that are subtly conveyed ( e.g the role of christianity + marriage) are meaningful topics. humour can be used as a means of social commentary as done in the play. (Kian)
“The Importance of Being Earnest was an early experiment in Victorian melodrama. Part satire, part comedy of manners, and part intellectual farce, this play seems to have nothing at stake because the world it presents is so blatantly and ostentatiously artificial. Below the surface of the light, brittle comedy, however, is a serious subtext that takes aim at self-righteous moralism and hypocrisy, the very aspects of Victorian society that would, in part, bring about Wilde’s downfall.” (Sparknotes)