UWCSEA Portfolio

“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)

It is extremely clear that Wilde must have been an interesting person. He was a popular dinner guest before his fame, a self-proclaimed genius and definitely would have stood out from normal people at the time. He was uncompromising in his identity and relationships since even when he was threatened with arrest he refused to run away. Judging by what I know of his literary work he enjoyed and valued wit. His values especially within his choices in relationships would have heavily clashed with society at the time as well as other aspects of his personality. This might be shown in his work through the relationships he chooses to portray for example in The Picture of Dorian Gray. His feelings regarding etiquette could perhaps also be inferred from his works as the Importance of Being Earnest begins with both main characters having over the top ways to get out of social engagements as maybe drastic methods to get out of this sort of thing without seeming rude at the time. His satire for society probably has multiple reasons. In my opinion, these were probably to make a mockery of a society that did not accept him and a mockery of the parts that he followed for example his fashion choices and dinner parties that would presumably be full of etiquette related rules. However, I am not sure of the extent to which he was a member of high society but from what I know I think he would have potentially mocked himself a little.

Other people writings:

I think that to Wilde, anything beautiful held importance. A true aesthete, his devotion to writing and the arts seem to be sufficient evidence of it. His extravagant spendings on fashion and clothing, as well as decorating his house in London even while going into debt, reveals his fixation on beauty. There is also a sense of arrogance and pride he holds for being a unique, educated, intelligent and sophisticated individual, which once again reflects his values and outlook in life. -Henah Kwak

I think the seeds for satirical representation of high society began during his time at Oxford and much more after returning from the United States (after he’s got more money). With the money to experience the upper class, he could see what wealth can buy and meet the people that attain it. I believe he intentionally mocks the high-class individuals, but Wilde has assumed that he is and will never be associated with them. Perhaps it’s a reminder to be humble or to stay self-aware of being pretentious. But by these satirical jokes in his works, he points out and ridicules (innocently) the “untouchable” in the Victorian era, something that was unheard of or not written about before.- Ruby Psillides

Wilde never attempted to fit the mould – indeed, he was verifiably convinced of his own genius – See “The only thing I have to declare is my genius”. His exuberant personality and flamboyant nature provided a direct contrast to Victorian ideals. Men were expected to be courteous and attentive husbands and the breadwinners of their families. Wilde did not appear to care for these restraints, and his homosexuality, which was then severely looked down upon, meant that he did not confer to these norms.

Wilde never attempted to fit the mould – indeed, he was verifiably convinced of his own genius – See “The only thing I have to declare is my genius”. His exuberant personality and flamboyant nature provided a direct contrast to Victorian ideals. Men were expected to be courteous and attentive husbands and the breadwinners of their families. Wilde did not appear to care for these restraints, and his homosexuality, which was then severely looked down upon, meant that he did not confer to these norms.

His plays were scathing commentaries on the highfalutin cultural norms and expectations that were so prominent then. In some respect, he might also be mocking himself in his satirical representation of high society. They were materialistic and put on a carefully curated presentation of themselves. This was not far from the constructed front he put on himself, hiding his homosexuality and instead conferring to what was expected of him by society by staying with his wife until her death.- Tanisha Patil

What do you find interesting about the characterisation in the short story?

The author of the short story spent a while teaching at a Singaporean school. So not only would she understand the culture in those schools but all the experiences and characters could be based upon true stories. For example, from doing some research I found out that in 1997 there was a plane crash that seems very similar to the one mentioned in the story and since You Jin was teaching in the year 2000 or perhaps earlier this story is very likely to be true.

The narrative perspective is in 1st person and is told in past tense as the author seems to be remembering a story. Normally this means there would be a slightly reflective tone but the narrator appears to believe they did all the right things and therefore there are few examples of hindsight as the story is simply told the way it is remembered to have turned out with no additions creating a story that may seem as though the author is trying to draw attention to how good at teaching they are.

The easiest character to understand is the teacher. Her voice tells the story so the reader reads her inner thoughts and can very easily understand her concern for the student. The student Kwa Yao Zu is the subject of the story as the aim of the protagonist is to help him. His conversation with her is polite but he is also described as closed off and his actions show his nerves such as his sweating in the exam hall. His backstory is also explained in detail as the fate of his father is shared with the reader and a scene with his mother shows his family life. That brings me to the 3rd named character in the story. In my opinion, I found the mother one of the most striking characters in the story as her character was not what I expected. Normally when parents are called into school they are formal and a little concerned but she immediately began rambling “on and on incoherently” and was described as looking older than her age with a “worn-out expression”. She is strangely open with a teacher describing how she wishes she went instead of Yao Zu’s father. She shares the same backstory as the student but does not appear to deal with it near as well. Her purpose in the story is clearly to provide backstory and create sympathy for Yao Zu especially since he is described as watching her with a “tender, concerned gaze”. Despite this purpose, I find she has the most interesting characterisation as she has the same concerning backstory as Yao Zu, her physical appearance is described in detail and her direct speech is the least predictable.