Review: William Congreve's "The Way of the World", 1700 · 6:17pm Dec 19th, 2014
I'm reading English plays from 1600 to 1800, to get a sense for what Shakespeare's influence was, and why he's so highly-regarded. I just finished
as found here. This was a popular comedy 300 years ago. It has some good lines:
Where modesty's ill manners, 'tis but fit
That impudence and malice pass for wit.
'Tis an unhappy circumstance of life that love should ever die before us, and that the man so often should outlive the lover. But say what you will, 'tis better to be left than never to have been loved.... For my part, my youth may wear and waste, but it shall never rust in my possession.
You should have just so much disgust for your husband as may be sufficient to make you relish your lover.
A better man ought not to have been sacrificed to the occasion; a worse had not answered to the purpose.
Mirabell: For beauty is the lover's gift: 'tis he bestows your charms:- your glass is all a cheat.
Millacent: One no more owes one's beauty to a lover than one's wit to an echo.
We've still got the thee's and thou's:
Come, thou art an honest fellow, Petulant, and shalt make love to my mistress, thou shalt, faith.
Did people really talk like that 300 years ago? No. Congreve was trying to sound like Shakespeare. For comparison, here's the opening of Gulliver's Travels (1726):
My father had a small estate in Nottinghamshire: I was the third of five sons. He sent me to Emanuel College in Cambridge at fourteen years old, where I resided three years, and applied myself close to my studies; but the charge of maintaining me, although I had a very scanty allowance, being too great for a narrow fortune, I was bound apprentice to Mr. James Bates, an eminent surgeon in London, with whom I continued four years.
The Way of the World is a cross between Jane Austen, an English bedroom farce, and Shakespeare. Act I is 9 scenes long, and about as enjoyable as the first chapter of War and Peace: a whirlwind tour of many different indifferent characters whose names all sound the same, gossipping about each other. I'm sure this would be less confusing if I were watching a play, but it still seems to rely on me having memorized the playbill to know who is whose daughter, niece, uncle, and former suitor. The author thoughtfully gave the characters names such as "Petulant", "Wilfull", "Waitwell" (a servant), "Foible", and "Mincing", so as to spare the trouble of needing to portray their characters through action. There are 13 characters; 4 of their names start with ‘F’, 4 with ‘M’, and 4 with ‘W’. The names are gender-confusing in a play where gender is all; it was several scenes before I realized that Mirabel, the main character of Act I, is a man.
Once I figured out who these people were and what was going on, it was almost enjoyable. The language is sufficiently clever, elevated, and word-order-inverted to string a Shakespeare junkie along between fixes. The humor is witty, but tossed out in self-encapsulated sentences that sparkle with a clever simile or wording, but don’t illuminate the characters or the theme. It did at times make me smile, surpassing Shakespeare in that regard. But overall, the first act needs to be axed, the plot is interesting only as it affects the characters, and the characters have not much character. I never cared about or liked any of them. So the whole thing is just a paper backdrop for clever lines.
CliffsNotes says this. I agree with all of it except for the "striking characterization":
Because of its striking characterization and brilliant dialogue, The Way of the World is generally considered to be the finest example of Restoration comedy, as well as one of the last. Nevertheless, it was not successful when it was first presented in 1700. Although the English audiences, unlike the French, were accustomed to plots and subplots and to a great deal of action in their plays, they were confused by the amount of activity crammed into a single day. The Way of the World had only a single action to which everything was related, but it included a scheme, and a counterplot to frustrate the scheme, and then moves to foil the counterplot. There were too many episodes, events, reversals, and discoveries, most of them huddled in the last acts, and they demanded too much of the audience. … In Act I, we are told that Mirabell is in love and that there are obstacles to the courtship, but most of the significant facts are hidden until Act II so that the first part of the play is obscure. Then, just as Mirabell's scheme becomes clear, it loses significance, for Fainall's counterplot becomes the machinery that moves the action forward. It is, therefore, worthwhile to trace the story in chronological order.
Loose Ends of the Plot
Although there seems to be the usual happy ending to this comedy, The Way of the World leaves a number of loose ends that add to the confusion.
It is difficult to see where Mrs. Fainall's future is satisfactorily resolved. At one point in Act V, she says that this is the end of her life with Fainall; that is one comfort. But at the end of the play, it seems that she will continue to live with Fainall in an obviously very awkward domestic situation.
It is not clear that Fainall is completely foiled. He could still demand control of Lady Wishfort's fortune or disgrace her daughter. Mirabell's statement that "his circumstances are such, he [Fainall] must of force comply" is hardly adequate.
Is the affair between Mirabell and Mrs. Fainall at an end? She married Fainall only to forestall scandal if she became pregnant. If it is at an end, why has it ceased? Why should she help Mirabell with his wooing of Millamant? Has he perhaps convinced Mrs. Fainall that he is marrying Millamant for money?
Apparently Mirabell had wanted to marry Millamant the year before, but the match was forestalled by Mrs. Marwood's interference. Fainall suggests that, had they married, Millamant would have lost half her fortune. Why then the elaborate plot now, to save the 6,000 pounds that Mirabell was prepared to sacrifice before?
There no real answers to these questions. They seem to be loose ends that the dramatist never bothered to tie together.
Dammit, Bad Horse, stop reading the things I wrote in my past lives. I've got plenty of ponyfic right here!
Sounds as if Congreve was too clever by half, relying on a very complex plot with witty dialogue around an "oh, isn't this all very cynical and shocking!" kind of situation rather than having strong characters or a meaningful theme. Since his culture isn't exactly ours, we probably miss some of the cynicism and shockingness, and the way the characters are stereotyped now no longer seems plausible.
Hopefully some of his kin went into designing military rockets or something like that ...
(*takes snuff*)
There are hearts no longer beating and
There's entrails spilled on the floor!
That's the way of the wo-o-o-orld
I'm using the first quote as a forum signature now.
I swear I must have read this in one of my English Lit classes, but I do not remember anything of it. <checks> Yup, here it is in my copy of the Norton Anthology of English Literature (Vol 1C, 7th Ed.), and there's my pencil marks in the margin. I still remember absolutely nothing about it. Shows you what kind of impression it left, I guess.
The Beggar's Opera from a couple decades later is awesome, but I don't know if you'll like it since it is basically Falstaff & Company: The Musical!
This right here is reason #4812 I love Bad Horse. In case anyone's counting or anything.
We really need to come up with a drinking game: "My Little Pony or Restoration comedy character?" Blue-Blood? Mannerly Shallow? Silver Spoon? Courtly Nice? Guess wrong and do a shot!
But seriously, and in all good fellowship...
You seem to be on to a question that baffled all the best minds--of the 1930s:
Emphasis mine. Now what's all that about? After awhile the fellow gets round to his point:
Again, emphasis mine. This says three things to me which I in turn will say to you:
1) You have a valid point, but not a valid criticism: what you describe as an artistic flaw is actually the artist dealing with a technical constraint--namely, the availability of qualified actors--upon his art. It is like saying that Star Trek's transporters are contrived plot-devices, literal deus ex machinae. Of course they are, but their original intent was to obviate the running time and special-effects expense of landing the Enterprise on a planet every episode in an era before economical CGI effects.
2) If you're going to hate on stock characters for being two-dimensional, you may as well hate on Arlecchino, Il Dottore and Il Capitano--or on Pinky Pie, Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash, who are the same characters.
Dude, for hatin' on the Mane Six--do a shot. Do it now. ;-)
3) Judging both plays and novels by the same standards because they're both stories about characters and are made of words, is tempting but wrong. They are different creations that should be judged by different standards. Look: take grain, water and yeast, and what do you get? Well, bread. Unless what you mean to make is beer. Yet you wouldn't try to get drunk off dry toast any more than you'd try to shove a bottle of hefeweizen in a toaster.
Nonetheless, I see where you're coming from, and where you're coming from is 1934. Which is fine. It was a great year. You can get my grandparents a wedding present.
And hey, if you run into Ernest Hemingway--could you get his autograph for me? Dude, I'll owe ya.
*Which doesn't sound like too wrong a way of looking at it. But heigh-ho, I'm merely a middle-class person...
2665221
Mannerly Shallow / Courtly Nice OTP 4ever
When we're talking about Shakespeare plays at the Globe, and probably also about Congreve, we're talking about large performances in large cities that have the best actors available, not troupes travelling from hamlet to hamlet in the 15th century.
More importantly, the criticisms still need to be made, regardless of the limitations the writers had. Shakespeare had no female actors, and censors, and easily-offended nobles. Contemporary writers have editorial perceptions of the market and the hot new thing list to contend with. This doesn't mean we give up studying literature. Also, you can't hold Shakespeare up as an exemplar, as the model for all writing, and then make excuses for him. When a teacher today tells a student that Shakespeare's plays were great, he is telling that student to write like Shakespeare. If older plays were subject to limitations, and those limitations made them worse, then people should stop calling them great.
I already secretly hate on Rainbow Dash.
All of the other main characters are better-developed and more multi-faceted than any characters in "The Way of the World".
I agree. I have a rather long section in my recent post on Henry IV arguing that. I hold Shakespeare to the standards of novels only to show that this is the case, that he is a poor model for novels, because most literary critics hold Shakespeare up as a great writer without making that distinction, implying that novelists should model themselves on Shakespeare.