English essay pondering - assistance requested

[taimatsu]

I have an English essay to write for Friday. It's 1000-2500 words on the following:
"I insist on your behaving as becomes a young woman." (Sheridan, The Rivals)
Using TWO texts, show how the representation of 'correct feminine conduct' (or otherwise) contributes to comedy OR satire.

I'm using 'The Importance of Being Earnest' and 'Much Ado about Nothing', and comedy rather than satire.

Now, it's pretty easy to burble about how funny particular bits of these plays are - the afternoon-tea scene in the Wilde, and parts of the 'merry war' in Much Ado - with a consideration of comic structure and techniques. But I need to say something more than that if I want to really get this essay up to standard (the above could become a workmanlike A-level essay concept, I think) and I'm struggling a bit with that.

I'm starting from the idea that this is not about these texts specifically - it's using the texts to show something about comedy in general - i.e. how does the representation of 'correct feminine conduct' contribute to comedy as a genre. That makes sense to me, and leads me into considering marriage as a generic marker of comedy (I have a handy source for that bit) and feminine conduct in relation to marriageability or otherwise. That's easy to do with Much Ado, and slightly less easy with the Wilde (though a consideration of the girls vs Miss Prism could be fruitful there). But then I have to relate that back to the title, and then I start having difficulties. I just can't get my head round how to do this whole 'talk about comedy as a genre' while also closely considering only two texts. I feel like I need to have read *everything* to do this the way I want to, and it makes me worry I'm barking up entirely the wrong tree.

How *can* I do this? How is it possible to make my discussion of the manners of Wilde and Shakespeare's women into a discussion of why women's manners are a fruitful source for comic writers? Especially in 2500 words or fewer?

I suspect I need to read more criticism on the subject, but I'm having enormous trouble finding anything, as I think the topic is a bit specific and I can't get anything out of the library catalogue except great tomes on the writers themselves.

I keep worrying that I'm getting it all wrong and should really be doing something a lot simpler.

If you have any particular thoughts on the subject, do share - what I'm missing right now is being able to discuss this with my mother, so you guys are the substitute. I won't quote you directly, but if something you say stands out as something I want to use, I will paraphrase and footnote you (surname, forename, date, unpublished) *grin*

Edited to add: Not forgetting, of course, that I currently have very little idea why women's manners *are* a fruitful source of comedy. I mean, they blatantly are - all but one of our set texts focus on them - but why? Why more than men's? Are they more than men's? Is it because comedy is domestic and that is 'the woman's sphere'? But how do I back that up? Am I just digging innumerable holes for myself to get lost in? Jeez, I really should've started this thing earlier.

Edited again to add: You are wonderful wonderful people. I have to go out to Brownies now, argh, and my hair is still wet, but I will be back about 7.30, so please go nuts with the erudition till then and I'll come and engage in literary discussion with you when I get in.

Comments

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Two points: Isn't much of the comedy caused by the imposition of illogical etiquette onto real life (well, distorted real life) situations? It's been a little wile since I read both.

Second point. Computer?

[taimatsu]

Computer worketh. I love computer. It is happy and shiny.

Having a not-working computer for an hour was actually a very good thing as it made me really think and get out all my notes and stuff :)

I think the etiquette is only illogical from a c21st perspective - in both plays the 'manners' which prevail are exaggerated but not completely unrealistic (I'm thinking of the rejection of Hero in the Shakespeare and Lady Bracknell's interrogation of Jack in the Wilde). The central conceits which provide the humour are (Much Ado) that you can dupe two people who are at odds into falling in love and (Earnest) the confusion of identities and emphasis on social status.

Though were I writing solely on the Shakespeare with a slightly different title I'd have to look carefully at whether Beatrice and Benedick are really so disinclined to like each other at all.

[bibliogirl.livejournal.com]

Is it perhaps because the manner in which women are expected to behave is so much more narrowly defined than the manner in which men are expected to behave? (Historically, I mean; the present time is somewhat different.) Therefore there are so many more directions in which one can push a fictional woman's behaviour and have it point up something about society as a whole in some manner.

Disclaimer: I'm a maths graduate. Arts not my thing ;)

[taimatsu]

That's a very nicely concise summary of the points I notice in comments below. Thank you! I think you're right, and will consider this idea further, possibly with additional reference to Northanger Abbey, argh, this essay is going to be too long.

[gnimmel.livejournal.com]

Comedy largely comes from the unexpected, so if the behaviour of women is governed by a tighter set of rules than those for men then there is more scope for deviating from those rules for comic effect (conversely, if men are held to behave in a more free and easy manner, than if they start behaving in a more constrained fashion then that is also unexpected and hence amusing). The manners distinction itself comes from socities in which the female function is to have babies and keep up appearances, I suppose. :/

[taimatsu]

Eeeeexcellent. That's very useful, thank you. I will ponder further.

Thinking aloud

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Most "etiquette" is a social construct and not at all what natural instinct would lead us to. Women are better at preserving this construct and keeping track of an artificial code of manners, for various reasons [you could go into those if you want but it might involve yet more wider reading; it boils down to 'women good at words, men good at actions' stereotyping at simplest], so the comedy inherent in situations dependent on etiquette/manners/subversion of same must hinge on women's roles in it, by and large.

Generalisations:
Women like to preserve face; women are more easily and deeply embarrassed; women are good at 'the polite lie'; women are emotion-led and when emotion and etiquette clash you have a good comic set-up.

Beatrice is a good exception to 'expected standards' because she's old enough to not be caught up in the 'must be demure to get a husband' stuff any more, and can be as rude as she likes to Benedick's face without fear, but she is also nursing a Secret Love - or at least can be convinced that she is - which is good for comedy too because she can't come out and admit it without being quite beyond the pale. She's still bound by convention and social niceties so cannot tell the truth about everything.

--------------
If any of that is helpful I'll have a proper think about it and see what else I can come up with!

Re: Thinking aloud

[taimatsu]

That will definitely be helpful in conjunction with the other points made so far - particularly the reminder that 'manners' are a social construct. I can definitely go somewhere with that.

It'd be harder for me to use the generalisations because they are just that, and I'd have to back them up, but they're useful to think about.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I think those two texts in particular are interesting, because I think they approach the issue from opposite directions.

The humor in Shakespeare comes from the idea that Kate is acting "unnaturally." Naturally, a woman is supposed to be meek and supportive and submissive and nurturing, and she's being a total shrew on wheels. This is the funny -- in part because Shakespeare's also subtly knocking the very concept of a woman's "proper behavior." The audience would recognize Kate's "unnatural" behavior, but of course they're not supposed to acknowledge it. Thus, the forbidden reality is outed and that causes a natural laughter-out-of-taboo.

Wilde, on the other hand, is lampooning the very idea of a woman's proper behavior and nature overtly. While Kate is acting (perfectly naturally) "unnaturally," Wilde's superficial women are acting within complete, stultifying propriety -- and as a result come across as brainless at best. The concept of etiquette and manners is made comedic by its adherence, whereas in Shakespeare it came from violation. But in both cases, what's being highlighted is an ideal that in the end has little to do with the real world.

And that right there? Is funny.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I think you're thinking of "The Taming of the Shrew" rather than "Much Ado About Nothing" -- but the point about "unnatural" (or perhaps rather "unfeminine") behaviour could still apply to Beatrice. Though it's a while since I've read it so I'll leave that one to you... :-) (Good points though!)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Of course I am. Because I'm dumb!

Though... the 'unnatural acts' of a woman dressing as a man and acting in a masculine way still makes the point germane. ;)

[j4.livejournal.com]

Not dumb at all! Though you have no idea how stupid I feel trying to get back into thinking about English studies over 5 years after finishing my degree. It all feels so long ago, so far away. :-/

[taimatsu]

The book you sent me is very handy, as it actually includes Much Ado as one of the texts studied.

[taimatsu]

Actually, I don't think Wilde's women come across as brainless at all. They're actually very clever - within the narrow confines of their values. They're definitely witty and quick-thinking. They're *not* acting with absolute propriety, as they repeatedly defy their guardians - but very politely. They just have very shallow social values, and that's what's being made fun of. Yes, this makes *them* shallow too - but not necessarily stupid.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

Well, you already know that the basic marks are there for the taking if you can show that there is a dramatic tension between expected behaviour - which may be illogical - and the things that it would be sensible, practical, possible or clandestinely desirable for the female protagonists.

There will be lines stating or hinting at the expected behaviour. There will almost certainly be a 'straight man' character that comes to embody or personify these 'virtues'. Equally, there will be lines, or hints, from other protagonists that explore other courses of action.

Bonus marks are there for quoting some external source - a contemporary novel, play, or manual of etiquette - that offers an opinion on how ridiculous all points of view might seem to the audiences of the time. And the top mark goes to an essay that says how the work retains its comic potential in the light of our views.

Not that, like, a geek would be any kind of literary critic.

[taimatsu]

Ado has Hero as the 'straight man'. Earnest, if it has such a character, has it in Miss Prism, who is just as much made fun of in a different way as the frivolous girls/snobbish mother. Wilde is most likely making fun of the *entirety* of contemporary social mores, including all the stereotypes from 'woman of fashion' to 'virtuous governess'. If the play can be said to be satirical (it can, but the issue is a thorny one and I don't want to go there) then Wilde (I think) does not explicitly present an alternative social system but indicates it only by inference. Bah, not expressing myself well. He lampoons social values but it's not clear what he might want to put in their place - it's only clear that the characters lack particular virtues and good qualities.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

it's only clear that the characters lack particular virtues and good qualities

But it is comical that they make heroic (and petty) efforts of deception to ensure that others perceive them to be virtuous. The audience knows, but the protagonists do not.

Note that some deceptions are virtuous: the butler, in lying about the availability of cucumbers in London, defends his employer and plays the very paragon of loyalty in an Edwardian household. This is, of course, irrelevant to your essay no female character plays a similar role.

Is there any conversation where all concerned use mendacity and misdirection to appeal to the others' facade of virtue? That, too, is a 'comic' scene.

[taimatsu]

Your final point about the work retaining comic potential in our period is a very useful one - I hadn't thought about including that.

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

There is also the fact -though I don't know if it's of any use to you - that women's gender roles are to some extent not only more constrained than those of men (in the time period, at least of Wilde) but also more *constructed* than those of men. I don't know how deeply you want to go into the whole gender-studies side of this, but it's a point Wollstonecraft makes loudly - that women have to be taught to be women, so it's not all that "natural" is it?

It's also been said that laughter is an interrupted fear/defence mechanism - I don't have a source for that, though so it may not be worthwhile. However, if you can back it up, AND use the idea that women being out-of-place or out-of-role is dangerous or perceived to be so by society, you might be on to somethign in terms of comedy - but I suspect that's more of a gender studies essay than an English one?

[taimatsu]

*nod* That's a useful point, and I may be able to back bits of it up. You're right, though - I only have 2500 words, which isn't much, so I can't get too deeply into the less-English bits of the discussion. I need to keep a tight focus on my texts in relation to the comic mode. But these are all useful things to consider and will help me link disparate parts of the essay.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

It is interesting how carefully women laugh in a constrained society. Where do they learn that?

[ifimust.livejournal.com]

From society.

Look at your local Toys R Expensive - there are still aisles with "girly" toys - but in Wollstonecraft's day it was much more "in your face" as it were... consider the clothing, the back boards....

[j4.livejournal.com]

Why more than men's?

To be honest if I were you I wouldn't go into that in too much detail -- I'd concentrate on women's manners, as that's what the question's asking. 1000 words really isn't a lot, certainly not enough that you could be expected to give some kind of complete overview of gender roles and comedy in literature -- that's more like a subject for a book or two! Also, the question specifically says using TWO texts, so you know you're not expected to talk about everything.

I just can't get my head round how to do this whole 'talk about comedy as a genre' while also closely considering only two texts.

Right. The thing I was told again and again at school and at university was DEFINE THE TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION. Part of this is working out what those terms actually mean; the other part is using the "definitions" (I don't mean dictionary definitions, though those can sometimes help as a starting point) to structure your answer. In the question above, I suspect you need to figure out what you mean by "comedy", and "correct feminine conduct". (The specifics are obviously going to be different for Wilde and Shakespeare -- do you want to emphasise the differences, or find the common ground?)

You can then use your two texts as sources of evidence -- evidence that will convince people that "the representation of 'correct feminine conduct' (or otherwise) contributes to comedy". Look at that evidence & think about how the two plays achieve this aim. This is where your discussion of the manners of Wilde's/Shakespeare's women (and how those contribute to comedy-as-you've-just-defined-it) comes in. Are women's manners used to create comedy in different ways in the two plays? Or do the two plays have things in common in the way they use this subject for comedy? (There probably isn't a single "correct" answer -- it's all about arguing from the evidence of the texts.)

I think somebody's already made good suggestions about the way the plays lampoon women's manners by showing women a) going against expected behaviour, or b) slavishly following and/or exaggerating expected behaviour -- that sounds like a good starting point.

*

Does any of that help at all, or am I just making things even more confused? I'm a very bad teacher, I'm afraid, and it feels like a very long time since I've looked at any of this stuff.

I should be in tonight after 8pm so give me a ring if you want (though I know neither of us are great at phones!) or iChat if you can do that... (if you want to iChat, probably best to SMS me and let me know otherwise I'll be afk).