Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.

	Theatre Portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I've removed the following:

It is perhaps also worth pointing out that in the late Victorian Era the word "earnest" was sometimes used as a euphemism for "homosexual" (in a similar way to the use of the word "gay" today). Given Wilde's sexual orientation, it is quite possible that he intended this triple meaning to be considered. While we're on the subject of euphemisms, "bunburying" was Victorian slang for anal sex.

although I don't know for sure that it's false, on the grounds that publishing misinformation is worse than omitting useful information.

Do we have contemporary references for either of these? They both sound like urban myths to me. See also http://www.albemarle-london.com/importance.html . Matthew Woodcraft

You are right, MW. I shouldn't have repeated the conjecture about Bunburying without evidence, which I can't find (and I've looked quite extensively on the Web). The OED2 lists Wilde's play as the first instance (1899) of the word Bunbury in this sense. Someone else wrote the bit about earnest, for which I can find no justification either, except a reference (without quotation) on a web page (http://www.geocities.com/mere_hud/homo3.html) to Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld (1994) by Theo Aronson (ISBN 0-7195-5278-8). As I don't have this book and it's out of print, I can't say on what evidence that claim was based. Perhaps someone out there knows. -- Heron

There appears to be some evidence for "earnest" as Victorian slang for "homosexual". As Belford states (Belford, B. 2000. "Oscar Wilde: A Certain Genius". Bloomsbury:London. p.237) a volume of homoerotic sonnets by John Gambril Nicholson entitled "Love in Earnest" ("Earnest" referring to a 14yo boy as love interest) coined the phrase "Is he earnest?" in intellectual Victorian circles (see also http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1606_275/ai_58055883). She also mentions "Bunburying" as "an alibi indicating the double life necessary for seeking forbidden pleasure" (ibid.). Another mention she makes is the name "Cecily" for rent boys (ibid.). For a contrary view, consult http://www.rainbownetwork.com/Culture/detail.asp?iData=10983&iCat=87&iChannel=15&nChannel=Culture.

--ScarredHawk

We did a bit of researching in my English 2100 class here at The University of Missouri, and apparently there is actually quite a bit of speculation upon the whole "bunburying" subject. There are numerous essays written on the subject. One is included in the back of my written copy, published by W.W. Norton & Company.

Horaz (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I was about to reverse the change of spelling of Gwendolen, after a quick look on IMDB showed that both the 1952 and 2002 film list the character name as Gwendolyn, however I thought I'd best go to source and had a quick look at Wilde: Complete Works and indeed it is listed as Gwendolen. Mintguy

Contents 1 Category:LGBT literature? 2 Witty. Charming. 3 Four-act version 4 John or Jack? 5 Earnest/Ernest 6 "Erroneously" 7 Miss Prism 8 Jack's real name 9 Is Algernon wealthy? 10 Article assessment is off 11 The Importance of Being Ernest 12 Misprison or Misprision?

[edit] Category:LGBT literature?

Can someone please explain the sense in which this belongs in Category:LGBT literature. Yes, the author was gay (or bi, depending on one's construction of these words), but that clearly doesn't suffice to put the work in that category any more than a random Patricia Highsmith novel. Some have read "hidden" gay themes into the play, but some have done the same with Shakespeare. At a quick look, the other works in the category have explicitly gay themes (though I'm not so sure about Mrs. Dalloway, which I haven't read, and I believe may be a similar case, inclusion being a comment on the author, not the work.

Is this category well-defined? And if so what are the criteria for including this play? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I just came on to this talk page to say the same thing. Seeing as there has been no reply to Jmabel supporting this categorisation I am removing it now. Oska 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Witty. Charming.

I agree with the opinions expressed in the recent edits that describe the play, and Algernon, as "witty" and "charming" but this is an encyclopedia article, not a review. We should either find someone authoritative who said that, and cite what they said, or get it out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:03 (UTC)

I completely agree. This looks like it's a gushing review, not an encyclopedia article. It needs to be rewritten. 66.168.50.185 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four-act version

I've added in what I believe to be the case about the four-act version of the play. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of this, but the basic facts are definately correct. If anyone can expand/correct it I'd be very greatful. Donald Ian Rankin 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John or Jack?

I see someone has recently changed all references to Algernon's friend from "Jack" to "John". A quick Google search seems to go about 50-50 on this. Certainly the article should mention that he is referred to as both. Weirdly, the version of the script we link from the article calls him John Worthing, J.P. in the list of personae, but "Jack" throughout the script. And, of course, names figure prominently in the play, including this one:

Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moments solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest.

-- Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's easily explained. "Jack" was originally a pet name for "John" in the same way someone whose name is "Nicholas" might be called "Nick"; the difference with Jack and John is that today they've lost the connection and are seen as different names. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article, since, as you say, the question of names is very important in the play. 144.178.184.86 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I thought that went without explicit saying and is exactly what the quote I give alludes to. My point is that different editions of the script don't seem to concur on which form to use, and the one I cited doesn't even manage to agree with itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Eek, sorry. Shouldn't have leapt to the conclusion that you didn't know that. In that case, I don't know..... unless you can find out which it was in the original script? 84.66.103.192 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think this should help clear a few things up:

"Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names. I think Jack, for instance, a charming name.

Gwendolen. Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest"

"Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John!" -Tim-THobern 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earnest/Ernest

The title of the article says Earnest and redirects from Ernest, but the article itself states Ernest. Shouldn't this be changed? 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow that, but I suspect you are confused. The title of the play is The Importance of Being Earnest: earnest, an adjective meaning serious, sincere. In the play, it is a running pun on the man's name Ernest. In case you don't know the play (and I'm trying to put this in a non-spoiler way) the play turns on this pun. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Erroneously"

In the first comment on this page, Mathew Woodcraft says that he has removed a comment claiming that TIOBE had a definite gay subtext. It appears that he (or someone else) has gone further than this, by informing us that "it has been erroneously claimed", etc. Whilst I personally couldnt agree more, this seems like a pretty bold statement, especially as in the BA course I am doing atm, (English at Manchester Metropolitan University - one of the top 100 in the country), it is taught as almost factual. This is part of an annoying trend I am seeing in all of academic literary criticism. In assignments, etc, it is impossible to get top marks without claiming some sexual subtext in even the most innocent text. ANZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.28.116 (talk • contribs) 26 Dec 2005

[edit] Miss Prism

Someone had created a separate article on Miss Prism, which seems to me excessive; I've turned it back into a redirect to this article. I did not add back the following sentence, though it should be there if we expand to having remarks on each character, which we probably should: "Before becoming a governess, she was a lowly nursemaid and part-time novelist. She represents education within Victorian society, and harbours romantic feelings for Rev. Canon Chausable, D. D. Originally played by the actress Mrs George Cunnings." - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how many different ways Earnest made a mochary of the courtship and engagement processes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.106.226 (talk • contribs) 7 June 2006.

[edit] Jack's real name

From the point of view of having only seen the recent dramatised version, I thought that, at the end, Jack's real name is not discovered to be Ernest. In this version he reads the book on his lineage and proclaims that his name is Ernest. Their Aunt however reads the book and it states another name, Robert to my recollection, but she keeps quiet about it. Possibly this is only int he modern version.

81.132.37.76 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not in the script. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in Wilde's text, Lady Bracknell comments "Yes, I remember now that the General was called Ernest, I knew I had some particular reason for disliking the name." As such I have removed the suggestion in the article that she casts doubt on the name. Nandt1 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Algernon wealthy?

I have changed the article's description of Algernon as wealthy. In Lady Bracknell's words to the (truly wealthy) Cecily: "Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend upon" and as she later says of Algernon to Jack: "He has nothing, but he looks everything." Nandt1 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment is off

There's no way an article of this much length and detail can still qualify as a stub. Could someone from a WikiProject this article's part of please reassess it as at least start-class, perhaps even B-class? Either that, or redefine "stub" to include articles with 10+ sections... Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Importance of Being Ernest

Where is the article about the Jim Varney movie? That page just redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick check of the links for the films shows that none of them redirects here. MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misprison or Misprision?

Looks like a spelling mistake to me. Is it? Alpheus (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've jumped in and changed it, as Alpheus suggests—well spotted. However, now the pun is less obvious with the spelling change, I've tagged it with a {{fact}} request. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)