As “The Importance of Being Earnest” comes to a close, Jack’s
double life is largely reconciled. He acquires
the name Ernest and gains the troublesome younger brother in Algernon he had
previously invented as an excuse to travel into London on the regular basis. Remarkably, he has fulfilled Lady Bracknell’s suggestion
that he “acquire some relations as soon as possible”(I,565). In doing so, one can assume he has earned the
right to marry Gwendolyn, which he repeatedly asserts is key to his happiness.
This surprising turn of events is very interesting when
thinking of the play in terms of its messages about performance. The resolution of the play is dependent on
the restoration of the natural identity of Jack/Ernest. The conflation of the conclusion of the play
with the restoration of original identity suggests that it is impossible for
contingent, “unnatural” identities to last.
In the end, no one does form an alliance with a parcel. Origin is established and the romance coloring
Jack’s early years is revealed as merely an accident and there is a sense that
everyone is destined “to be who they are” or adhere to some natural, inherent
identity.
Nevertheless, the fact that Jack performs an identity of his
own design and ultimately legitimately attains the life he has been acting out
also can be read as a suggestion that performance creates reality, a concept
that has been discussed at length in several of the critical articles we have
worked with thus far. Jack’s natural
identity is ultimately what he chose for it to be, insinuating natural identity
may be nothing more than an allusion. This reading picks up on a message that
was likely quite transgressive at the time the play was published. Wilde was clearly negotiating between social
acceptability and transgression by trying to popularize his potentially
threatening fiction and it seems completely possible the room for these two
interpretations was part of this effort.
1 comment:
I really liked your idea of "Jack's natural identity is ultimately what he chose for it to be, insinuating natural identity may be nothing more than an allusion." What, though, about the case and Bunburry? Does that mean an invalid exists somewhere and Algernon really did kill him off? Just wondering your thoughts on that, and perhaps I got your idea a bit wrong...
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.