Algernon’s attitude is the one that prevails leading the audience to identify it with the voice of Wilde: “In all important matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential”. 2 Throughout “The Importance of Being Earnest” there is an inversion of the serious and the trivial. It is expressed by Algernon when he says, “I hate people who are not serious about meals. It is so shallow of them” It is a “serious comedy for trivial people” because the triviality of food carries serious meanings. The way you serve tea expresses a reaction to power and status.
Those types of jokes can be funny even if they are a little offensive as a woman. Also some jokes, like those dealing with rape or the Holocaust, actually reinforces our disdain for that act. We laugh at the ridiculousness of the joke and then kind of go “ohhhh” and think more in depth at the
It is suggested by this then that the play holds no deeper meaning or message of morality; it is simply designed to fulfill a purpose through usage of traditional comedic techniques. However, some have interpretated themes of sexuality and a gentle mocking of Victorian customs ultimately leaving the play open to assumption. The Importance of being Earnest certainly maintains many traits of a great comedy of manners, "A comedy that satirizes behaviour in a particular social group"(dictionary.com). In fact many people have hailed it as "the greatest stage comedy of all time", this triumph supports the viewpoint that Wilde merely succeeded in entertaining his audience rather than channeling a deeper understanding. The use of slapstick by Wilde produces a contrived and absurd plotline that is in every way unrealistic.
She uses different numbers and awards to show how devoted the shows fans are and how well the show is actually doing. Peacocke talks about her own struggle with the shows offensive humor but then now she realizes the use of humor in the jokes. The author uses different segments of the show to show how although the jokes are, at first glance, offensive the hidden meaning is simply "pointing out the weaknesses and defects of U.S. society in a mocking and sometimes intolerable way." (263). Antonia Peacocke uses short parts of from different authors to shape her argument, agreeing with some and pointing fun at others.
show I love, but that not many people understand, falls into that category. South Park is more than just a television show. It is an outlet in which moral messages can be channeled through, in a humorous way that we can all understand and relate to. The key element of South Park is its satirical humor style. Many episodes are based off of real-world problems, and are solved through extensive use of satire.
The sheer number of insults and implications made by the author coupled with a healthy sprinkling of aristocratic inside jokes would indicate that he essentially wrote this book for himself and other like-minded intellectuals of the enlightenment that disapproved of the status quo or could at least appreciate his cheeky sense of humor. I found the book very enjoyable and caught myself laughing out loud many times at the boldness of Voltaire’s slickly woven asides. He spent so much time attacking other people and their ideas though, I began to wonder if he would ever express his own ideas. Amid all of his negative commentary, I think it
Ernest, who is still known as Jack at the moment, is struck at how heartless Algernon’s behavior is when he “sits there, calmly eating muffins when they’re in this horrible trouble”(Wilde 68). While it may not be his true name, Jack fits Ernest characteristics just as well when Jack takes his chance to talk to Gwendolen for her hand in marriage. Now, asking for someone's hand in marriage is great and all, but in Jack’s eyes, you don’t mention something as “small” as having a ward at your country home, which may cause a problem. When Algernon asks if he’d said anything, his only excuse was that “the truth isn’t quite the sort of thing one tells to a nice, sweet, refined girl”(Wilde 30). Way to sugar coat it, Jack.
If we have no conviction, dismissing the conflict is a selfish convenience rather than a solution. In considering vegetarianism, Wallace asserts that “even the most diehard carniphile will acknowledge that it’s possible to live and eat well without consuming animals” and, ambivalent, asks his readers: “What ethical convictions have you worked out that permit you to not just eat but to savor and enjoy flesh-based viands?” (354, 355). Unlike Foer, Wallace has not made a choice. His indecision manifests itself in the essay’s numerous footnotes, which see Wallace explain, clarify, and grapple with the lobster’s plight. And while the parentheses in “Against Meat” see Foer coming to terms with his decision to forego meat, Wallace’s footnotes show a man unable to commit himself.
On the other hand a person who shows self-interest such as eating vegetables for ones health is not acting selfishly. Because only eating that kind of food is not the most prefarable choice of his. Psychological egoism is descriptive and as Rachel mentions is the self-intrest being the cause of everything in ones life and this is explained by being selfish and doing only what one wants. For exemple if one wants to help a friend studying when that one does not care about his
All critics agree in considering Twelfth Night as one of the most delightful of Shakespeare’s comedies. It is full of sweetness and pleasantry. It makes us laugh at the follies of mankind, not despire them, still less bear any ill-will towards them. From start to end the play is full of gay joviality. The sentimental elements and the unsentimental malice a livelier, more dramatic impression from their contrast: and the contrast itself makes the dolling life of the play more interesting to an audience.