Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest

Value of money

A reference I made to the changing value of money was removed some time ago (I have only just noticed). The two points made were:

• In Act 1, Jack states his income as "Between seven and eight thousand a year." In the 111 years from 1895, when the play was written to 2006 wage inflation has dramatically outpaced price inflation. An equivalent annual income in 2006 would be about £3,000,000.
• In Act 3, Jack states Cecily's fortune as "...about a hundred and thirty thousand pounds..." An equivalent fortune in 2006 would be about £12,000,000.

Although automatically out of date with the passage of time (the comparison is with 2006 prices) I think these two points are of interest to show generally how wealthy by modern standards the characters were.

It is interesting to note that proportionately the increase in Jack's income is much greater than the increase on Cecily's fortune. This is, in fact, the case - for equivalent wages we can now buy over five times more than a century ago. Although this sounds excessive, it is the equivalent of wages increasing faster than prices by about 1.6% each year – almost so small as not to be noticeable year-to-year, but compounded over a century gives the dramatic result.

I think the article would be the better for the references to money in Acts 1 and 3 and propose to reinstate them. Anybody with any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickedmo (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree: reinstate them. Seiopotessi (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The Italian translation(s) of the title

Lastly, one translation gave the name an Italianate touch by rendering it as Ernesto; this work liberally mixed proper nouns from both languages.[106]

It isn't one translator: it's the most common translation, and the most common way to quote the title (when not in the original English): L'importanza di chiamarsi Ernesto. (By the way, to translate foreign names into Italian --- as into French, Spanish, ecc. --- was common pratice till recently.) 62.98.180.167 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Charles Wyndham

I am surprised at a rather big omission in the section covering the genesis of the work. The present text faithfully reports what the cited source says, but the source unaccountably omits important information that is actually provided elsewhere in the same book. In brief, Wilde wrote The Importance with Charles Wyndham in mind, and the latter had accepted the play for production when George Alexander had a sudden crisis with the failure of Guy Domville leaving him in desperate need of a successor to keep his theatre open. Wyndham generously responded to Alexander's SOS and waived his contractual rights in order to let Alexander stage the piece. It was particularly generous of Wyndham, as the character of John Worthing was to some extent modelled on his stage persona. See Raby on p. 143 of the Cambridge Companion, the footnote on pp. 418–419 of Hart-Davis's 1962 edition of Oscar's letters and the ODNB. I disapprove of barging in at Good Articles or FAs, so am raising the point here as a start. Tim riley talk 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley thanks for your research on this. IMO it belongs in the article. I'm not sure that this talk page is on many active editors watchlist anymore so if, after a day or so, you don't get other input please feel free to add it. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Now done. I've also removed some material cited to Ellmann 1988, p. 397 which simply doesn't appear there. Tim riley talk 10:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

External links

I tried adding the Standard Ebooks link to the book, but it was reverted by @Tim riley:; I assumed this was because it was cluttering up the links section, so I tried doing so while also removing the Project Gutenberg link, and then it was reverted by @MarnetteD:. Is there a reason to not include a Standard Ebooks link? They're included throughout WP on a number of other public domain books, it's a fully CC0 project, and the text itself is based on the Gutenberg one but with modern eBook files that actually have accessibility features. Smith(talk) 08:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should delete Gutenberg links in favour of this new site. It seems excessive to add another one, but I suppose it's harmless enough. Tim riley talk 08:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the SE link as well as the PG one. If you're at all interested in public domain literature, I'd recommend checking it out - it's not particularly new, and it's much more readable. Smith(talk) 11:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible failed verification for Ellman cite re "Earnest" as code-word for homosexual

The following sentence is cited to Ellmann 1988 pg. 88: The word "earnest" may also have been a code-word for homosexual, as in: "Is he earnest?", in the same way that "Is he so?" and "Is he musical?" were employed.

I don't have a physical copy of Ellmann, but I have an eBook edition (the title page says "First Vintage Books Edition, November 1988"), and am having a hard time verifying this claim. Page 88 of the eBook doesn't have any relevant material, but it's very likely the eBook and print editions have different pagination. However, I did a full-text search for terms like "Earnest", "code-word", and "musical" and found nothing relevant. Would someone with a physical copy be kind enough to verify this citation (and perhaps transcribe the relevant quote)? Colin M (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: I stumbled on a source that does support this claim (with very similar wording even). pg. 475 of eBook edition of Neil McKenna's The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde: Among less literary Uranians, ‘earnest’ – a corruption of the French Uraniste – enjoyed a short vogue as a coded signifier of Uranian inclinations. ‘Is he earnest?’ had the same meaning, at about the same time, as the question ‘Is he musical?’. So if the original cite does fail citation, we at least have a drop-in replacement. Colin M (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: You're dead right that the citation to Ellman p. 88 is no good. The book is available on the wonderful Internet Archive here, and there's not a trace of the matter on the cited page. I'm cautious about McKenna's book, which strikes me – I may be wrong – as a bit sensationalist. I'll have a rummage and see if I can verify the statement from a source I feel confident about citing. Tim riley talk 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long – thanks once again to the Internet Archive. This is from Lord Annan's Our Age: Portrait of a Generation:

In the nineties one member of the fraternity might ask another, 'Is he musical?' or 'Is he earnest?', code words for homosexual as 'gay' is today. It is pleasant to think of Wilde, as he surveyed the first-night audience at the Haymarket, remembering that the most outrageous joke in his play was concealed in the title.

Dinner beckons, but I'll add this with appropriate bibliographical details tomorrow. In passing, "Is he musical?" was code for "Is he gay?" even when I was a young man, circa 1970, as was "Is he a friend of Dorothy?", though I can't imagine The Importance of Being a Friend of Dorothy would have gone down well at the Haymarket, or even at the St James's where pace Annan the premiere took place. Tim riley talk 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Now attended to, but I found rather an odd thing when I looked at the other Ellmann references. Some are OK but one had a wrong page number (now corrected) and another was not only not on the claimed page, but was not there anywhere in the book that I can find. I have commented it out for now. Meanwhile, I see that the citation styles are a mess, and unless anyone objects I'll tidy them up into a consistent format. Tim riley talk 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture of Rose Leclerq

I have just run across and uploaded a sketch of Leclerq as Lady Bracknell, and am unsure whether it is better to have a photograph of her in a different role (as we have at present) or a drawing of her in The Importance. I have experimented with (but not saved) replacing the photo with the sketch, but it looked a bit odd to me alongside two photographs of other cast members. Any thoughts on this? Tim riley talk 09:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• My preference is for an image directly relevant to the article. I use MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for that opinion. I know that there are other images in the article that don't strictly follow that guideline and there is always WP:IAR. Even though it is a drawing rather than a picture I would support its use. Nice work on finding that image Tr. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've done the deed, but if people think it was better before I shan't kick up a fuss. Tim riley talk 15:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Original cast

Call me obsessive, but I'd like to get a blue link for every member of the original cast. There are two to go and I am amassing enough material for a worthwhile article on the actor who played Lane (rather an interesting career later), but I am stuggling for information about Mrs George Canninge. She was Sarah Canninge, born 1843 and in the archives there are numerous reviews of her performances, but I can't find out when she died. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As a fellow obsessive Tim riley I have to congratulate you on your work on this. I'm not sure how much of a response you will get here. You could try asking at either the WP:RDE or the WP:RDH - but not both. There are several top notch researchers there and I have seen them dig into the available data to answer questions like this in the past. Good luck in you endeavours. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I didn't know about the reference desks you mention and will take your advice and ask my question at one of them - I'll ponder which. Tim riley talk 10:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Who's John?

The St James's Theatre listing (both here and on the New Mermaid Bloomsbury print edition) names Jack as John, when virtually everywhere else there is no mention of a John. Why is John written as a character? Was this simply a mistake or am I missing something? 92.17.154.158 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In reply to Tim

@Tim riley Honestly -- I might be tempted to move the "Publication" section up and subordinate it to "Productions", but otherwise, yes, it has a lot of sections, but they all seem to be the right ones. Normally, one might want to put "critical reception" and "analysis" together, since in many ways they're the same thing, but I can see the line adopted here.

A few suggestions: most readers will probably want "synopsis" as early as defensible: one of the most important things in an article on a play is what actually happens in that play. We could also stick the discussion of the play's genre at the top of "Analysis", as what we think to be the genre of a work of art really colours all the rest of our analysis. The bit on "Banbury" could perhaps be melded in with the discussion of a possible homosexual subtext, and we could perhaps roll "characterisation" into the discussion of social class and perhaps the use of language, but these suggestions are really tinkering around the edges. On the whole, it's clear, well-presented and reads smoothly, and makes sense to at least one reader (me) who hasn't seen or read the play. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

UC, never seen it?! I’m staggered! (I thoroughly recommend the 1952 version as the best of the lot.) - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the lead contains a bit too much on the Wilde-Queensberry dispute (it's only a paragraph in the body); it would benefit from focusing more on the thematic analysis and at least touching on the play's composition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Warmest thanks to both. These are very much to the point and I'll enjoy working on them over the next day or two. Tim riley talk 07:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. I've cherry picked gratefully. Suggestions from any other interested editors would be welcome too. I begin to think FAC might be a realistic prospect, and reinforcements will be gladly recruited. Tim riley talk 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely agree that the synopsis should be higher - I’d think about it being the first section. As the Composition section names characters and discusses plot points, it would work better coming second, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had an emailed suggestion that the Publication section should come before the Analysis, which I'm happy with and have done.

The article is now at FAC. Tim riley talk 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Conjectural homosexual subtext -- a stretch?

Now that the article is going up on TFA, I'd like to say that some of the "Conjectural homosexual subtext" section seems to be stretching credulity. The whole section is already "conjectural". I'd say that two of the harder pieces of "evidence" in the section to take seriously are whether the play's puns and references to the German language are indications of "gay subtext". Not everything a critic speculates about needs to be included. I am not sure the section (the longest one in the Analysis section) complies with WP:DUE. Does anyone else feel the same? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I rather agree. It occurs to me that the whole of the existing second paragraph could be turned into a footnote. Also, in the Bunbury section, I think we could lose the assertion – uncited in the source (Fineman) and unsupported elsewhere as far as I can discover – that "bunbury" was ever slang for a male brothel. Tim riley talk 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. In particular, searches for 'Bunbury' are repeated by a very small number of sources - all of them modern and all of them in connection with the play. There's no reference in any older works, or anything unconnected to the play. If it was slang, it would be included in works of gay history, books of slang, maybe some older works of gay fiction, etc, but nothing is coming up on the searches. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Those are excellent points. Once you feel there is consensus, I suggest that you go ahead and make the changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good. Trimmed accordingly. I agree with you both that the unsupported interpretations needed pruning. Tim riley talk 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)