For this one, I figured I would read everything in the Norton Critical Edition. Way to spoil a fun play... So this review will be in two parts: one for the actual play, and one for all the academic hay that was made out of it.The play itself is hilarious. Wilde's farce (subtitled A Trivial Comedy for Serious People) features light-hearted wit, mistaken identities, playful rivalries, absurd obstacles, and an unlikely turn of events. I just spent about 15 minutes trying to summarize the plot, but what Wilde makes flow effortlessly and hilariously, I make into a clunky, plodding bore, so I won't even try. Just take my word for it -- if you have a couple hours and want a laugh, give it a read.
The critical essays, on the other hand, are completely without humor. It's almost like they didn't even read the play, and they rather developed some overly wordy thesis and then found the parts of the play that support the argument. We run the gamut of topics: the play reverses gender roles, the play is about strong women, the play undercuts the male romantic lead, the play undercuts Edwardian society, the play is a coded homosexual celebration, the play is a self-fulfilling prophecy about Wilde's incarceration, the play is better in the four-act version, the play is better in the three-act version... Granted, there are some very impressive arguments in the critical essays, but ultimately they have little to do with the play itself. This just confirms for me that I'm no longer a good English major. The scary thing is, I can see how one could get satisfaction out of crafting such an in-depth analysis, yet ultimately, it seems like trying to draw blood from a turnip. Just eat the turnip.
Arbitrary rating (play): 4 out of 5 light-hearted wits
Arbitrary rating (essays): 2 out of 5 academic hay bales
