Uncategorized

She stoops to conquer

After reading She stoops to conquer, the most interesting thing to me was the title of the play. i found the whole play seemed to be tricks in order for one to gain some sort of benefit. For example, Kate decides to trick Marlow so that she can see who he really is when he is not “performing for a high class woman.In  the end though she sees Marlow is willing to change for one he loves and would be willing to go against social norms for love. So practically she lowered her social class and tricked Marlow just to see if he would be a good husband and mate. I was happy to see that it worked out well and didn’t end up being with someone completely modest and plain like her father had wanted for her. But found someone who when cleaned up was more to her liking. I think even her father realized towards the end that Marlow was indeed a good match. 
Tony is another, person who is very intriguing to me through out the play. In the beginning he seems to be not such a good person. But his mother seems to baby him and allows him to do as he wants. I still don’t know the real reason why Tony was so willing to help get Constance Neville and Hastings out of the house and wed. Was it because he disposed her so much that he’d rather help her to not deal with her? But then towards the end Tony goes to extreme measures to try and prove he’s not a bad person…One thing that really was odd to me was how the mother lied about Tonys age just to give him more time so he could eventually inherit the jewels. The mother is indeed a hinderer and that is just weird. can any one better describe Tony? 
Neville I thought it was a bit rude that it seemed like she wanted the jewels more than a happy marriage with Hastings. I felt like she was a bit like Marlow was in the beginning . 
Advertisements

One thought on “She stoops to conquer

  1. I really enjoyed reading this play. However, after reading the opening letter, and then the play, I began to question why the shift from the Sentimental comedy to the Laughable comedy. It was actually a really interesting read. I found several articles that spoke to the social and cultural changes that were transpiring.
    There were changes in the morals of the society that occurred as England moved from the Georgian era to the Victorian era. Pornagraphic material became more readily available, homosexuality became fashionable among gentleman, and contraception was being sold in Covent Garden (a redlight district that sprung up in the 18th century in what was once a central garden market). There was a major social shift occurring in the religious, and political arena which history has shown tends to have a dramatic effect on the entertainment industry.
    In this play the characters were not the honorable cast of the Sentimental comedies that had ruled the stage prior, but instead they were all morally flawed (in a sense more like real people than the characters in the Sentimental Comedies). The play seemed to revolve around the issues of deception and perception (lies and judgment). These are issues that have a great deal of relevance still today.
    In Literature, we often see a shift in popular trends based on what is happening at that moment in time. However, this brings me to the question of whether we should read something into the endurance of this play and the moral character of society and our relatability to the characters and their morality struggles? Or is this just an issue of laughable comedy being enjoyable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s