Thank you for the supportive comments.
Marriage A La Mode: False Fires of a Fantastic Glory
In short: a)predictable plot and characters, b) play on words for sexual excitement, c) usual play formation with no surprises from beginning to the conclusion, d) satirical mockery of the private lives of the rich [economic separation], e) unique language structure around the characters and their personalities [importance of speech], probably so many other aspects but this is enough for now.
a) predictable plot and characters: The plot is not original but maybe it was during the Seventeenth Century. However, since it is a comedy audiences would have been laughing at the characters who were performing common behavior- sexual, devious, self deserving and, oh yes, acting to ones duty. These attributes are normal to anyone really and therefore, the contents of plot is not difficult. It would have had to been predictable for people to laugh without paying great attention to every detail.
As for the characters the men act like men and the women, well act like men too. What is interesting is how Dryden represents the women as having men qualities, such as action (the fact they do, dress like men, and say things, a lot of things) and lust (well, speaks for its self). The main female characters are humorously chaste yet under neither it all, they are just as self deserving as the men for gain/game of some sort. What I think is smart is the fact that Dryden uses “mature” adult figures so represent the hysterical lives of the rich (later discussed further down) and uses the younger couple originally from the pastoral world outside of the rich realm to represent real love in the end. Does he not?
b) play on words for sexual excitement: I could just rewrite the whole play but I wont. I am sure we have lots of favorite examples. One that stands out is when Palamede and Rhodophil are speaking about how the masquerade was established, interesting because it is like he confesses to her and tries to make it seem that is okay to do what men do, and then she tries to make it like women are always in it for love. Ha Ha! I just find it funny.
Rhodophil: I believe it was invented first by some jealous lover to discover the haunts of his jilting mistress or perhaps by some distressed servant to gain an opportunity with a jealous man’s wife.
Palamede: No, it must be the invention of a women: it has so much subtlety and love in it.
c) usual play formation with no surprises from beginning to the conclusion: I do not know about anyone else but nothing surprised me other than nothing happened. Kind of a disappointment. I think the audience would have enjoyed a little action.
d) satirical mockery of the private lives of the rich [economic separation]: The private lives of the rich and famous are now exposed to be laughed and mocked at by everyone. Who would not see this play? It is always nice to see that “they” the people we work for and hand all our money to are just dirty like us “lower ground dwellers”. Ironic that the sane characters in the play are the servants who actually use rational to herd the cattle. I mean the people they are loyal to.
e) unique language structure around the characters and their personalities [importance of speech]: This is were it would have been really handy to know French. Wow, I will admit, I think I lost a lot of meaning throughout the play because I was to lazy to look up the words. So I know it is important because Dryden uses the distinction of language throughout the play but I think I will wait to see if anyone brings it up in class.
So there are just a few thoughts. I guess I am more concerned about the gender roles and how they are similarly represented yet the traditional gender roles still apply. Weird, but I think I will read Alan’s blog to find out.
Thanks.
am
