Did+Goldsmith+Fail?

In the prologue, Goldsmith tells us: "I give it up - morals won't do for me..." We learned that the plays of the time were filled with morals and were hardly comedic at all. Recognizing the failure of these plays, he then proceeds to write a play that is not based on moral values but on true comedy. Yet I wonder if he really succeeded in all of this. Although he does not rely on morality for humor, there are still several allusions to moral values, especially at the end of the novel, that seem to contradict his statements. When Marlow realizes that the barmaid he has been pursuing is in fact the very lady whom he claimed to detest, he mutters, "I never attempted to be impudent yet, that I was not taken down." Only after he learns the error of his ways does he reap the benefits. Mr. Hardcastle reveals the deceit of Mrs. Hardcastle towards Tony. As a result of her deceit, she loses part of the forturne she hoped to obtain as Tony does not marry Constance. Her last line of the play is, "My undutiful offspring," which becomes the death rattle of her aspirations. Finally the epilogue seems to contain a moral concerning the treatment of inferiors like the barmaids. "And let me say, for all your resolution, that pretty Barmaids have done execution..." Don't all of these point towards morality? And if so, doesn't that fail the purpose of this play? 1203048596

I do not think that Goldsmith failed in his attempts to create a play that lacked morals and traditional style. Although, there is some indication that the play includes morlas, I do not think that it does. The events that occur in this play are comedic and unrealistic and any moral derived from it can be characterized in the same way. Goldsmith does not want us to learn anything from this play, but instead attempts to illustrate the comedy of misfortunate circumstances. As readers, we are not supposed to look for a deep moral message, but instead should focus on understanding the events and their comedy. Further, if this play does contain morals, they are very different than those found in 18th century London. Gentlemen were not supposed to be attracted to barmaids and ladies were expected to be proper unlike the characters in this play. So perhaps, Goldsmith gave up traditional morals. Any other ideas? 1203107589

I don't know if it's possible to write a play or story without any morals, and I don't think Goldsmith intended to. Instead, he meant to write a book that completely different from the morals of the day. Perhaps to someone of this time period, Goldsmith's work might even appear to be without morals. You can definitely see Goldsmith's attempts to defy morals. The most obvious is in Tony, first through his deceit of Hastings and Marlow and then again when he tricks his own mother into thinking he has taken her on a long journey when, in reality, they are only minutes from home. Another example is in Kate's disguise that tricks Marlow into treating her like a servant girl, rather than the upstanding citizen as she deserves. I would also agree with Ksm that "Gentlemen were not supposed to be attracted to barmaids and ladies were expected to be proper unlike the characters in this play." This is yet another example of morals contrary to the morals of the time period. 1203112934

I agree with Kho. I don't think that it is possible to write a coherent play or novel that doesn't somehow include morals. There are some traces of what is right and what is wrong in "She Stoops to Conquer." I still don't believe that Goldsmith failed his goal for this play. The slight evidence of morals weren't the focus. I think that this is also evident in the equations that we wrote for the outcome of the play. I have yet to hear of a group that found morals as part of the outcome. I think that it isn't possible to avoid morals completely because it is part of our human nature to know what is right and what is wrong. Even if a story is written in which the characters have no concern for moral behavior, we as readers will most likely notice this lack of morals which places morals as a focus of the novel. On this note, I think that Goldsmith did a good job of writing a play in which morals are never a concern. Would we even have thought about morals if we haven't read the prologue? I doubt it and this was Goldsmith's goal. He created a comic play that didn't force or teach morals to its readers. I don't think that the fact that some characters have a sense of right and wrong makes "She Stoops to Conquer" a story of morality.1203115527

I agree with Kho also. It is difficult to write a play or novel with no trace of morals. Goldsmith understood this when he wrote this play. He says, "I give it up--morals won't do for me." I think that Goldsmith is saying that he has tried writing stories with specific morals in mind and now he is sick of it. He is done trying to force people to find the moral of the story. So he decided to write this play, with no intention of giving us morals or life lessons. Of course we can analyze this and find all the morals we want, but Goldsmith did not intend for us to do this. He basically said, "I don't care, look for the morals if you want, but I'm not going to force them upon you." I'm sure Goldsmith saw every moral mentioned throughout his play, but he was through with coming up with a grand moral that everyone can follow and relate to. 1203116215

We all try to say every once in a while, "Oh yah, I'm not going to play by the rules; I'm not going to abide by my morals." Ok, and that lasts for how long? Right! It's the same way with Goldsmith's play. The characters start out deceiving one another, paying attention and treating others or acting differently around them based upon apperance, but in the end, when the masks come off and truth is revealed, everyone lives happily ever after. We, as humans, are drawn to good, we are drawn to what makes us happy in our hearts. It's like that expression, "The truth can set you free." Being yourself, not having to hide your true identity, like Kate did, really does make us happy and satisfies our hearts, no matter we convince ourselves we want. In this case, that tough mask, the one Oliver intended to keep, lasted one night? By the end of the night, the characters all took off their masks and accepted each other for who they really were. Why is it that it's so hard to play tough all of the time? Does that explain why we like to just let loose around our friends and family, the people we know won't judge us for our exterior? Is that why sometimes is so hard to stay mad at a best friend, even if you really want to be, because we think we should be? Morals shape us, they make us who we are. Why would we, or Goldsmith, want to run away from that? For the "fun" of it?1203118073

For someone who attempted to justify a song by Johnny Cash as a ballad, an act of bending the rules significantly, this post was quite a surprise TRU. Nonetheless, the purpose of this post will not be neither to bends rules or bend facts to make theories fit nor criticize incoherences with certain guidelines. Quite simply, I feel the same way Ksm does: "The events that occur in this play are comedic and unrealistic and any moral derived from it can be characterized in the same way."

TRu and the other posters who validate his theory have taken certain lines out of the context of the play, most notably the final lines of the play. For example, "When Marlow realizes that the barmaid he has been pursuing is in fact the very lady whom he claimed to detest, he mutters, "I never attempted to be impudent yet, that I was not taken down." Only after he learns the error of his ways does he reap the benefits."

First of all, what is the moral here? All Marlow is doing is admitting that he was essentially deceived by Tony into thinking that it was a bar, and though Marlow eventually winds up happily ever after with Kate, he never pledged to be at a higher moral standard. In fact, it would have been nice if you included the entire quote instead of just an biased snippet. code MARLOW. O, curse on my noisy head. I never attempted to be impudent yet, that I was not taken down. **I must be gone.**"

code Once realizing his ways, Marlow in no way is now a new man. Had the play been about morals, Marlow would have stated, "I sincerely apologize, is there anything I can do to repay the damages I have done." Instead, Marlow pulls a Nixon, he just gets out when he learns of trouble. He is essentially the same character he was at the beginning of the play except his immoral behavior courted Kate. If anything, Marlow proves the benefits of being immoral justifying Goldsmith's opener: "I give it up - morals won't do for me..."

Finally, I would have liked it if the above mentioned quote was not only finished, but also taken into context. Here is the following quote: code HARDCASTLE. By the hand of my body, but you shall not. I see it was all a mistake, and I am rejoiced to find it. You shall not, sir, I tell you. I know she'll forgive you. Won't you forgive him, Kate? We'll all forgive you. Take courage, man. (They retire, she tormenting him, to the back scene.) code Again, if the play were about morals, Hardcastle, after being skeptical of Marlow for so long, would not entreat him to stay. In a **comedic** turn of events, Hardcastle does just the opposite. He makes the situation funny for the purpose of making it funny by putting Marlow in an awkward situation: asking him to remain around people he has just ashamed himself in front of.

Quite honestly, that's not morals, that's just funny.1203123098

I don't think the purpose of the play was to erase morals from drama altogether; it was to change the type of comedy in England. Goldsmith wanted to create laughter, not moral uplift. This does not mean the absence of morals. TMc demonstrates just one of the examples of the funny moments in the story. The play focused on irony and sarcasm--not on morals. It is definitely possible to find morals in the play, but it's not the point that Goldsmith is trying to get us to take from the book. I think Goldsmith succeeded in creating a laughing comedy.

However, did Goldsmith CHANGE the type of comedy/drama in England? Did this type of comedy continue during the 18th century by other authors? I think Goldsmith made a mark with //She Stoops to Conquer//, but I'm not sure if he //changed// the type of drama in England during the time. 1203127012

I was going to say exactly what KGa said. "I give it up - morals won't do for me..." doesn’t mean that Goldsmith wanted to write a play without morals. It just means that morals aren’t enough for entertainment. I believe he did effectively do this in his story.In response to KGa’s question whether he changed the type of drama in England at that time, I don’t know. However, I don’t think he was ever trying to do this. He probably had a great influence on future writers, but can one person ever change the type of drama at that time? I think he did what he could by presenting the people with a new kind of play and exposing them to different styles. 1203131574

I think that Goldsmith definitely succeeded in his goal to create a play against the grain of the norm. This play was unusual because I think it was created to entertain rather than to teach a lesson. Most comedies that I have read have been called comedy only because they are not tragedies; I certainly did not laugh but I could understand that the author was trying to teach me a lesson. However, Goldsmith's play was different. I knew that Goldsmith was not writing just to teach me a lesson, he was trying to entertain me and make me laugh. I think that when this play was published it was a bit of a shock to the people who read it. It was extremely out of the ordinary and perhaps too much for the people at that time.1203131722

I don't think that Goldsmith failed. I think that his comment at the beginning of the play meant to serve as almost a disclaimer, similar to what Twain did at the beginning of Huckleberrry Finn. Twain wrote that you should not look for motive, morals or plot in his story, when all three could easily be found after reading it. Twain didn't want to be held accountable for the person who finds an improper motive or bad moral or poor plot. Twain's novel was radical for his time, he needed to make sure his bases were covered. I think Goldsmith did a similar thing. People came to plays expecting a proper and moral play. By putting in a "disclaimer" of sorts, people couldn't get upset when the play wasn't the picture of perfect morals. Goldsmith wrote a radical play himself, a play that was *gasp!* laugh out loud funny, he needed to make sure his bases were covered. 1203131874

I too don't think that Goldsmith failed. His objective simply was to make sure that morals were not the focus of the play, unlike the other 'dramatic' plays of his time. I like the comparison that adi made to Twain, since he used a disclaimer for a similar reason. Its not about saying there was no moral, but rather urging people not to go look for one. Certainly you could draw the conclusion that lying only causes more lies and more confusion, as evidenced by Tony's character. It was only by chance/intent that this whole situation worked out in the end. However, this moral is not the purpose behind the play. The play was part stick it to the others and part pure entertainment. I think this was the intent behind Goldsmith's disclaimer at the beginning and, for all intents and purposes, he achieved his aims. 1203135013

I believe that Goldsmith suceeded in what he set out to do. His play focued on the comic/humorous aspects and on entertaining the readers. By putting the disclaimer in the beginning of the play, it is as if he is releasing the reader from the expectation of looking for a hidden meaning and purpose. He wanted the readers to be amused and entertained by the play and not over look the simple pleasure of reading purely for the laughs. Of course this is not to say that there are no morals to be found in the play. You can find morals and lessons in almost every piece of literature you look at. I am not sure there is a way to completely take them out, but Goldsmith is helping us to realize that morals and lessons are not always the purpose of reading. 1203139579

Well yeah, but no...I mean, he was criticizing dramatic comedies. IE pure drama. It wasn't really morals in general or the fact that there might be something under humour that might give the play meaning that he was against. Even the example he gives us satirizing it is just playing on overly dramatic speech. I think it would be difficult indeed to create a play with no morals and no lesson, and frankly it would be missing something even if you did manage to create such a work. He wanted to create a work of pure comical comedy, and he did so. Comical comedy can still have morals, but I'm sure you'll agree the majority of the book, with its twists and turns, deceit and irony, is more than anything intended to make the audience laugh, not cry, and that's all he really wanted. 1203141787

I definitely think that Goldsmith set out to create a play that did not rely on the morals that had been so prevalent in the 18th century London theatre scene. But there is no way that there weren’t any morals in this play. Even if Goldsmith did not intend to add morals or didn’t want to rely on morality, it’s unavoidable. It’s just a plain, simple fact that there is a lot of morality in this play. Usually it’s a lot different from what people expected back then and that’s part of what makes the play funny. Any time there is human interaction, especially with such a serious matter as love and marriage, morals have to come out. There is no way avoiding one’s value system and beliefs when someone is thinking about falling in love and then marriage. I just think that from a human nature standpoint, morals naturally come out in a situation like this so there was no way Goldsmith was going to get around them in this play. 1203165608

I don't think it is a total success, but I don't think it is a total failure. I would look at it more as a "step in the right direction." I think audiences of the day were primed and ready for these moral comedies and that's what they expected perhaps. If they went in to see a moral play and all they got was complete Looney Toons, I bet some would have just walked out. The author tried to make his play laugh out loud funny without completely abandoning the people's expectations. A comedy peppered with morality can still be very funny too. Take a look at the popular movies of the day. Knocked up, Superbad, The 40 year old Virgin. All of these movies are of course Fictional, and they probably would not happen in real life, but they still have elements of real life or "morality" to keep them tied down to the real world and therefore appealing to large audiences. This book had some success. It is definately not one of the "moral comedies' brother tom was describing at school.1203166285

I'm not sure that you can aviod the inclusion of morale alltogether in a play. I think that Goldstien, was just trying to get away from the plays that were driven to give a particular moral lesson. In this play I'm sure that you could find a morale here or there, but the play itself is not trying to tell as a morale. There is not morale of the story. So if his goal was to exclude morals completely then he probably failed, but he succeded in keeping morales out of the main idea of the play. 1203167216