How+Everything+Went+Wrong+Made+Everything+Go+Right?

The plot of this play is the definition of irony. Superficially, when looking at many of the events of the play, the reader encounters the familiar sense of, "oh no, here comes trouble." However, what actually follows many of these moments is just the opposite. The most illustrative example of this is through the character of Tony Lumpkin. Tony seems to consistently lead to trouble, or so unsuspecting readers predicts. What follows actions such as Tony telling Marlow that the Hardcastle residence is really an inn is the positive development of key relationships, most notably between Marlow and Kate, but also between Neville and Hastings. To these surprises and irony the reader can only wonder the requirements for success relationships: Are ironies such as those that occurred in this play necessary for any relationship to develop? How is it that virtually every problem in the book, from Marlow's misinterpretation of the Hardcastle residence, to Tony's theft of his mother's jewels, to Tony's idiotic move of giving Hastings' letter to Tony's mom, eventually resolves itself and results in the happy every after ending?

Is the play trying to tell us, through these ironies and conflicts, some fact about human nature, or are all of the problems that quickly resolve themselves merely for entertainment and comedy?1202701458

I think that the fact that something embarrassing or unrealistic happens makes the story funny. The relationships were unrealistic because everything fell into place so well and everyone lived happily ever after. However, the humor comes from something unrealistic or unlikely such as Marlow and Hastings being convinced that the Hardcastle residence is but a mere inn. This kind of unlikely event is humorous mainly because we as readers contradict what Gass tells us because we put ourselves in the place of the characters and imagine what it would be like if we were experiencing this same event. Or we imagine what it would be like to watch someone like Marlow hit on Kate in the costume of a barmaid. I enjoyed this play because it was the type of humor that I could understand and laugh at.1203130919

I think that all of the conflicts in the play are just for entertainment and comedy. After all, wasn't the main objective of __SStC__ to change the direction of the traditional sentimental comedy towards a laughing comedy? Goldsmith wanted to do away with the melodramatic lines and moral sentiments that were integral parts of sentimental comedy. If fact, he makes fun of the moralistic notions from sentimental comedy within SStC, such as on pg. 4 of the Dover when Kate speaks of Marlow: "A reserved lover, it is said, always makes a suspicious husband." I think that all Goldsmith wanted was to make people laugh out loud and have a good time at a play; he wasn't about to sit his audience down and teach them a lesson. 1202751140

I agree. I do not think that Goldsmith thought, "What lesson can I teach my audience today?" Perhaps Goldsmith was tired of all the lessons that have been learned through previous books and plays. But I agree, the fact that everything went wrong but somehow ended up right in the end was a great idea for this play. Just when you think, "Way to go Tony. I can't believe your illiteracy is going to destroy Hasting's and Neville's chances of being together," Goldsmith decides to spin it and give us the happily ever after. I don't think that Goldsmith wanted to teach us a lesson. I think that he wanted to "teach" us that not all stories are tragedies, and that even the character who may screw everything up can be the hero in the end. Give the audience what they want: an ironic romantic comedy. 1202776236

I agree that Goldsmith used irony for comedic effect, but I also think that he was able to use it to develop the characters more fully than a simple plot line might allow. After all, if it hadn't been for all the confusion, we never would have seen the many different sides of the characters--as when Marlow treated the home as an inn, a drastic change from his "reserved" personality, but still an important and entertaining side of his character. Seeing the many different sides of the characters made me like them more, just like getting to know real people. I think the use of irony allowed for more character depth and likeability. And, why did everything work out? Because that's just the kind of story this is. Comedies work best when they have happy endings and everything still works out like it should. 1202948549

I also think that Goldsmith used the irony for comedic effect, but I don't think that means that we cannot learn from it as well. I don't think the primary intention was to teach us a lesson, but if the play was completely unrelateable to human expirience, people wouldn't enjoy it. There needs to be some element of realism and realatablity to the play. I think this play was trying to give us, beside a laugh, the lesson of not to take things too seriously. So many things went wrong and yet at the end, characters like Mr. Hardcastle and Kate were able to just laugh it all off and just move forward. On page 58 when the identity of the barmaid is revealed Mr. Hardcastle is rejoiced to find it all a mistake. He then urges Kate to forgive Marlow. Mr. Hardcastle could just have easily dwelt on the behavior of Marlow and been angry. Maybe Goldsmith put in that ending just for the comedic effect, but I think it can double as a lesson in understanding. 1202965095

I think that it is plausible to say that Goldsmith did it purely for humor and to make a statement about human nature. It really goes down to his original intent for writing this play: he was sick of the writers who wrote plays that dealt strictly with morals and the lessons derived. In his goal quest for pure humor, he exploited the ridiculous antics of these characters. However, in doing these ridiculous things, we see human nature because that is how man is. Humans aren't necessarily created with a moral to the story. I can't really tell you what the moral of the story was when I dressed up in a skirt on Disney day (except maybe the lesson that I should never do that again for fear of scaring small children). Humans don't have that rigid style of plays in the past. So in that sense, Goldsmith was definitely making a statement about human nature; in being ridiculous, his play was more human.1203037470

I agree that Goldsmith used the humor of cirmustance and deception as a way to describe human nature and move away from traditional forms of playwriting. Unlike many other plays, this story lacks seriousness and reality. The events that occur are not realistic, but allow Goldsmith to show the different aspects of human character. For example, Charles Marlow acts differently around those of lower class exposing the gap between rich and poor. Further, the entire conflict illustrates the comedy misunderstading and shows that it is easy to create. Human beings create misunderstadning quickly and without much thought and Goldsmith acknowledges this in the play. I think the happy endning at the end of the play is another example of Goldsmith deviating from traditional form. In other plays, conflicts become complex and are not easily resolved. However, Goldsmith simply changes the circumstances of the play and creates a happy ending. 1203043519

Let's all look at it honestly...would you want to read a book or a play in which everything goes exactly as planned, without conflicts and irony, ending happily ever after and a day? How boring is that? One of the basic elements of a plot is conflict and I think this irony is a great source of conflict and entertainment. Goldsmith's main intention was to entertain -- I mean, it's a play, and that's generally what plays are for. Yes, it was meant to entertain, but that doesn't mean that it lacks a moral or that it doesn't have a message. I think one of those implied messages is that if you change yourself, people will like you better (which reminds me a little of Grease...). Miss Hardcastle put on a different mask for Marlow so that he would like her. Ok, it's not the best message to give to a big group of people, but it was meant to entertain, so I don't think that all that many people would take it seriously. 1203047537

Most of you seem to be saying that Goldsmith was trying to show us something about ourselves. And if he is showing us something, it must be a negative facet, which means he wants us to modify ourselves. Following that logic, Goldsmith must be proposing behavior modification, a.k.a morals. So if you think that he intended to make statements on humanity, you are admitting that he failed to bring a comedy without morals (see my forum on Goldsmith's failure). If you don't think that Goldsmith failed in his goals, then he must not have been bringing human nature into question by this play. Either that, or my logic is off somewhat.

Yet at the same time, the play is definitely relatable. Illiteracy, family fortunes, love - all of that was running around in the late eighteenth century. And Goldsmith obviously had an opinion on it. But that does not mean he is //commenting// on it. Take for instance, the sit-com __Seinfeld__. One episode incorporates a virgin woman into the plot. They poke fun at this "prude" concept throughout the episode. If this episode were a play for inspection, it seems that most of you would come to the conclusion that the writers were making a statement against virginity. Yet clearly, it is nothing more than an amusing storyline.

Goldsmith doesn't have to be preaching a message. He has to discuss humanity because he has an audience of humans (thank you, adi). If we think he is preaching, couldn't we just be overanalyzing his story? 1203084433

I will say that he was probably commenting on both human life and the generic way in which plays are done particularly in the Shakespearean era. If he was trying to say something about life, he was right in a sense because face it people are always confused in life and one person will tell one thing while another will tell another thing much like characters like Tony tricking Marlow and Hastings about Hardcastle's being an inn and all that other stuff. I think what Goldsmith was more making fun of was the typical Shakespearean play and other similar plays where people are just always lying and deceiving in the most rediculous fashion. He had his characters just be utterly rediculous with their lies and deceptions and I think pointed out how just "out there" some of Shakespeare's plays always were. Reading Shakespeare, you know there's always going to be some kind of trickery and someone is going to get confused and something bad is going to happen because people don't communicate properly (the perfect example being Romeo and Juliet), and I personally think Goldsmith was just having a laugh at them and havning a laugh at the people that would perform this play because it's such a stereotypical predictable play, but that's what makes it funny. It's funny and it works because of its unabashed use of stereotypes.1203119324

We probably are overanalyzing. But I think that we have to dissect everything as thoroughly as possible, so that if there actually are underlying meanings we won't miss them. If there is any way that we can better understand the going ons of the play or the motives of the author, we are better off as readers. Perhaps the reason that people actually read Goldstein's work is because of the abnormality of it. People don't really want to read something normal and boring because it may not arouse their interests. With this play, however, the unexpected happens - deception and trickery eventually pan out and everyone ends up happy. Normally, one would think those that lie will be punished for their immoral actions, but not in this case. 1203119870

I think that the irony in this piece of literature is part of the reason I love it so much. I agree with Sha, I think we may be overanalyzing. However, Br. Tom said that sometimes you need to analyze to find the true meaning. Part of me really just wants to believe that the author is saying that confusion and problems and uncertainties can happen, but in the end everything will end as it should. Have you ever heard the saying "if its not perfect, its not the end." or something along those lines? Maybe Goldstein is just an optimistic person. Maybe Goldstein believes that we worry ourselves about confusion too much and we just need to let it happen. But probably not. I think the irony that everything works out in the end after all of the problems adds to the books humor. It was definitely not predictable. 1203122426

This whole play reminded me of an I Love Lucy episode. It was just a tangled mess of outrageous mistakes and deceptions that somehow worked its way out in the end. Because the characters tried to hide everything from each other, it just lead to unnecessary, but entertaining conflict. I would have to say that the play is teaching us a lesson, but it's certainly not to deceive others because in reality, these mistakes would lead to greater conflict. The big lesson would be the one in the title that tells us not to get on our high horses and act superiorly to others, but to interact with others on an equal basis. 1203128781

The irony of course is the humor in the play, but i could see where the play is teaching or showing us something. Sometimes fate plays a part in our lives and in this play that made it ironic. I don't necessarily agree with people who say the play in unrealistic because not everything can go wrong and suddenly be happily ever after. I think that is almost unfair because it is the randomness in our lives that we need and what makes things fun. Maybe the play could be telling us that we should not worry when something is going terribly wrong because you never know, it could end up being the best thing for you in the end. I could be trying to hard to find meaning out of the comedy, but i want to believe that the play is doing more than only making us laugh.1203145964

The humor in this book reminded me of the humor of Seinfeld. Someone wants to do something, comes up with a sceme that everyone watching knows will never work, fails miserably but still somehow comes out fine in the end. Usually the person who fails to accomplish his crazy scheme on Seinfeld fails, and everyone else on the show ends up as good or better off than they were before, but really all four of them never seem to have to pay any consequences for the things they do. I this type of humor is the same as what we see in "She Stoops To Conquer," and that they structure themselves very similarly.1203167003

I actually do not think the author of this play is trying to tell us much, if anything, about human nature. This book is a comedy, simply. It was stated in the prologue that Goldsmith was attempting to take a step away from the popular moral comedies of the time in the direction of a laugh out loud comedy. Yes this play could be sprinkled with morality here and there, but I think it is mostly a work of fiction and was intended to be. Seeing that everything went wrong and that those events made everything go right is part of the comedy of the play. I think this is Goldsmith's way of shouting at his audience, "HEY, this isn't real life, but isn't it hilarious!' These things wouldn't happen in real life, and if they did, you could bet they wouldn't end happily. I think all of this is for the comedy and the author's intention to step away from real life and morality.1203168194

I agree with kkr. If everything went exactly as it would in real life, with nothing unlikely happening, and no irony, who would want to read it? not me! Not all authors are necessarily trying to make a comment on something; I think we overanalyze them sometimes. In fact, if we insist that he is trying to make a comment on something, maybe he is commenting that we take life too seriously, so he is giving us a play that has nothing to do with real life and is just good old-fashioned funny. But really, it's just a romantic comedy. There's usually no lesson to learn in romantic comedies today, so we shouldn't assume that there was a lesson to learn in Goldsmith's time, either. 1203173976