Deception+as+a+theme

This play is definately a case of humor coming from a case of who knows what. For example Marlow is misguided into thinking that the Hardcastle's house is nothing more than an inn. Because Mr. Hardcastle does not know that Marlow thinks this, he is rather insulted when Marlow expects Hardcastle to wait on him. Mr. Hardcastle then develops a dislike for Marlow to which he informs his daughter of. However, she thinks that he is just the opposite, a bit too modest even. I like this play a lot because although it may be difficult to keep everything straight, if you are able to, this story is very funny.1201884662

I completely agree with what Matt said. Deception is such an integral part of play, that the play would have no plot if it weren't for characters deceiving one another. This is why I think Oliver Goldsmith's alternate title for his play is "The Mistakes of a Night"; the characters make mistakes, such as the example Matt used of Marlow acting rudely towards Mr. Hardcastle, because they are in the dark about something. This play would be very boring if Tony didn't misinform Marlow and Hastings about the "inn" down the road, if Tony didn't steal Neville's jewels from Mrs. Hardcastle's bureau, and if Kate didn't pose as a barmaid i.e. if there wasn't any deception going on. 1201906460

I also agree that deception is a prominent theme, which adds to the wit of this play. For example, Tony tells young Marlow that Hardcastle's house is a hotel, and Mrs. Hardcastle has her jewels "stolen." Furthermore, Marlow decieves his father and Hardcastle, telling them that he did not have intimate conversation with the maid/Ms. Hardcastle. Moreover, the discovery of these deceptions adds to the humor of this glorious work. I guess that we could also say that ignorance is a theme as well. As our illustrious compatriot Matt mentioned above, Marlow never realizes the true nature of Hardcastle and his estate until the end of the play, with hilarious results.1201918857

Dramatic irony was obviously Goldsmith's best friend. Through the end of the book, trickery is key: Tony runs his mom in circles and then makes her think they're in a dangerous town and that her own husband is a highway man; Kate tricks Marlow into saying what she wants her father and his father (who are hiding behind a screen) to hear; Tony was lied to about his age by his own parents. This is, perhaps, one of the only devices that makes the play humorous. The rest is fairly serious, and much of it has to do with money. Could we also say that fortune plays a pretty big role, and could possibly be called a theme?

Money is important to Miss Neville because her fortune and her freedom from her aunt come hand in hand; Hastings comes from a wealthy family, and he could be the only one who could care less about money(pg 56: "Perish fortune. Love and content will increase what we possess beyond a monarch's revenue."). For Marlow, it is everything. His money feeds the flame of his ego: when he thinks Kate is the barmaid, he wants to pay her off as a prostitute, and he has no interest in her when she is her wealthy self. He needs to be more powerful than his partner, and when I say more powerful, I mean wealthier in this case. Lumpkin cares obviously in the 2nd epilogue (in the dover edition...is this even a valid reference considering Goldsmith didn't write it?). Yes, this play is a comedy, but did Goldsmith sneak a hidden moral in there? Were we, too, victims of desception? 1201985912

Of course deception is a major part of this play--but I saw it more as a typical way to draw humor into the play than a statement about morality. As I was reading, I started to think about other plays I have read (eapecially Shakespeare), and what a common dramatic element confusion is. After all, it came up in Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Oedipus, and even today it is prevalent in TV and movies--it played a major role in a memorable Friends season finale. It seems so common and overused, but it still works--it gets a little frustrating, true, but it still makes for good drama. So why?

I think that confusion is a natural part of our lives. We have limited views of the world, and we will never know everything there is to know, so inevitably, we will make mistakes and become decieved by others. Therefore, I think it is a theme that everyone can relate to. However, it is much more enjoyable when you are on the outside, because you know everything and therefore, you can rise above the confusion to see the humor inherent in the situation. Therefore, I don't think that this is a moral judgement on Goldsmith's part, but an understanding of human nature. 1202168218

Lsi, I was rather confused by your post. You equivocate deception with confusion, two unequivocal terms. Deception is trickery, i.e. Tony Lumkin deceived Marlow into thinking the Hardcastle residence was an inn. Confusion, as defined by dictionary.com, is a "lack of clearness or distinctness". I think that it is pretty clear to every character and the reader what is going on. Marlow has an initial sense of clarity that the Hardcastle residence is an inn, though his clear beliefs are incorrect as he was **deceived** by Tony. There was no part of the play where Marlow was contemplating whether or not the residence was an inn, rather, he thought it was an inn until he later was informed that it was the Hardcastle residence, at which point he apologized excessively. If Marlow were confused he would not have acted in such an frank, blunt, and rude manner, a manner that clearly displayed that Marlow clearly thought he was at an inn.

In a similar fashion, Oedipus Rex is never confused and wondering about his predicament, at least not until he is proved wrong with overwhelming evidence. The enjoyable part and the memorable part of Oedipus is that Oedipus is deceived to the point where he has a clear and distinct belief that he has escaped fate, a conviction that Oedipus, and Jocasta for that matter, persist to believe in even with much contrary evidence. The failure of their conviction occurs with the evidence of the Shepard, thus sparking a brief tailspin into confusion before they quickly develop a new clear grasp on the reality of the situation. Thus the confusion is only a minute part of the play, the clear, distinct denial of fate, or self-deception, if you will, is what makes Oedipus Rex the masterful play that it is.

Back to She Stoops to Conquer, the reader, as well as Marlow, never experiences confusion; rather, the reader watches the clear deception, laughing and being entertained by it. Deception is fun; we all love to see someone else get tricked to the point where no confusion exists, where the character has a clear belief in the wrong belief, rendering a consequential period of disbelief when the character is clearly informed by the correct belief. 1202703742

I think that the trickery and deception were the qualities that made this play as humorous as it was. At times, it was somewhat confusing, but all in all, it had a lasting impact on my opinion of the book. I think that the tricks the characters played on each other gave the play a twist that is rarely seen. The deception allowed us, the readers, to view the play almost as a separate character, which influences us to take a deeper look at the plotline. Not only was the deception a great tool Goldsmith used, but also the fact that once he started with one trick, it branched out to a majority of the characters, affecting everyone in the play.

Deception, without a doubt, was definitely an underlying theme in this play, however, I do not think that it is an example for everyday life. I think that this play was created for entertainment purposes more than a life lesson. Although the theme can be applied as a daily moral, I think that Goldsmith's purpose was for a simple memorable comedy. 1202755534

Deception is THE theme in the novel because without it there would be no mishaps, confusion, or embarrassing situations, and without those elements much of the humor would be absent from the play. Instead, it would be simply another dry, boring play in which outside sources (the families) would be trying to get their children together. However, Goldsmith's use of deception also adds an element of satire, making fun of similar plays that were written at the time also adding humor into the play. And deception is key to humor because oftentimes laughter derives from the unexpected, when something else happens that we do not see coming. By using such confusing schemes, we laugh when we finally realize what ridiculous plan is taking place.user:MSu-c

I also agree that deception was a key theme in the play. When we made our equation for the play we choose six main themes and looked for instances of these themes appearing through out the book. Deception was one of these themes. I showed up a lot especially in the beginning of the play, but we found that many of these deceptions were cancelled out of our equation when they were cleared up in the later acts of the play. I still think that deception was an important theme that added much humnor, but I don't think that it is more important than some of the other themes such as love/attraction, materialism, and irony/sarcasm. I do agree of the importance of deception to the plot, but I don't think that it is the answer to the story because in the end much of the deception is cleared up. I would not call it THE theme as MSu did, but I do agree that it is still very significant.1202941478

Never having considered it upon reading it, I now see that deception is a strong theme of She Stoops to Conquer. Between them allowing Marlow to believe that Hardcastle's home was an inn, Tony running around lying and tricking everyone, Kate duping Marlow into thinking she's a barmaid, and all the other deception of the play, deception is one of the strongest points of the play. That's part of the satire that seeps through this play; honesty is a virtue, and this play certainly isn't virtuous. It's funny because they're all lying and cheating each other and in cohorts with one another; it's like they all have underground operations going on and going behind each other's backs to have a laugh. It's like they're all playing a different game; everyone knows that Tony and Constance don't like each other, and Tony is trying to help Constance and Hastings, but Mrs. Hardcastle doesn't realize and it's like they're playing a game of monkey in the middle--everyone else is in on it and she's the odd one out. But there are numerous games going on between different characters and in the end it's this humorous game of deception. 1203107885

The deception definitely made this play really funny, but I could never understand why nobody set anybody straight. When Hastings found out that the Hardcastle residence wasn't an inn, why didn't he tell Marlow? This obviously added humor to the story, and I can see why it was written this way, but I have to say that it wasn't realistic. Other than comical effect, what was the purpose of some of this deception? Some of it had obvious reasons, such as Tony lying to his mother so that Hastings and Neville could escape together, but why couldn't Tony simply tell his mother in the first place that he didn't love Neville, and that Hastings did? All this drama ended up with a peaceful and happy ending, but they could have all saved a lot of time and effort by being straight with each other to begin with. 1203116334

I have to disagree with the comedic quality of the play; I did not really find it funny. It was so full of trickery and confusion that it was just a sequence of inconveniences. To answer your question, LDo, I think that nobody set anyone else straight because that would have been too easy. Maybe Goldstein wanted to make the reader see that they would not be caught up in the messes they were if they wimply told the truth and were straight with each other. He could have wanted us to ask these questions, like, "Why didn't they just tell the truth from the start?" The interesting part is that the story ended happily anyway...The characters went unpunished for their deceptions. 1203118568

To answer your question, no, LDo, the characters in this play could not just have been straightforward with one another in the beginning, because then there would be no play. Goldsmith included deception into this play for a reason; it's recurring appearance makes it very clear that this is how it was all meant to be. Because of all of the bumps in the road, the characters are able to find and appreciate thier lives in the end. It's like a life lesson for us, if you want to look at it that way. Maybe we do have to make mistakes and learn lessons the hard way sometimes. Maybe we do have to forgive ourselves before we can forgive others, just like loving ourselves and others. So maybe there is some ryhme and reason to all of Goldsmith's nonsense afterall. In a way, it's all harmless, though. The play was meant to be comedic, and that it sure is.1203118887

In addition to deception as a theme, I think appearance is important as well. Appearance can be taken as how the characters appear to each other, but more importantly, how everything that appears one way, turns out the other. Most of the comedy in this play resulted from this theme of appearances and deceptions. I agree with Age, this play was harmlessly funny. Therefore, through the comedy and the mistakes, it was able to emphasize that things turn out okay in the end. From the very beginning, appearance drove the story. Marlow’s misconception about the house as an inn put this whole trickery aspect into action. Ironically, all of this deception of appearance ended up revealing the truth behind everything. 1203121019

I'm not entirely certain that //deception// is the goal here. I think it's more that almost every character in the story has something that they feel they need to hide, and they're too afraid to confront people about it, so they try to skirt the issue by omitting certain things. There are really only two instances in the story where a character notably deceives someone, and that is (1) When Tony tells Hastings and Marlow that Hardcastle's home is an inn, and (2) when Miss Hardcastle dresses as a barmaid in order to get a confession of love out of Marlow. Other than that, I think that it's more of a fear of confrontation that causes all the confusion than it is people trying to deceive one another. That just sounds too malicious for such a cheery story. 1203121559

You bring up an intriguing point, SHa, that the characters go unpunished for their deceptions. Each time the characters learn that they have been deceived, rather than getting angry, they decide to laugh it off. There are no repercussions for wrongdoings. But although their deceptions are not malicious per say, that does not mean that they could have gone without hurting anyone. If the play were not written to have a happy ending, Hardcastle could have very easily kicked Marlow out of his house for being a rude jerk and no one would have come out with the happy ending they wanted. Because the characters couldn't just say how they feel, they did all the wrong things without paying for their actions, and were rewarded in the end. This makes me question the moral of the story. 1203126797

Deception and stupidity both make for a much more exciting plot. The lies and the ignorant behavior of characters such as Tony, Marlow, and Mrs. Hardcastle are what the audience finds so entertaining. I believe that this is because those traits are exactly what people usually try to avoid in their own lives. That is why people find "juicy" gossip so very entertertaining. It is the repressed desires in our mind, made a reality by some, that everyone is secretly cheering about but will never do themselves. Sometimes what is wrong or harmful is attractive by those who are not involved. That is why people say they were tempted, because they had to resist the temptation of sin. Reality shows like The Real World and The Hills use the same method as She Stoops to Conquer to entertain their audience--deception. Ignorant and often negative actions that cause for hilarious outcomes. 1203130711

Looking back at many of the mishaps and comic situations in my life, I can see now that many of them started with a lie or a bit of deception. Many of us found the play to be humorus because we can relate to it in some way. As to the mentions of punishment and how it did not seem to be dealt out even though it was deserved, it did not really bother me in this case. The only people they hurt were themselves - no one outside the group was affected by any of the goings on. In the end, I would say that they all learned their lessons the hard way and will probably think before they try something like that agian. 1203142379

I think what also made it funny was the irony. I think it is called dramatic irony when we, the audience, know what the characters do not. Anyways, i thought that is what made it funny is that we know what everyone is doing and they have no idea of what other characters other than themselves are doing. The funny parts were best when there was a lot of deception and most of the play I thought the characters were such dorks. That is what was so funny for me becuase I can relate to being a dork and I liked that this play was not just another loomy or gloomy drama. Finally a play that was enjoyable and that i could laugh at the craziness of it all and the ways of thinking of the characters. The behind-the-back stuff was the most hilarious because we all know we have done it before and it was fun to read about and follow along with.1203144915JJa-c

I agree with JJa: the funniest part of this play was its dramatic irony. If we were kept in the dark like the characters were, it would be more like a poorly written mystery than a comedy: because we are aware of the unique circumstances of the arrangement between the Hardcastles and Marlow, we can see the humor in the situation. Also, because of the numerous levels of deception, many of the characters were thrust into roles that they had no previous experience in, and watching them trying to adapt and make the deception believable was one of funniest parts, for me, of the play. 1203155169