Tony+is+the+Key

When the classes wrote out their equations for She Stoops to Conquer, many factors were within each equation. People not only mentioned the characters, but also the box of jewels, the letter, the carriage ride to Pedigree's. However, my group came up with an equation that had one essential element: Tony. I just want to know everyone else's opinion about Tony. My personal opinion is that Tony is the key to every single situation in this book. Without Tony, this ending could not happen. The book's title is referring to Miss Hardcaslte. (it is a great title... I love the sound of it) But isn't the main character Tony? What are your thoughts about Tony, how essential he is, is he the main character? 1202788890

I don't know if he is necessarily the main character in the traditional sense that the story centers around him and that the plot mainly concerns him because it is really about Kate Hardcastle and Marlow, and the mishaps that occur that eventually lead to their eventual getting together. However, Tony is an incredible important aspect of the play because without him Kate and Marlow may have never gotten together because he is one who is foolish enough to give the letter to his own mother and also telling Marlow that Hastings' place was an inn where Marlow ran into Kate as a barmaid. Tony is a catalyst for the story because he moves is along with his own bumblings and mistakes, which kind of sounds like his name. He allows favorable events to happen even if he does not know it, so calling him the main character is a stretch, but he definitely plays a large role is moving the plot along.user:MSu-c

When I initally started to read the play, I thought that it was going to be all about Miss Hardcastle and Marlow, and for the most part it was and that is the relationship that brings the story together. However, a lot of the events that happen throughout the story happen because of the actions that Tony takes. For example, as MSu said, he is the one who gives his mother the letter, he is the one who fools Marlow into thinking that the Hardcastle house is an inn, and he is the one who gets Miss Neville and Mr. Hastings together. He does play a huge part in how this play ends up. Even though I think that, I have to agree that in the end he is an important character but I don't think that he is the main character of the play.1202935190

I agree that Tony really isn't the main character, but there is something to be said for his character. Szd was right: Tony is the key. Without Tony the story really would move along the way it did, and all of Tony's blunderings and mistakes made the story entertaining and interesting. Of course, I don't think that Tony could be the protagonist because I didn't find myself rooting for him. (which raises the question: do we necessarily have to be rooting for the main character? I'm saying yes for the sake of this idea.) Therefore, I would almost say that Tony was, at least in the beginning of the book, the antagonist, because I was always so worried that he was going to ruin everything. 1202949071

Tony definitely is the one character that advances the plot and keeps it fresh and interesting by introducting new conflict. Even though he did do good things like helping Constance and Hastings, I agree with lsi that Tony is the antagonist because he is in opposition/conflict with the main character. As I see it, the main character is either Kate or Marlow; at the very least, the main conflict is getting Kate and Marlow to get together, and who is the one person who is responsible for twarting their ability to get together? Tony. Tony is the one who told Marlow in the first place that Hardcastle's house was an inn. In effect, Marlow turns off Hardcastle by treating him like an innkeeper, who then in turn tries to prevent Kate from seeing Marlow because he thinks Marlow is rude. Tony sets off this chain-reaction that provides the play with its main conflict, making him the antagonist. 1202951441

But can the antagonist be one who makes everything in the play happen? Tony wasn't malicious about what he was doing, he was drunk. I agree that Tony was the key to the play. When we were working on our equation, it came up that everything came back to that night in the bar with Tony. Without Tony, nothing in the play would have happened. Because Tony wasn't in direct opposition to the protagonist (whether it be Kate or Marlow) can he still be the antagonist? Is indirect opposition enough to make a character an antagonist? I don't think Tony was the antagonist, I think he was a hilarious character that was absolutely essential to the plotline... for better or worse. 1202964318

I think that it is hard to say that there is a main character in this play. Though Tony is pivotal in both the main plot of Kate and Marlow and the Subplot of Constance and Hastings, he still is not necessarily the main character. Tony is kind of like Alfred in Batman in that manner (the Adam West version, of course): without him, Batman and Robin would never leave the Bat cave. In fact, they probably wouldn't know how to get to the bat cave if Alfred wasn't there to help them. I don't know anyone, though, that would call Alfred the star of Batman. However, none of the other characters are necessarily the main characters either. You have to keep in mind that there are multiple plot lines going on. To say that there is only one main character would automatically limit how much plot can go on without him or her. I don't think that you can pin it down to one character in this play.1203039690

I agree with NVa's statement on how no one is the necessarily the main chraracter because each character is part of a complex social web. Although at certain points in the play there is a definite focus on certain characters, that attentions shifts because of the nature of the story. Like NVa said there are multiple plot lines and various schemes and plans that occurs and within each of those there is a main driving force behind. So rather than trying to find a main character, I think it is more important to identify what part each character plays in SStC, a new topic perhaps, I would do it but don't know how.user:MSu-c

I think that I'm going to have to agree with Nick here in that one main character would limit the plot. I don't think that Tony would be the main character, but, in Oscar Awards terms, Tony would be the best supporting actor (or character because it's not a drama...). Anyways, we must not forget that just because the character is not the protagonist, it does not mean that he or she is automatically the antagonist. Ron Weasley is not the main character in Harry Potter, and the antagonist's role goes straight to Voldemort, so Ron would be what we call the supporting character, I guess. The sidekick. But is Tony a sidekick? I don't really think so, but what would we call the "catalyst" of the plot? The person who pulls everything together... what special title would he get? 1203046453

I would agree that Tony is essential to the play's development, but I'm not sure if I would call him the main character. I really don't feel like there is a main character in the play. I feel like there are a couple of different stories going on that end up mixed together. Each of the stories has it's own main characters, but I'm not sure if I could pick out a main character for the entire play. Like most of you have said, I originally thought that Kate would be the main character because she is mentioned in the title. I'm not sure if I would call her that. I mean, she is the main character of the main story, but does that make her the main character of the entire play just by default? I think I'll have to conclude that there is no main character, yet each character is important to how the play folds out. KKr, I really like how you called Tony a catalyst. Perhaps that should be his special title as a character. It seems to fit him perfectly! 1203114160

Tony is simply the guy that makes everything work in the end. He plays along with everyone's shenanigans and shows that in spite of his drinking and swashbuckling attitude, he is a genuinely helpful guy for those around him who will do anything. I mean he tricked his own mother so that Marlow and Hastings' scheme would work out with marrying Constance and Kate. He went on this whole masquerade with tricking Mrs. Hardcastle into thinking he wanted a relationship with Constance just so that Constance could go and run off with another man; he was in a sense totally self-less because he gained absolutely nothing from it. I will agree though and say that he is by no means a main character, but rather a supporting character who just pops up, does a little mischief, and then disappears just as quickly. I will go ahead and agree with KKr in calling him a catalyst for change in the book because nothing would have worked out were it not for Tony's efforts, but I will go ahead and call him almost a sidekick; he is a the Robin to Marlow and Hastings' Batman in that he sits on the side and just pushes forward helping them towards their goals of marriage.1203118807

I completely agree with everything about this. When Stephanie and I had to create that mathematical equation about the story, we basically "divided" everyone's situation by Tony, and they all came to equal one another (if that makes any sense). Basically, without Tony, nobody's relationships would have succeeded, even though he was originally viewed as a screw-up by practically everyone in the story. Obviously, Tony helped Miss Neville and Hastings to create their relationship, but he also assisted Marlow and Kate to come together through his lies in saying that Hardcastle's house was an inn. If he hadn't fooled around with everyone's situations so much, nobody would have succeeded in being happy in the end. 1203120744

I think Tony is one hundred percent essential. Yes, maybe Kate is the one who dresses up and "fools" Marlow. But Tony brings Marlow to Hardcastle. Tony has that claim on Neville. He causes a lot of confusion and conflict, but in the end, I think it is a necessary confusion. I dont think it would be the same without Tony. I dont even know if Kate and Marlow would be together...that would be a completely different ending. 1203123691

Like many others, I do not think I could pin Tony down as the main character of play. In fact, I think it would be hard to actually define any of the characters as the "main" one. But I do believe that Tony was the most involved. His actions were somehow linked to almost eveyone in the play. His parents, sister, cousin, and even strangers he meets at teh pub. Not only do his actions and deeds affect each individual person, but many of them also continued on to affect other characters who were not directly involved in the situation. Tony was the one who screwed things up and then the one who put it all back together. The play would have stood still if it had not been for his mistakes and tricks. 1203140082

Well, you could argue that any of the plot elements we read about were "essential" to the outcome of the story as we read it, but yeah, Tony is a pretty big part of it. His scheming really makes a lot of things come together the way they do, and that's saying something. So then why isn't the book titled after him? Well, really because although he IS an integral part of the play, he's not it. He's not what fuels the actual and what makes it run. Some of the outcomes with the couples would not have happened quite as they did without his intervention, but then again, they might have eventually come about, they weren't that terrible needy of him. He's a main character, defvinitely, but I think it would be a mistake to call him the driving force behind the play. It's everyone together, even though that give advice and trying to make things turn out one way or the other that forms a story. 1203144605

I actually just made a reference to Tony in my last post. "Finally, Tony Lumpkin was the Lasagna twang still left on the cookie pan from last night's dinner. He made some of the story or cookies taste worse, but also a whole lot more interesting. With out him the cookies would just be your run of the mill average cookies." We were making a batch of cookies for our book equation and this was Tony's ingredient. I would agree that he is definately an essential element of this book. From him, the whole comedic plot gets roling. It is a disception by him that makes this story so "hilarious." And yes, even besides just adding his interesting twist to things, he is also probably essential to the book. If he had not decieved Marlow, Marlow probaly would have had one of his formal and boring meetings with miss Hardcastle, never looked at her face, and gotten out of there as quick as he could just like he was planning. Tony definately sparked something.1203167732