What do you think?
Rate this book
賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨
乇睾賲 兀賳 "卮乇賷丿丕賳" 兀胤賱賯 毓賱賶 賲爻乇丨賷鬲賴 丕爻賲 "賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨"貨 賱兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷賯丿賲 亘賵乇鬲乇賷賴丕 爻丕禺乇賸丕 賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賳賲賷賲丞 賵丕賱孬乇孬乇丞 賵胤毓賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 馗賴賵乇賴賲 賵鬲噩乇賷丨 兀毓乇丕囟賴賲 賵爻賲毓鬲賴賲貙 賮廿賳 賴匕丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 丕賱賴丿賮 丕賱賵丨賷丿. 賵賱丕 賵丕賯毓 兀賳 丕賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 亘賴丕 賲丨丕賰賲丞 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 鬲賵噩丿 賮賷 氐賵乇鬲賷 鬲卮丕乇賱爻 賵毓賲賴 爻賷乇 兀賵賱賷賮乇貙 丕賱匕賷 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱鬲禺賮賷 鬲丨鬲 賯賳丕毓 丕賱賲乇丕亘賷 賲乇丞貙 賵賯賳丕毓 賯乇賷亘賴賲 丕賱賮賯賷乇 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 兀賳 賷賰卮賮 胤亘丕毓 鬲卮丕乇賱爻 賵兀禺賷賴 噩賵夭賷賮 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞. 賵賴賵 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷丨丿丿 亘賵囟賵丨 亘毓囟 賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵賯賷賲賴丕.
Audiobook
First published May 8, 1777
132 people are currently reading
3929 people want to read
About the author
Richard Brinsley Sheridan
564听books65听followersRichard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816) was an Irish-born playwright and poet and long-term owner of the London Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. For thirty-two years he was also a Whig Member of the British House of Commons for Stafford (1780鈥�1806), Westminster (1806鈥�1807) and Ilchester (1807鈥�1812). Such was the esteem he was held in by his contemporaries when he died that he was buried at Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey. He is known for his plays such as The Rivals, The School for Scandal and A Trip to Scarborough.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 279 reviews
June 18, 2018
I had Richard Brinsley Sheridan on my list to read; an every growing list "to read".馃挄 I always find it interesting how we readers come to our next book and why "The School for Scandal" came ahead of all others and I chose it now? It had to do with Ouida's Puck and the discussion of plays and that play being mentioned; look below for those quotes if interested. Having Shakespeare on my list and will read this year or next; why I put him off? Intimidation, I guess? I read "Romeo and Juliet" in High School, hmm some 35 years ago, egads that is long ago!!馃槉
It seems this Irish playwright was a bit of a poor speller and his use of punctuation was quite off, I did not read this version but in my Delphi Collection of his works, where I have notes and highlights for those interested- look on my Richard Brinsley Sheridan shelf-which mentions this fact. I feel akin to a past fellow Irishman for it is unknown if my Irish part is the culprit to my errors.
Well I can just imagine being at the Drury Lane Theatre in May of 1777; watching this production but I doubt my ancestors would have had boxed seats; unawares of my ancestry past, I would love to travel back in time to taste all that surrounds and is that play. I found it brilliant in humor, satire and everything so to its era. I have read classic books which brings out hypocrisy and gossiping to do another harm, many times undeserved. That is this play in it so beautifully portrayed. The characters' names are quite funny and to the point; Mrs. Candour, Mr. Surface, Snake and Lady Sneerwell are some.
The play in brief- two brothers are quite different; one is the rake and other other is a man of sentiment. The older guardians want to test these young men to find them out but one older gentleman is prejudiced one way and the other lies in the other direction. It is humorous throughout.
A 欧宝娱乐 friend, Radwa linked an audio version; I will listen to this week and report back how close that plays out.
****Having finished listening to the play my thoughts; it was enjoyable but somethings were different and they also departed from the lines at some points. Several more gossip items not in the actual. My version had prose at the beginning and end. Snake's part in the beginning was taken by a cousin of Lady Sneerwell and he does not show up till the last act. It was enjoyable since I read this but my mind takes things in better when read so I can go slow when need be and get the whole of the play. The actors did a fine job! 馃槉***
" First staged at the Drury Lane Theatre on 8 May 1777, The School for Scandal received an enthusiastic welcome from audiences, though it only initially ran for twenty performances in its first season. However, it returned the following season for more than forty performances and by the end of the eighteenth century it had been staged more than two hundred times. The play was well received by critics, as they celebrated the wit and morals of the work. The essayist and critic, William Hazlitt, was effusive in his praise, describing it 鈥榯he most finished and faultless comedy we have鈥� and stating that, 鈥業t professes a faith in the natural goodness as well as habitual depravity of human nature鈥�. Similarly impressed was the late nineteenth century poet and critic, Edmund Gosse, who commented in A History of Eighteenth Century Literature that it was 鈥榩erhaps the best existing English comedy of intrigue鈥�."
Below some comments made by characters in Ouida's Puck; The School for Scandal is mentioned as well as Shakespeare in regards to comparing Sheridan in brief. The errors in quotes below belong to my ebook version, sorry for that.
"At that moment she was called, and passed on to the stage. The piece played that night was the perennial "School for Scandal." In such pure comedy and elegant art she was supreme, they said; though her still greater triumphs were in parts of pathos and of power. Lady Teazle is a rdle which any actress who is graceful and a gentlewoman can play with ease. There are but little light and shade in it; and there is not any kind of passion. But even here there was so much grace in her; all conventional readings were so utterly discarded; there were such charming alternations of playful piquance and of scornful dignity; whilst over the whole was cast the ineffable charm of a youth so seductive, that I no longer wondered at the celebrity with which the town had crowned her."
"Why do people only tolerate Sheridan, and go into ecstasies over burlesques ?" said Beltran. "Because we want to laugh and not to think," said Denzil. "Now, to laugh at Sheridan you must first think with him."
"She answered you as to Shakspeare," replied Beltran. "As for Sheridan鈥攈e amuses us because his satires suit us so well still, and his-cbaracters are our own people disguised in wig and powder Our society is artificial, passionleas, insincere. So is his. He is a mirror in which we see our own faces; it is the costume only that differs."
Looking forward to reading him again at some point!馃槉
It seems this Irish playwright was a bit of a poor speller and his use of punctuation was quite off, I did not read this version but in my Delphi Collection of his works, where I have notes and highlights for those interested- look on my Richard Brinsley Sheridan shelf-which mentions this fact. I feel akin to a past fellow Irishman for it is unknown if my Irish part is the culprit to my errors.
Well I can just imagine being at the Drury Lane Theatre in May of 1777; watching this production but I doubt my ancestors would have had boxed seats; unawares of my ancestry past, I would love to travel back in time to taste all that surrounds and is that play. I found it brilliant in humor, satire and everything so to its era. I have read classic books which brings out hypocrisy and gossiping to do another harm, many times undeserved. That is this play in it so beautifully portrayed. The characters' names are quite funny and to the point; Mrs. Candour, Mr. Surface, Snake and Lady Sneerwell are some.
The play in brief- two brothers are quite different; one is the rake and other other is a man of sentiment. The older guardians want to test these young men to find them out but one older gentleman is prejudiced one way and the other lies in the other direction. It is humorous throughout.
A 欧宝娱乐 friend, Radwa linked an audio version; I will listen to this week and report back how close that plays out.
****Having finished listening to the play my thoughts; it was enjoyable but somethings were different and they also departed from the lines at some points. Several more gossip items not in the actual. My version had prose at the beginning and end. Snake's part in the beginning was taken by a cousin of Lady Sneerwell and he does not show up till the last act. It was enjoyable since I read this but my mind takes things in better when read so I can go slow when need be and get the whole of the play. The actors did a fine job! 馃槉***
" First staged at the Drury Lane Theatre on 8 May 1777, The School for Scandal received an enthusiastic welcome from audiences, though it only initially ran for twenty performances in its first season. However, it returned the following season for more than forty performances and by the end of the eighteenth century it had been staged more than two hundred times. The play was well received by critics, as they celebrated the wit and morals of the work. The essayist and critic, William Hazlitt, was effusive in his praise, describing it 鈥榯he most finished and faultless comedy we have鈥� and stating that, 鈥業t professes a faith in the natural goodness as well as habitual depravity of human nature鈥�. Similarly impressed was the late nineteenth century poet and critic, Edmund Gosse, who commented in A History of Eighteenth Century Literature that it was 鈥榩erhaps the best existing English comedy of intrigue鈥�."
Below some comments made by characters in Ouida's Puck; The School for Scandal is mentioned as well as Shakespeare in regards to comparing Sheridan in brief. The errors in quotes below belong to my ebook version, sorry for that.
"At that moment she was called, and passed on to the stage. The piece played that night was the perennial "School for Scandal." In such pure comedy and elegant art she was supreme, they said; though her still greater triumphs were in parts of pathos and of power. Lady Teazle is a rdle which any actress who is graceful and a gentlewoman can play with ease. There are but little light and shade in it; and there is not any kind of passion. But even here there was so much grace in her; all conventional readings were so utterly discarded; there were such charming alternations of playful piquance and of scornful dignity; whilst over the whole was cast the ineffable charm of a youth so seductive, that I no longer wondered at the celebrity with which the town had crowned her."
"Why do people only tolerate Sheridan, and go into ecstasies over burlesques ?" said Beltran. "Because we want to laugh and not to think," said Denzil. "Now, to laugh at Sheridan you must first think with him."
"She answered you as to Shakspeare," replied Beltran. "As for Sheridan鈥攈e amuses us because his satires suit us so well still, and his-cbaracters are our own people disguised in wig and powder Our society is artificial, passionleas, insincere. So is his. He is a mirror in which we see our own faces; it is the costume only that differs."
Looking forward to reading him again at some point!馃槉
June 21, 2022
袩褜械褋邪 楔械褉懈写邪薪邪 鈥� 芯斜褉邪蟹械褑 芯褋褌褉芯泄 褋邪褌懈褉褘 胁械谢懈泻芯褋胁械褌褋泻芯谐芯 芯斜褖械褋褌胁邪 胁芯褋械屑薪邪写褑邪褌芯谐芯 胁械泻邪, 胁 泻芯褌芯褉芯泄 邪胁褌芯褉 胁褘褋屑械懈胁邪械褌 锌褉邪蟹写薪芯械 胁褉械屑褟锌褉械锌褉芯胁芯卸写械薪懈械 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌芯胁, 泻芯谐写邪 芯褌 褋泻褍泻懈 褉邪褋锌褉芯褋褌褉邪薪褟褞褌褋褟 蟹谢芯斜薪褘械 褋锌谢械褌薪懈, 褔邪褋褌芯 胁褘写褍屑邪薪薪褘械 懈 胁蟹褟褌褘械 褋 锌芯褌芯谢泻邪, 褉邪蟹褉褍褕邪褞褌褋褟 褉械锌褍褌邪褑懈懈, 褉邪褋褋褌褉邪懈胁邪褞褌褋褟 斜褉邪泻懈 懈 褋褌褉芯褟褌褋褟 胁褋褟褔械褋泻懈械 泻芯蟹薪懈 锌褉芯褌懈胁 褌械褏, 泻芯谐芯 褋邪谢芯薪 谢械写懈 小薪懈褉褍褝谢 懈蟹斜褉邪谢 卸械褉褌胁芯泄 褋胁芯械谐芯 蟹谢芯褋谢芯胁懈褟. 袦薪械薪懈械 芯斜褖械褋褌胁邪 褋懈谢褜薪芯 褉邪蟹薪懈褌褋褟 褋 写械泄褋褌胁懈褌械谢褜薪褘屑 锌芯谢芯卸械薪懈械屑 写械谢 懈 褌褉械蟹胁褘泄 褋芯胁械褌 袪邪褍谢懈 褋邪屑芯屑褍 褋褎芯褉屑懈褉芯胁邪褌褜 屑薪械薪懈械 芯 斜褉邪褌褜褟褏 小褝褉褎械褋 锌芯蟹胁芯谢懈谢懈 懈褏 写褟写械 褋褝褉褍 袨谢懈胁械褉褍 锌褉芯胁械褋褌懈 懈褋锌褘褌邪薪懈褟. 袨薪 褍斜械卸写邪械褌褋褟, 褔褌芯 效邪褉谢褜蟹 写芯胁芯谢褜薪芯 胁械褋械谢褘泄 屑邪谢褘泄, 谢械谐泻芯屑褘褋谢械薪薪褘泄, 薪芯 褔懈褋褌芯褋械褉写械褔薪褘泄. 袛卸芯蟹械褎 卸械 斜褘谢 懈蟹芯斜谢懈褔械薪 胁 谢懈褑械屑械褉懈懈 懈 谢卸懈, 褏芯褌褟 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 写邪胁邪谢芯 械屑褍 懈褋泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢褜薪芯 锌芯谢芯卸懈褌械谢褜薪褘械 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉懈褋褌懈泻懈, 锌褉懈褔械屑 懈蟹芯斜谢懈褔械薪 胁 写芯胁芯谢褜薪芯 泻芯屑懈褔薪芯泄 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈, 泻芯谐写邪 褋褍锌褉褍谐懈 孝懈蟹谢 斜褘谢懈 褋锌褉褟褌邪薪褘 胁 芯写薪芯泄 泻芯屑薪邪褌械 懈 褋谢褘褕邪谢懈 胁褋械. 小褔邪褋褌谢懈胁褘泄 泻芯薪械褑, 褌械屑 薪械 屑械薪械械, 褋芯锌褉芯胁芯卸写邪械褌褋褟 胁褋械 褌械屑懈 卸械 褋锌谢械褌薪褟屑懈 懈 写芯褋褍卸懈屑懈 写芯屑褘褋谢邪屑懈, 懈 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 胁褘写褍屑褘胁邪械褌 锌芯写褉芯斜薪芯褋褌懈, 泻邪泻 效邪褉谢褜蟹 斜褘谢 蟹邪褋褌懈谐薪褍褌 褋 谢械写懈 孝懈蟹谢 褋褝褉芯屑 袩懈褌械褉芯屑 懈 屑褍卸褔懈薪褘 褌芯 谢懈 芯写薪芯胁褉械屑械薪薪芯 胁褘褋褌褉械谢懈谢懈 胁 写褉褍谐 写褉褍谐邪, 懈 锌褍谢褟 芯褌褉懈泻芯褕械褌懈谢邪 胁 锌芯褔褌邪谢褜芯薪邪, 褌芯 谢懈 褋褝褉 袩懈褌械褉 谢械卸懈褌, 锌褉芯薪蟹械薪薪褘泄 褕锌邪谐芯泄. 袨斜褖械褋褌胁芯 薪械懈褋锌褉邪胁懈屑芯.
November 15, 2018
It's About the Money
16 September 2017
I have to admit that I hate it when I go to all the trouble to write a review and then proceed to lose it. One of the main reasons is that I write it in a word processor, and then read through it before posting it up on 欧宝娱乐. Anyway, I went to all the trouble of writing it while I was on the train heading down for an exploration of Kew, and when I get home I suddenly discover that it has disappeared, which means that everything that I had written had suddenly gone and I now have to sit down and write it all again. Oh well, I guess that is life, and maybe I should make sure that I save it properly next time.
Anyway, it baffles me with all of the Hollywood rubbish that they have been producing of late that they don't dig into some of these older plays, tweak them, and turn them into a movie. From what I gathered from , The School for Scandal had been made into a couple of movies in the past, though one is lost and the other is a silent movie (I believe that there is a third which is a BBC production, though that could be the lost one due to the BBC having a habit of making movies and then getting rid of them for some unknown reason).
The thing is that there are actually some really good stories, such as this one, that could easily be made into a rather engaging movie. However, it seems that Hollywood simply sticks with things that it believes to be tried and true 鈥� remakes, rom-coms, and mindless action flicks. Okay, you do get some directors, such as Guy Ritchie, that do push the boundaries, but in the end once they become famous they end up simply falling into the tried and true category (which I've noticed that of late hasn't actually been working all that well, if the monumental flops of 2017 are anything to go by). Maybe I could create some Youtube videos in that regard, but then again I would need a crew, and a half decent camera that isn't my mobile phone, for that to work.
So, the School for Scandal is a pretty complex story, one so complex that the synopsis on Wikipedia goes into so much detail that I found myself getting lost in that in the same way that I became lost in the play. This is probably why I would like to see Hollywood (or other filmakers) take some risks with these plays because they are actually pretty good, and unfortunately because they aren't Shakespeare they don't get performed all that much. Okay, I did find a website that has a heap of videos of plays on it, but unfortunately the only way you can access it is if you are studying at a University that happens to have an account with the site 鈥� if you are just an individual mug like me then unfortunately you don't get the chance. Sure, I can understand the reluctance of the theatre from filming and releasing their plays on video because it would have the effect of lowering audience numbers, and there isn't a huge amount of money in theatre as it is (though obviously enough to keep it as a going concern). Actually, I should have done some research before writing this because there is a film from 1976 (currently on Youtube), of this play.
In short this is a play about money. It's about people who have money, who owe money, and who want money and will stoop to whatever means to get their hands on it (and marriage seems to be the main way that some of them will go about it). Okay, while it is a bit off putting that the scandalous people are all female, and the rather innocent (and stupid) characters are men, due to its age I am willing to put that aside. Anyway, it still works well since the scheming women do tend to be a stereotypical type of character from plays of the period. Anyway, most of the men are stupid so I guess that balances it out somewhat.
In a way it is a bit like Merchant of Venice, though it is somewhat grittier, to an extent. The male characters do tend to be of aristocratic origin, which is probably why they are stupid 鈥� well, not all of them because the men that have money have the money because they are smart. However, one of them seems to be continually in debt, but that probably has a lot to do with him being aristocratic 鈥� a lot of them paid for a lifestyle that they simply could not afford, and basically didn't have an income that justified such extravagant living. Okay, while they did manage to get money, that money rarely went to paying off debts, but rather continuing the extravagant lifestyle and putting them further into debt. Oh, there is even a Jew moneylender, but once again he's pretty smart in that he refuses to lend money to somebody who simply cannot pay for it.
I guess it is why images of the early modern period creates images of dirty cities and horrid infrastructure 鈥� the rulers were more interesting in waging wars and maintaining their lifestyle as opposed to actually developing the economy of their countries. Note that when the countries began to transition to democracies the infrastructure became much better. On the eve of the revolution, the infrastructure of France was dreadful, and was getting worse, simply because the people who could do something about it were too busy building palaces and having parties, and everybody else was basically paying taxes to support that lifestyle.
I guess I'll finish this review off with saying something about debt 鈥� it is insidious. I am quite fortunate that I never got caught up in the debt trap, though I came pretty close. Actually, I am still quite surprised that I was able to live the lifestyle that I did when I was a student on government handouts. However, that probably has a lot to do with things being much cheaper back then, and also that my bank let me overdraw my account to ridiculous levels because they kept on hitting me with overdraft fees everytime I did so. However, the funny thing with debt is that people have this habit of preferring to spend money than pay down debt, so when they get money they spend it on things as opposed to paying off their debt. Okay, I'm hardly one to criticise people on that because I still have a student debt that I have managed to get out of paying off, but then again I'm hardly the only one that has managed to wiggle their way out of it. I guess that in the end we just don't like going without.
16 September 2017
I have to admit that I hate it when I go to all the trouble to write a review and then proceed to lose it. One of the main reasons is that I write it in a word processor, and then read through it before posting it up on 欧宝娱乐. Anyway, I went to all the trouble of writing it while I was on the train heading down for an exploration of Kew, and when I get home I suddenly discover that it has disappeared, which means that everything that I had written had suddenly gone and I now have to sit down and write it all again. Oh well, I guess that is life, and maybe I should make sure that I save it properly next time.
Anyway, it baffles me with all of the Hollywood rubbish that they have been producing of late that they don't dig into some of these older plays, tweak them, and turn them into a movie. From what I gathered from , The School for Scandal had been made into a couple of movies in the past, though one is lost and the other is a silent movie (I believe that there is a third which is a BBC production, though that could be the lost one due to the BBC having a habit of making movies and then getting rid of them for some unknown reason).
The thing is that there are actually some really good stories, such as this one, that could easily be made into a rather engaging movie. However, it seems that Hollywood simply sticks with things that it believes to be tried and true 鈥� remakes, rom-coms, and mindless action flicks. Okay, you do get some directors, such as Guy Ritchie, that do push the boundaries, but in the end once they become famous they end up simply falling into the tried and true category (which I've noticed that of late hasn't actually been working all that well, if the monumental flops of 2017 are anything to go by). Maybe I could create some Youtube videos in that regard, but then again I would need a crew, and a half decent camera that isn't my mobile phone, for that to work.
So, the School for Scandal is a pretty complex story, one so complex that the synopsis on Wikipedia goes into so much detail that I found myself getting lost in that in the same way that I became lost in the play. This is probably why I would like to see Hollywood (or other filmakers) take some risks with these plays because they are actually pretty good, and unfortunately because they aren't Shakespeare they don't get performed all that much. Okay, I did find a website that has a heap of videos of plays on it, but unfortunately the only way you can access it is if you are studying at a University that happens to have an account with the site 鈥� if you are just an individual mug like me then unfortunately you don't get the chance. Sure, I can understand the reluctance of the theatre from filming and releasing their plays on video because it would have the effect of lowering audience numbers, and there isn't a huge amount of money in theatre as it is (though obviously enough to keep it as a going concern). Actually, I should have done some research before writing this because there is a film from 1976 (currently on Youtube), of this play.
In short this is a play about money. It's about people who have money, who owe money, and who want money and will stoop to whatever means to get their hands on it (and marriage seems to be the main way that some of them will go about it). Okay, while it is a bit off putting that the scandalous people are all female, and the rather innocent (and stupid) characters are men, due to its age I am willing to put that aside. Anyway, it still works well since the scheming women do tend to be a stereotypical type of character from plays of the period. Anyway, most of the men are stupid so I guess that balances it out somewhat.
In a way it is a bit like Merchant of Venice, though it is somewhat grittier, to an extent. The male characters do tend to be of aristocratic origin, which is probably why they are stupid 鈥� well, not all of them because the men that have money have the money because they are smart. However, one of them seems to be continually in debt, but that probably has a lot to do with him being aristocratic 鈥� a lot of them paid for a lifestyle that they simply could not afford, and basically didn't have an income that justified such extravagant living. Okay, while they did manage to get money, that money rarely went to paying off debts, but rather continuing the extravagant lifestyle and putting them further into debt. Oh, there is even a Jew moneylender, but once again he's pretty smart in that he refuses to lend money to somebody who simply cannot pay for it.
I guess it is why images of the early modern period creates images of dirty cities and horrid infrastructure 鈥� the rulers were more interesting in waging wars and maintaining their lifestyle as opposed to actually developing the economy of their countries. Note that when the countries began to transition to democracies the infrastructure became much better. On the eve of the revolution, the infrastructure of France was dreadful, and was getting worse, simply because the people who could do something about it were too busy building palaces and having parties, and everybody else was basically paying taxes to support that lifestyle.
I guess I'll finish this review off with saying something about debt 鈥� it is insidious. I am quite fortunate that I never got caught up in the debt trap, though I came pretty close. Actually, I am still quite surprised that I was able to live the lifestyle that I did when I was a student on government handouts. However, that probably has a lot to do with things being much cheaper back then, and also that my bank let me overdraw my account to ridiculous levels because they kept on hitting me with overdraft fees everytime I did so. However, the funny thing with debt is that people have this habit of preferring to spend money than pay down debt, so when they get money they spend it on things as opposed to paying off their debt. Okay, I'm hardly one to criticise people on that because I still have a student debt that I have managed to get out of paying off, but then again I'm hardly the only one that has managed to wiggle their way out of it. I guess that in the end we just don't like going without.
March 1, 2010
This fun play parodies the social lives of 18th century lords and ladies, poking fun at their interactions and adding a moral lesson or two about spreading gossip. All the stereotypes are at play: the aging man and his much-younger bride; the two brothers both beset in dramas of their own; the young ward promised to one brother but in love with the other; the vengeful older woman with a mind for destroying others' matches; the gossip unaware of her own sharp tongue; as well as a bevy of others. "The School for Scandal" is said to be based on the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire as well as their inner circle. It is a funny, biting story with witty dialogue and a meandering-yet-engaging plot.
February 28, 2017
賲爻乇丨賷丞 鬲丨賰賷 毓賳 丨賷丕丞 丕賱賳賲賷賲丞貙 鬲睾賱睾賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賵爻胤 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷貙
賵賷丨賰賷 亘卮賰賱 爻丕禺乇 賲丕 賰丕賳 賷噩乇賷 毓賱賶 兀賱爻賳丞 丕賱賳丕爻貙
賴賷 賮鬲乇丞 賮賷 毓賲賵賲 兀丿亘 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭 賱賴丕 兀爻賱賵亘賴丕 丕賱賲鬲賮乇丿貙
毓賲賱 噩賷丿貙 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賵賲 賲賳 兀氐賱 禺賲爻丞.
賵賷丨賰賷 亘卮賰賱 爻丕禺乇 賲丕 賰丕賳 賷噩乇賷 毓賱賶 兀賱爻賳丞 丕賱賳丕爻貙
賴賷 賮鬲乇丞 賮賷 毓賲賵賲 兀丿亘 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭 賱賴丕 兀爻賱賵亘賴丕 丕賱賲鬲賮乇丿貙
毓賲賱 噩賷丿貙 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賵賲 賲賳 兀氐賱 禺賲爻丞.
September 14, 2019
I read this play 45 years ago for an undergraduate survery course for which its role was to represent Restoration Comedies. I only remembered having done it last week when I was reading Antonia Fraser's sublime biography of Charles II. If I had not been familiar with Sheridan, I would have had a great deal of trouble following Fraser's discussion of the era in which Charles II the ruled.
This simply proves that the benefits of reading good literature often arrive after a very long gestation. On the initial reading, this play seems very trite. However, its rewards will last a lifetime.
This simply proves that the benefits of reading good literature often arrive after a very long gestation. On the initial reading, this play seems very trite. However, its rewards will last a lifetime.
February 11, 2015
I often find myself idealizing 18th century Britain as a place where every single person was erudite, witty, and genteel all the time. That'll happen to you if you sit around languishing over Pope, Swift, Gay, Johnson, and others of their ilk all day, as I do (As Horace said, "Oh, if only the earth in its earlier years had given me birth to live among those heroes!"... or something like that). I need books like this to remind me that the majority of people, particularly in high society, have always been just as petty, conceited, hypocritical, and downright ignorant as they can be now.
This is basically the 18th century British version of the Real Housewives, except a hell of a lot more fun. I love anything that evokes a soap opera, and this play certainly fulfills that.
My favorite aspect of this play was the host of swears Sheridan used. Off the top of my head:
-Odd's life! (rather than God's life)
-Odd's death!
-Odd's heart!
-'Sdeath! (God's death)
-'Slife!
-Zounds!
-Egad!
-Plague on you/ plague on't! (I gotta start using that more often)
&ct. &ct. &ct.
This is basically the 18th century British version of the Real Housewives, except a hell of a lot more fun. I love anything that evokes a soap opera, and this play certainly fulfills that.
My favorite aspect of this play was the host of swears Sheridan used. Off the top of my head:
-Odd's life! (rather than God's life)
-Odd's death!
-Odd's heart!
-'Sdeath! (God's death)
-'Slife!
-Zounds!
-Egad!
-Plague on you/ plague on't! (I gotta start using that more often)
&ct. &ct. &ct.
August 6, 2017
I found Wycherley's Country Wife to be better, and also more teachable for my mostly female
two-year college students. Perhaps the earlier, Moliere-influenced Restoration plays reflect better
the initial dynamics of country Whig versus Court Tory, which lasted over a century.
Fascinating that Sheridan was performed during the American Revolution, around the time Johnson
was completing his first English Dictionary in his house still there near the 17C Cheshire Cheese pub
off Fleet Street.
two-year college students. Perhaps the earlier, Moliere-influenced Restoration plays reflect better
the initial dynamics of country Whig versus Court Tory, which lasted over a century.
Fascinating that Sheridan was performed during the American Revolution, around the time Johnson
was completing his first English Dictionary in his house still there near the 17C Cheshire Cheese pub
off Fleet Street.
October 31, 2016
賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賲賱賷卅丞 亘丕賱孬乇孬乇丞貙 賵丕賱丨丿賷孬 丕賱賷賵賲賷貙 賵丕賱爻賷乇 丕賱孬丕亘鬲 賳丨賵 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱爻毓賷丿丞 丕賱賲孬賱賶貙 賵丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵丕賱卮禺賵氐 丕賱匕賷 兀乇賷丿 賱賴丕 鬲夭噩賷丞 丕賱賵賯鬲 賵丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賯亘賱 胤乇丨 兀賵 賳賯丿 爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵毓賵丕胤賮賴 賵賯鬲卅匕. 賵賱毓賱 亘毓丿 毓賴丿 賰鬲丕亘丞 兀賴賲賾 兀毓賲丕賱 乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 卮賷乇賷丿丕賳 - 賯乇丕亘丞 240 毓丕賲賸丕 - 賰賮賷賱丞 亘鬲睾賷賾乇 丕賱匕賾賵賯 賲賳 匕賱賰 丕賱賵賯鬲 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳貨 睾賷乇 兀賳 鬲賯賷賲賷 廿亘丿丕毓賷 賮賷 丕賱賲乇鬲亘丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶貙 賵賰賲丕 兀乇賶 丕賱賳氐賾貙 賮廿賳賴 賱賲 賷乇賯賳賷 賰孬賷乇賸丕.
July 27, 2018
- "賰賳 毓丕丿賱丕 賯亘賱 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賰乇賷賲丕"
* 賱賲丕匕丕責 爻兀賮毓賱 賱賵 兀賲賰賳賳賷 賵賱賰賳 賲丕 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 廿賱丕 丕賲乇兀丞 亘胤賷卅丞 丕賱禺胤賶
* 賱賲丕匕丕責 爻兀賮毓賱 賱賵 兀賲賰賳賳賷 賵賱賰賳 賲丕 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 廿賱丕 丕賲乇兀丞 亘胤賷卅丞 丕賱禺胤賶
March 13, 2015
This was surprisingly funny.
Quick to read and quite witty.
Now I have to prepare for a test on it tomorrow. :'^)
Quick to read and quite witty.
Now I have to prepare for a test on it tomorrow. :'^)
March 27, 2018
The restoration drama of the reign of Charles II of England, of which this play is one of the more notable representatives, has gotten a bad reputation for its cynicism.听 Intriguingly enough, the way that this drama often attacked the middle class sensibilities of Puritans and other like-minded folk [1] led to a long-lasting decline in the fortunes of English drama, which were seen as antithetical to the decent and upright morality of the ordinary English person.听 When looking at this play, those critics have a point, as this is definitely a play with a cynical worldview.听 Yet it is precisely that cynical worldview of the play that makes it so current for today and makes its revival rather unsurprising, given that we too live in a cynical age where morality and those who seek to present a public picture of rectitude are themselves viewed as hypocrites in disguise, similar to the way that Moliere was writing in France during this same period.听 I happen to believe that not all apparent virtue is a cloak for vice, but our day and age shares a lot with the cynical immorality of the restoration era, not least in corrupt government and a widespread mistrust of institutions.
In less than 100 pages this play presents two or three hours of sparkling drama that is both of its time and relevant to our own.听 The play is divided into two acts.听 In the first act, we are mostly presented with the goings on of a group of untrustworthy people with allegorical names that could have come out of the morality plays of the early 16th century English stage.听 At the heart of the play is the rivalry of two brothers, the generous-hearted but dissolute Charles and the superficially upright but deeply corrupt Joseph.听 This rivalry is for the heart of certain women in their circle, not the least of which is Maria, whose father is pressuring her to marry Joseph but who loves Charles, although plenty of other ladies of somewhat dubious moral virtue are involved as well.听 In the second act their uncle plays a trick on both of them and sees both of them in all of their glory, bidding for the paintings of Charles that show family members while pretending to be a poor relation in need of money to Joseph, who is overwhelmed by trying to hide an awkward situation with someone else's wife from public knowledge.听 In the end, the lesser of the immorality prevails in a suitably cynical conclusion which promises no moral reformation but an exposure of the most wicked among the group of cynics.
In looking at this play, it is remarkable that almost all of the first act of the play goes by before we even meet the main character of the play in Charles.听 It seems as if this is a setup, in that the playwright is content to have his reputation thoroughly blackened by the conventional types before exposing him as the lesser of the evils.听 Yet the framing of the play is obviously manipulative in that it seeks to incriminate the audience as well for being too quick to judge in the absence of evidence, and the fact that there are no good options presented is more than a little bit disconcerting for the place of this play in drama as a whole.听 The most noble characters are a drunken spendthrift, a somewhat deceptive older man who has spent a great deal of time engaged in imperialism in India, and an older gentleman whose marriage to a young woman has not gone as well as he would have hoped and who would be viewed especially negatively today on the grounds of his fondness for much younger ladies.听 The rest of the characters are still more disreputable, and this play stands as a reminder that while it is witty and funny it does not go down well and is precisely the sort of drama that brings disrepute on the theater itself.听 Make of that what you will.
[1] See, for example:
In less than 100 pages this play presents two or three hours of sparkling drama that is both of its time and relevant to our own.听 The play is divided into two acts.听 In the first act, we are mostly presented with the goings on of a group of untrustworthy people with allegorical names that could have come out of the morality plays of the early 16th century English stage.听 At the heart of the play is the rivalry of two brothers, the generous-hearted but dissolute Charles and the superficially upright but deeply corrupt Joseph.听 This rivalry is for the heart of certain women in their circle, not the least of which is Maria, whose father is pressuring her to marry Joseph but who loves Charles, although plenty of other ladies of somewhat dubious moral virtue are involved as well.听 In the second act their uncle plays a trick on both of them and sees both of them in all of their glory, bidding for the paintings of Charles that show family members while pretending to be a poor relation in need of money to Joseph, who is overwhelmed by trying to hide an awkward situation with someone else's wife from public knowledge.听 In the end, the lesser of the immorality prevails in a suitably cynical conclusion which promises no moral reformation but an exposure of the most wicked among the group of cynics.
In looking at this play, it is remarkable that almost all of the first act of the play goes by before we even meet the main character of the play in Charles.听 It seems as if this is a setup, in that the playwright is content to have his reputation thoroughly blackened by the conventional types before exposing him as the lesser of the evils.听 Yet the framing of the play is obviously manipulative in that it seeks to incriminate the audience as well for being too quick to judge in the absence of evidence, and the fact that there are no good options presented is more than a little bit disconcerting for the place of this play in drama as a whole.听 The most noble characters are a drunken spendthrift, a somewhat deceptive older man who has spent a great deal of time engaged in imperialism in India, and an older gentleman whose marriage to a young woman has not gone as well as he would have hoped and who would be viewed especially negatively today on the grounds of his fondness for much younger ladies.听 The rest of the characters are still more disreputable, and this play stands as a reminder that while it is witty and funny it does not go down well and is precisely the sort of drama that brings disrepute on the theater itself.听 Make of that what you will.
[1] See, for example:
February 28, 2025
Utterly brilliant and fiendishly hilarious!! Sheridan is absolutely Shakespeare鈥檚 and Wilde鈥檚 equal in his comedic chops!! An absolute must-read!!
June 14, 2009
This was on my book list for English Lit in college. It was one of the few texts I kept through the years. I was already heavily into reading Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer, and so Richard Sheridan's comedy of manners fit right in.
September 9, 2019
Very cute
August 16, 2011
Perhaps I was far too predisposed towards this play before I even set eyes on it. Of course, often high expectations can jade an experience when they aren鈥檛 matched. So, School for Scandal, in spite of or because of my blatant pre-reading favoritism, managed to earn itself my high regard.
But how did I happen upon this obscure, eighteenth century, no-longer-in-print play in the first place? This won鈥檛 surprise those who know me well, but while reading Ron Chernow鈥檚 extensive biography on George Washington, I discovered that the play that Washington often attended and referenced鈥攅ven more so than the more well known (now) Cato鈥攚as School for Scandal, a comedy. Well, in my obsessive push for all things Washington, coupled with a passion for plays鈥攑articularly comedies, I knew that School for Scandal would be a must-read for me. Luckily, with a Kindle, this turned out to be both cheap (free) and convenient.
As for the play itself, it turns out to be pretty sharp satire on high class society, its gossip, hypocrisy, and ultimate savagery. As a play/satire alone it is well done and entertaining, with memorable characters and lasting lessons. As far groundbreaking, eloquent, genre-changing literature, well, this is not your play, which explains why it could have been so popular in its day but got lost through the annals of time.
For me, though, historically, it is a boon. There are enough parallels with Washington鈥檚 personality that seeing why he was so enamored with the play makes complete sense. The absolute aversion to calumny and unsubstantiated gossip fits right in with a man that despised the cattiness of sensational newspapers reporting and the bitter bickering of political factions. Also, the mocking of London鈥檚 high society and the indirect nod to rural, upper class way of life is very compatible with Colonial American lifestyle鈥擶ashington鈥檚 in particular, as a Virginian gentleman farmer. I suppose further exploration into the deep-seeded similarities between Washington鈥檚 life philosophies and this play鈥檚 themes warrants a yawn-inducing, 15 essay 鈥� so I will refrain from it here.
Sufficeth to say, if you are a Washington buff and interested in what interested and entertained him 鈥� read this play. If you couldn鈥檛 care less about Washington and his worldview, then you should still be sufficiently entertained by Sheridan鈥檚 work on its merit alone. Either way, it couldn鈥檛 hurt to dabble in this play鈥攁nd become the next pupil in the School for Scandal.
But how did I happen upon this obscure, eighteenth century, no-longer-in-print play in the first place? This won鈥檛 surprise those who know me well, but while reading Ron Chernow鈥檚 extensive biography on George Washington, I discovered that the play that Washington often attended and referenced鈥攅ven more so than the more well known (now) Cato鈥攚as School for Scandal, a comedy. Well, in my obsessive push for all things Washington, coupled with a passion for plays鈥攑articularly comedies, I knew that School for Scandal would be a must-read for me. Luckily, with a Kindle, this turned out to be both cheap (free) and convenient.
As for the play itself, it turns out to be pretty sharp satire on high class society, its gossip, hypocrisy, and ultimate savagery. As a play/satire alone it is well done and entertaining, with memorable characters and lasting lessons. As far groundbreaking, eloquent, genre-changing literature, well, this is not your play, which explains why it could have been so popular in its day but got lost through the annals of time.
For me, though, historically, it is a boon. There are enough parallels with Washington鈥檚 personality that seeing why he was so enamored with the play makes complete sense. The absolute aversion to calumny and unsubstantiated gossip fits right in with a man that despised the cattiness of sensational newspapers reporting and the bitter bickering of political factions. Also, the mocking of London鈥檚 high society and the indirect nod to rural, upper class way of life is very compatible with Colonial American lifestyle鈥擶ashington鈥檚 in particular, as a Virginian gentleman farmer. I suppose further exploration into the deep-seeded similarities between Washington鈥檚 life philosophies and this play鈥檚 themes warrants a yawn-inducing, 15 essay 鈥� so I will refrain from it here.
Sufficeth to say, if you are a Washington buff and interested in what interested and entertained him 鈥� read this play. If you couldn鈥檛 care less about Washington and his worldview, then you should still be sufficiently entertained by Sheridan鈥檚 work on its merit alone. Either way, it couldn鈥檛 hurt to dabble in this play鈥攁nd become the next pupil in the School for Scandal.
February 26, 2016
Relectura febrero 2016
Algo as铆 como Gossip Girl en 1777, pero con personajes m谩s adultos y sin tanto drama adolescente. La obra es muy entretenida y se lee r谩pido, porque no presenta dificultades en el argumento ni nada parecido. Creo que la intenci贸n de Sheridan fue que se entendiera el mensaje, precisamente.
A grandes rasgos, se trata de un grupo de gente bien posicionada socialmente que disfruta de inventar rumores (las v铆ctimas pueden estar hasta en el mismo c铆rculo 铆ntimo) para luego hacerlos circular. Y si se le gana al peri贸dico, mejor. La trama est谩 centrada en los hermanos Surface (uno est谩 en la ruina econ贸mica mientras el otro se entretiene intrigando en contra de medio mundo) y en el matrimonio Teazle, que tiene a cargo a Mar铆a, quien est谩 interesada en uno de los hermanos (no especifico nombres as铆 no arruino mucho la historia).
Peque帽o punto que quiero se帽alar: los rumores de infidelidad siempre los protagonizan las mujeres, mientras que los hombres s贸lo son noticia si est谩n en bancarrota. Detalles, detalles.
A lo largo de los actos se van a tratar temas muy universales: la convivencia de un matrimonio, la ambici贸n de las personas, el despilfarro en la ciudad, la malignidad de los chismosos, la hipocres铆a y las dificultades que todo esto genera. Por supuesto, no faltar谩n los equ铆vocos y las conversaciones que se escuchan a escondidas. Es un obra muy cl谩sica y creo que por eso es tan directa en lo que est谩 contando. Viniendo de un escandaloso como Sheridan, no esperaba menos.
[...] tan malos son los que transmiten historias como los que las inventan.
Algo as铆 como Gossip Girl en 1777, pero con personajes m谩s adultos y sin tanto drama adolescente. La obra es muy entretenida y se lee r谩pido, porque no presenta dificultades en el argumento ni nada parecido. Creo que la intenci贸n de Sheridan fue que se entendiera el mensaje, precisamente.
A grandes rasgos, se trata de un grupo de gente bien posicionada socialmente que disfruta de inventar rumores (las v铆ctimas pueden estar hasta en el mismo c铆rculo 铆ntimo) para luego hacerlos circular. Y si se le gana al peri贸dico, mejor. La trama est谩 centrada en los hermanos Surface (uno est谩 en la ruina econ贸mica mientras el otro se entretiene intrigando en contra de medio mundo) y en el matrimonio Teazle, que tiene a cargo a Mar铆a, quien est谩 interesada en uno de los hermanos (no especifico nombres as铆 no arruino mucho la historia).
Peque帽o punto que quiero se帽alar: los rumores de infidelidad siempre los protagonizan las mujeres, mientras que los hombres s贸lo son noticia si est谩n en bancarrota. Detalles, detalles.
A lo largo de los actos se van a tratar temas muy universales: la convivencia de un matrimonio, la ambici贸n de las personas, el despilfarro en la ciudad, la malignidad de los chismosos, la hipocres铆a y las dificultades que todo esto genera. Por supuesto, no faltar谩n los equ铆vocos y las conversaciones que se escuchan a escondidas. Es un obra muy cl谩sica y creo que por eso es tan directa en lo que est谩 contando. Viniendo de un escandaloso como Sheridan, no esperaba menos.
July 18, 2009
The earliest literature I can think of that's actually funny (as in: Chaucer does not count, no matter what you people say, and neither does Shakespeare). Hrmm, actually, this was 1777 and not the seventeenth century as I'd thought, so it's beat out by Rabelais, Cervantes, and Swift at a minimum. Pope had a few witty lines as well, if I recall. And a case can be made for Catullus, Juvenal, certainly Aristophanes, Lucilius...argh I don't know shit, and oughtn't say shit :/.
December 28, 2008
Although written 100 years later, this is a very typical Restoration drama: mistaken identities, love triangles, characters hiding behind screens, etc.. Devoid of wit, though, this can best be compared to a modern day soap opera.
September 8, 2019
A delightful reread of one of my favorite plays.
August 6, 2011
I saw no academic advantage in studying this play whatsoever.
March 4, 2017
John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson-1963.
October 7, 2022
People constantly bitching about each other got boring quite quickly. Gets two stars for having some ooh drama moments
March 10, 2024
Wish my gossip was this fun
January 24, 2025
All of their names are iconic.
March 16, 2015
"" Never believe what is said "
Every person we meet has two faces Reality and Appearance . Unfortunately we can't discover that we are deceived until fate reveals every thing .
Throughout the relations between members of the scandal's school , we mock at some behavior of 18th English communities . Actually and Arabic communities also ."
"Let's start with analyzing the main characters :
- Joseph surface : He seems to be a model of moral man , or as sir Peter Teazel said " a model for the young men of the age " , this is his appearance but the reality is more awful . His bad behavior appears in his attitude towards his uncle " Oliver Surface " when sir Oliver disguises as their needy relative Mr. Stanley and when he agrees with Lady Sneerwell to fabricate facts to hinder the marriage of his brother Charles and Maria because he is in love with Maria's Fortune ; and throw dust in people's eyes .
Actually I see him as one of the most horrible scandal-mongers .He is selfish , hypocrite and treacherous man .
- Charles Surface : He seems to be reckless , irresponsible and dissipated . Despite his bankruptcy and debts , he is very oppressed as his brother spread a scandal that Charles is having a love affair with Lady Teazel to stop any communications between him and Maria .
The conduct of the two brothers is the base of this play . But the play discusses another essential idea , the domestic life of Sir Peter Teazel and Lady Teazel.
First : Lady Teazel is a rural young wife married an old man because of his wealth and his social rank . She always quarrels with him as she spend a lot of money in nonsense . Her husband suspects that she has a love affair with Charles but in Screen Scene truth appears , without her the Screen scene loses its meaning .
Second : There are many contrasts between the life of Sir peter and his wife . She is a young woman full of youth power and wants to feel as a real woman but sir peter is an old man wants to live his last days in peace with a rational wife .
- Lady Teazel is a rural woman used to live a simple poor life in countryside but Sir peter is a noble rich man. I don't know how they get in touch with each other !
There is no means of communication in their relationship .
I don't believe in social classification but I already believe in cultural classification ."
"Sheridan uses the comedy of manner to ridicule this community that's only interested in appearances .
This play has a multiple complex plot but I think it is not boring .
we should know that " Tale-bearers are as bad as tale-makers " and even you try to approve a scandal , it dies .
we should take care of our tongue and think of the word before we say it as a character dead at every word."
I do enjoyed reading it , but I'm tired of doing its review .
Finally I do it ^^
Every person we meet has two faces Reality and Appearance . Unfortunately we can't discover that we are deceived until fate reveals every thing .
Throughout the relations between members of the scandal's school , we mock at some behavior of 18th English communities . Actually and Arabic communities also ."
"Let's start with analyzing the main characters :
- Joseph surface : He seems to be a model of moral man , or as sir Peter Teazel said " a model for the young men of the age " , this is his appearance but the reality is more awful . His bad behavior appears in his attitude towards his uncle " Oliver Surface " when sir Oliver disguises as their needy relative Mr. Stanley and when he agrees with Lady Sneerwell to fabricate facts to hinder the marriage of his brother Charles and Maria because he is in love with Maria's Fortune ; and throw dust in people's eyes .
Actually I see him as one of the most horrible scandal-mongers .He is selfish , hypocrite and treacherous man .
- Charles Surface : He seems to be reckless , irresponsible and dissipated . Despite his bankruptcy and debts , he is very oppressed as his brother spread a scandal that Charles is having a love affair with Lady Teazel to stop any communications between him and Maria .
The conduct of the two brothers is the base of this play . But the play discusses another essential idea , the domestic life of Sir Peter Teazel and Lady Teazel.
First : Lady Teazel is a rural young wife married an old man because of his wealth and his social rank . She always quarrels with him as she spend a lot of money in nonsense . Her husband suspects that she has a love affair with Charles but in Screen Scene truth appears , without her the Screen scene loses its meaning .
Second : There are many contrasts between the life of Sir peter and his wife . She is a young woman full of youth power and wants to feel as a real woman but sir peter is an old man wants to live his last days in peace with a rational wife .
- Lady Teazel is a rural woman used to live a simple poor life in countryside but Sir peter is a noble rich man. I don't know how they get in touch with each other !
There is no means of communication in their relationship .
I don't believe in social classification but I already believe in cultural classification ."
"Sheridan uses the comedy of manner to ridicule this community that's only interested in appearances .
This play has a multiple complex plot but I think it is not boring .
we should know that " Tale-bearers are as bad as tale-makers " and even you try to approve a scandal , it dies .
we should take care of our tongue and think of the word before we say it as a character dead at every word."
I do enjoyed reading it , but I'm tired of doing its review .
Finally I do it ^^
December 20, 2021
賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨 賱卮乇賷丿丕賳
丿乇爻鬲 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賱兀賵賱 賲乇丞 賮賷 丕賱噩丕賲毓丞 賮賷 2014 賵賰丕賳鬲 賲賳 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 禺賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 丿乇爻鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻乇丨貙 賵亘毓丿 丨賵丕賱賷 7 爻賳賵丕鬲 噩賱爻鬲 賱兀爻鬲賲毓 賱賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘鬲乇噩賲鬲賴丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賱兀噩丿賴丕 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 亘匕丕鬲 丕賱禺賮丞 賵丕賱賱胤丕賮丞!
賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨 賱卮乇賷丿丕賳 賲賳 兀賵賱賶 兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲爻乇丨 丕賱爻丕禺乇 丕賱賲賵噩賴 賱賱爻禺乇賷丞 賲賳 匕丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丨囟賵乇 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 鬲賱賰! 賱賰 兀賳 鬲鬲禺賷賱 丕賳 鬲丿賮毓 賲亘賱睾賸丕 賲賳 丕賱賲丕賱 賵鬲匕賴亘 賱賲卮丕賴丿丞 毓賲賱賸丕 賲丕貙 賱鬲噩丿 賳賮爻賰 賲丨賱 丕賱爻禺乇賷丞 賵賲丨賵乇 丕賱賯氐丞!
毓賳丿賲丕 賰鬲亘 卮乇賷丿丕賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵鬲賱丕賴 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰丕賳 丕賱賴丿賮 賴賵 賰卮賮 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賳亘賱丕亍 賵丕賱兀孬乇賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賵賯鬲. 賮禺賱賮 丕賱賲爻丕丨賷賯 丕賱賱丕賮鬲丞 賵丕賱兀夭賷丕亍 丕賱乇丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱丨賮賱丕鬲 丕賱賮丕禺乇丞 賵丕賱賲賯鬲賳賷丕鬲 亘丕賴馗丞 丕賱孬賲賳貙 賴賳丕賰 賵噩賴 賯亘賷丨 賷噩賱爻 禺賱賮 賰賱 賴匕丕貙 賵賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 賲孬賱 賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨 賰購鬲亘鬲 賱賴匕丕 丕賱睾乇囟 亘丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿貨 鬲毓乇賷丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賲賳 丕賱夭賷賮!
賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱賮囟丕卅丨 鬲丨賰賷 毓賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 "丕賱賳亘賱丕亍" 丕賱匕賷賳 賰乇爻賵丕 丨賷丕鬲賴賲 賱賱賳賲賷賲丞 賵賳卮乇 丕賱賰匕亘 毓賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 賵丕賱丕賮鬲乇丕亍 丨鬲賶 毓賱賶 丕氐丿賯丕卅賴賲! 賱鬲丿賵乇 亘賴賲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵賷噩丿賵 丕賳賮爻賴賲 囟丨賷丞 賱賰賱 丕賮鬲乇丕卅鬲賴賲! 賰賲孬丕賱 丨賷 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賵賱:
"賰賱 爻丕賯 爻賷爻賯賶 亘賲丕 爻賯賶"
孬賲 賵賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱卮禺氐賷鬲賷賳 丕賱兀賴賲 賮賷 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 丕賱兀禺賵賷賳 爻賷乇賮賷爻貙 賷囟毓 卮乇賷丿丕賳 亘賷賳 兀賷丿賷賳丕 兀丨丿 兀賴賲 毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵賴賷 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘賷賳 丕賱馗丕賴乇 賵丕賱亘丕胤賳貙 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕賱丕卮丕毓丕鬲貙 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賵賴乇 賵丕賱賲馗賴乇 丕賱夭丕卅賮.
賱丕 鬲氐丿賯 丕亘丿賸丕 賮賷 丕賱賲馗丕賴乇貙 賵賱丕 鬲丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 睾賱丕賮賴.
賵賰匕賱賰 賱丕 鬲孬賯 賮賷 賰賱 賲丕 鬲爻賲毓賴 丕匕賳丕賰貙 賮賭賰孬賷乇 賲賲丕 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱賴 兀賱爻丕賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賲丨囟 賰匕亘 賵丕賮鬲乇丕亍.
賵丕亘丨孬 賯賱賷賱賸丕 賮賷 噩賵賴乇 賲賳 丕賲丕賲賰貙 賮賱賷爻 賰賱 賲丕 賷賱賲毓 匕賴亘賸丕.
丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘賴丕 毓丿丿 賰亘賷乇 賲賳 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賵鬲丨賵賷 毓賱賶 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 亘賷賳 卮禺氐賷丕鬲賴丕貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賱賷爻鬲 賲毓賯丿丞 丕亘丿賸丕貙 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 兀賳賴丕 爻賴賱 賲賲鬲賳毓貙 賮丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘爻賷胤丞 賵丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱爻丕禺乇丞 丕賱賰賵賲賷丿賷丞 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賵匕賴 毓賱賶 丕賱賳氐 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 賱胤賷賮丞 賵爻賱爻丞.
賵亘賲丕 兀賳賳賷 丕爻鬲賲毓鬲 賱賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 賵賱賲 兀爻鬲胤毓 兀賳 兀噩丿 丕賱賳氐 丕賱毓乇亘賷 丕胤賱丕賯賸丕貙 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 賱丿賷 賱賱兀爻賮. 賱賰賳 毓賱賯 賮賷 匕賴賳賷 賯賵賱 兀丨丿 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賲丕 賲毓賳丕賴 "兀賳 丕賱賳賲賷賲丞 賵賳卮乇 丕賱賮囟丨賷丞 毓賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 亘睾乇囟 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賵丕賱囟丨賰 賮賯胤 賴賵 兀爻賵兀 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賳 賳卮乇賴丕 亘丿丕賮毓 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賲貙 賮賴賵 毓賲賱 睾賷乇 賲亘乇乇 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷氐丿乇 毓賳 兀卮禺丕氐 匕丕鬲 賳賮賵爻 爻賱賷賲丞"
鬲噩乇亘丞 爻賲丕毓賷丞 賱胤賷賮丞 賵兀丿丕亍 爻賳丕亍 噩賲賷賱 賵丨爻賷賳 乇賷丕囟 賰丕賳 賮賵賯 丕賱賵氐賮 丨賯賷賯賷.
禺賲爻 賳噩賵賲 賲賳匕 2014 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳.
February 6, 2014
Graduate Studies in Gossip and Family Intrigue
Sheridan's 1777 farcical treatment of upper class snobbery and reputation ruination sparkles even two centuries later--whether on the boards or on the pages. Delightfully irreverent this five-act play entertains despite its period setting, for costumes, accessories and expressions can not detract from the basic functioning and foibles of human nature. The Dover Thrift edition includes A PORTRAIT (flattering poem addressed to a possible patroness), a PROLOGUE written by Garrick, an acclaimed actor-manger, and an EPILOGUE written by Mr. Colman. Yet the actual dialogue stands alone, in never-ending waves of wit and satire.
Offering an extensive cast these 75 pages reveal the worst of Sheridan's 18th century Society; the last names alone indicate shamelessly the predominant character flaws among the self-centered cheats, flatterers and hypocrites: Mrs. Sneerwell, the Surface brothers, Lady Teazle, and Mrs. Candour among others. Literary gimmicks include mistaken identities, overheard conversations and outrageous distortion of the facts which precipitates shocking rumors. No one's reputation is safe, while some characters delight in spouting sentiments and expressing moralistic platitudes.
The machinations of this cast of zanies who take themselves most seriously--whether motivated by love or money--provide amusing fodder
for those who appreciate Comedy raised to the heights of an art form. Audiences and readers alike will experience the entire gamut of humor in this slender volume, for bon mots are interspersed among the devious plottings and dastardly scheming of the various characters--often at direct odds with each other. Lessons of Life and morality can be learned (possibly by lack of proper example) if one enrolls in this entertaining School for Scandal.
(February 9, 2010)
Sheridan's 1777 farcical treatment of upper class snobbery and reputation ruination sparkles even two centuries later--whether on the boards or on the pages. Delightfully irreverent this five-act play entertains despite its period setting, for costumes, accessories and expressions can not detract from the basic functioning and foibles of human nature. The Dover Thrift edition includes A PORTRAIT (flattering poem addressed to a possible patroness), a PROLOGUE written by Garrick, an acclaimed actor-manger, and an EPILOGUE written by Mr. Colman. Yet the actual dialogue stands alone, in never-ending waves of wit and satire.
Offering an extensive cast these 75 pages reveal the worst of Sheridan's 18th century Society; the last names alone indicate shamelessly the predominant character flaws among the self-centered cheats, flatterers and hypocrites: Mrs. Sneerwell, the Surface brothers, Lady Teazle, and Mrs. Candour among others. Literary gimmicks include mistaken identities, overheard conversations and outrageous distortion of the facts which precipitates shocking rumors. No one's reputation is safe, while some characters delight in spouting sentiments and expressing moralistic platitudes.
The machinations of this cast of zanies who take themselves most seriously--whether motivated by love or money--provide amusing fodder
for those who appreciate Comedy raised to the heights of an art form. Audiences and readers alike will experience the entire gamut of humor in this slender volume, for bon mots are interspersed among the devious plottings and dastardly scheming of the various characters--often at direct odds with each other. Lessons of Life and morality can be learned (possibly by lack of proper example) if one enrolls in this entertaining School for Scandal.
(February 9, 2010)
December 16, 2014
I tend to think of the era between the end of the Restoration period proper (roughly 1695) and the beginnings of Wilde's and Shaw's theatrical careers (late 19th century) as a kind of dead zone for the English stage, and if Sheridan is the best comedian between Congreve and Wilde, this play has done little to substantive change that opinion. The play is okay. My caveat is that it is probably better in performance. But I don't think the humor in the play is really there. It mostly just seems like the characters who are supposed to be witty are actually dickish, and the characters who are supposed to be admirable aren't. One of the faults of the play may be that it is rooted to much in its own time, and it doesn't have the kind of continuing relevance that some other satires/comedy of manners do--like those by Congreve, Wicherly, or Wilde. At least for me, I don't see much of a universal in this play, which would grab me as a 21st century drama reader and bring me along for the ride.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 279 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.