Abstract This paper discusses how one of the basic tenets of a comedy is a neat and satisfying resolution and how, in order to achieve a happy ending, playwrights often end up hastily tying up loose ends and glossing over unresolved problems. It looks at how the ending of Moliere's "The Miser" is a good example; either as a result of sloppiness, hastiness, or just plain indifference, Moliere writes an ending that elides rather than resolves some of the play's major issues. It examines how the ending of George Bernard Shaw's "Widowers? Houses" also involves characters not only forgetting their previous gripes about society's ills, but embracing those ills wholeheartedly. Finally, it analyzes how Eugene Ionesco's "Amedee" ends more bizarrely and ambiguously, and how the same idea repeats itself.
From the Paper "The main obstacle to characters? happiness in The Miser is Harpagon, the title character. His children, Cleante and Elise, wish to marry Marianne and Valere (respectively). They realize, however, that Harpagon will not agree because their two prospective spouses are poor. The play centers around Harpagon's miserliness and other characters? attempts to get by him. Then the ending comes out of nowhere and in one fell swoop makes everything all right. In the midst of Harpagon's attempts to catch the man who has stolen his 10,000 crowns, Marianne and Valere discover that they are siblings and that the rich Anselme is their father. This is enough for Harpagon ? he readily agrees that his children be married to Anselme's children. This hasty ending allows the characters to avoid the problem of Harpagon's miserliness."
Abstract This paper looks at the various characters and how the characteristics of each are evident in others as well. All of the characters show similar psychological effects as a result of the society in which they live. The paper explains each one's role and the story overall.
Contents
Introduction
Lafcadio
Protos
Amedee Anthime
Julius
Conclusion
From the Paper "Les Caves du Vatican" by Andre Gide concerns a variety of characters, and the issue of freedom as exemplified by the main character, Lafcadio. Lafcadio is the main representative of freedom, while the other major characters represent varying degrees of neuroses and bondage imposed by the society in which they live. To demonstrate this, Gide as it were binds each major character to another by providing them with traits at the opposite side of each scale. He does this with the exception of Lafcadio, who being free from convention and all other forms of bondage, is not bound by the author either. Protos, the clever charlatan is then paired with the na?ve and victimized Amedee, while the practically scientific Anthime is paired with Julius, the fanatically religious but also hypocritical novelist."
