Comedy, Frye's Causes, and The Beaver Coat

The text that has helped me expand on my knowledge about what comedy is Frye's "The Argument of Comedy," which is quite surprising considering it was probably the piece I hated to read the most too. Particularly, I like the four causes presented by Frye, and I enjoy trying to fit the plays we read into the mold Frye has given us.

Just for a refresher, here are the four causes:

1. The Material Cause: the desire and driving force of the main character; mostly it's motivated by the body, i.e. sexual desires.
2. The Formal Cause: the coming to terms with the social order, usually represented in the form of an older wiser character, like an older man; it's the opposing force to the material cause.
3. The Efficient Cause: the natural course of events, usually brought about by a lower more humorous character, like a slave.
4. The Final Cause: the audience's applause and approval validates the final resolution of the main goal.

As much as I like to apply these causes to the play we read for class, I have had a hard time doing it for "The Beaver Coat."  Going through all four causes is fun but frustrating because the play does not fit the typical mold.

1. The Material Cause: Usually this is a bodily desire for sex with someone. For example, in "The Venetian Twins," the material cause was easy enough to spot because it was Zanetto's desire for Rosaura. The desire in "The Beaver Coat" is not for sex, but for wealth and material gain. The main character is not a male in this case either, but Mrs. Wolff.

2. The Formal Cause: As far as I can determine, the efficient cause, the wise older character, in this case is Krueger. His influence doesn't stop Mrs. Wolff's desire for wealth of course, so he isn't a very effective formal cause. A case might be made for Von Wehrhahn to be the formal cause, and although he fits the bill for the highest placed member of society over even Krueger, he in his determination to week out political criminals overlooks the criminals right under his nose. Krueger is a much more likely character to personify the formal cause, but in the end, he goes the same way as Von Wehrhahn and doesn't properly pursue the criminal activity under his nose. If he had only looked more closely at Mrs. Wolff, he would have caught his thief.

3. The Efficient Cause: Here is where I start to run into trouble. As far as I can see, the efficient cause is what is missing in the play. There are lower characters, of course, but they do not bring about any natural course of events. Justice is not done in the play; the efficient cause could even said to be MRS. WOLFF herself. She is a lower level servant like character, and she does push the play to its end, by making the higher level characters not suspicious of her or her family when she is the very person they should be looking at.

4. The Final Cause: The final cause is of course the audience, including myself. Obviously justice is not served to the actual sense that the thief is punished. But perhaps justice is served in the fact that the two members who were supposed to be the efficient cause failed to gain any justice. Their neglegence and the fact that they both failed to open their own eyes to see the real thief in their midst cost them their chance at justice. They deserved what they got and so the audience claps at the end of the play.

What is Comedy Anyways?

On my quest to discover what comedy is, I referred back to my notes from the first day. I defined comedy as “something that creates laughter and a sense of light-heartedness.” I created this with a puffed up chest so full of pride. But sadly, I had just scraped the surface of what comedy really is. I also found a list of word associations for comedy and it said things like “sarcasm, dry humor, practical jokes, puns, etc. ” Once again, an inaccurate representation of what comedy is.

            Mr. Frye was kind enough to nail down a very in depth definition of comedy and it has helped me analyze the works we’ve read thus far. First of all, comedy isn’t necessarily what we would term as “funny.” It is not guaranteed to make you double over in laughter. Rather, it points out the amusing flaws in human nature. Frye provides a great definition that pretty much explains the whole class: “comedy is designed not to condemn evil, but to ridicule a lack of self-knowledge.” Once you know this, it is much easier to grasp what the entire purpose of comedy is. It will show you various flaws represented by the characters, but it a light manner. It allows you to take a second look at some flaws you might possess without getting a chip on your shoulder. One might argue that comedy is an extremely powerful tool for playwrights to convey their thoughts and ideas. 

The Broken Jug: Blowing Things Out of Proportion

As most people have already established, this play is packed full of symbolism. The “Adam and Eve” allusion practically smacks you in the face. But in my attempt to be studious, I found a connection between this play and another one we have already read. The connecting idea is how these two plays blow things out of proportion.

            For starters, let’s reminisce on Lysistrata. This is what I would call a play of epic proportions. Why? Because everything is a little extreme. Would a war really be stopped dead in its tracks just because some women went on a sex strike? Probably not. Would one woman be able to convince an entire mob of women to join this strike? Unlikely.

            Now back to the play at hand. The Broken Jug also makes things more extreme. Think about it. They are going to court over a BROKEN JAR. Literally! Don’t get so caught up in the fact that it is symbolic of her chastity that you forget that they are still arguing over a broken container made of clay. That seems just a smidge ridiculous.

            As to the higher significance of it all, these authors blew things out of proportion to make a point. They didn’t just do it to show off or horrify the audience. These plays were written to point out the shortcomings of mankind, or as Frye says “ a lack of self-knowledge.” Lysistrata points out issues with gender roles in society and The Broken Jug points out the poor structure of the judicial system. 

The Contrast: Tragedy or Comedy?

Charlotte:  Pray, Mr. Dimple, was it a tragedy or a comedy?

Dimple:  Faith, Madam, I cannot tell….I suppose it was a comedy.  Yet, on second thoughts, it might be some hero in tragedy, dying so comically as to set the whole house in an uproar.

p. 45

            What differentiates a tragedy from a comedy?  Sometimes it may be hard to find the difference.  In The Contrast, Dimple, although I do not think he is the brightest bulb in the pack, could not tell a tragedy from a comedy. 

            Referencing back to Frye’s The Argument of Comedy, he says that “tragedy is really implicit or uncompleted comedy” and “comedy contains a potential tragedy within itself.”  Tragedy and comedy are intertwined.  Since this class focuses on comedy, I think it’s safe to categorize The Contrast as a comedy.  Let’s see if we can find the potential tragedy within this play.

            Suppose this play ended after Act IV.  We would not have the happy resolution of Act V, and we would end up with discontented characters.  Maria probably would have gone through with her marriage to Dimple, Letitia and Charlotte would be longing for a married man, and Van Rough would be paying off Dimple’s extravagant purchases.  This sounds a lot like a tragedy to me.  Therefore we can affirm Frye’s claim that tragedy is simply an unfinished comedy.

            Fortunately, Tyler included Act V in The Contrast, and we get to see how things unfold.  Dimple’s deceitful ways are exposed, Maria winds up with a man she considers worthy of both her hand and her heart, and Letitia and Charlotte remain in Maria’s good graces and are quickly forgiven for secretly planning to marry Dimple.  This may not seem funny, but it’s certainly not tragic.  This play has the potential to be tragic, but instead takes a turn for the better with the revealing of Dimple’s schemes.  

The Venetian Twins: The Aside

So I'll be honest, long ago first hearing of the idea of asides I thought they were evidence of poor writing. If you could develop your characters well enough, why would you need them to literally speak their minds? However, after seeing it done a few times I've since changed my mind on them.

Firstly, yes, asides can be used to easily justify one's actions without developing a character, however character development is not always necessary. As Frye said and as we discussed in class, stories and particularly comedies use very simple archetypes. These archetypes combined with an aside lets the viewer more easily understand the characters.

However, there's more to it than that. The aside is a tool used to create a sense of inclusion. As we said last time, the important part of this brand of comedy is being in on the joke; listening to Tonino's thought process when he believes Rosaura to be a prostitute is amusing because we have the extra knowledge of being a viewer; “ha ha, he thinks that but we know this.” Some of the more interesting use of aside can be seen in Pancrazio; if his demeanor wasn't enough, his personality changes drastically during his asides, revealing his true intentions.

Now in a time where most visual entertainment has no way to directly interact with the audience, is the aside still a valid tool? I would most certainly say “no, of course not,” if I hadn't seen a few episodes of House of Cards. The protagonist often speaks directly to the viewer, and I think the effect is better seen than described.