Humor is interpreted individually. What one person finds to be funny could be seen as ridiculous to another person. It may even be due to the ridiculousness of the event or situation that results in the discovery of humor. For example, most men recognize the Three Stooges as comedy while most women see it as idiotic, overly aggressive, and further from comedy than the Bible. What we find labeled as comedy is not always considered as such by everybody.

So how do we determine if something written in a different era could be adapted to contemporary issues? Do we determine this by the inherent messages provided by the writer, or is it even possible to establish the modernity of specific works of humorous content? Are there specific works that can already be determined as clearly contemporary in their message, style and subject matter? This essay will prove that the works of Lewis Carroll and Oscar Wilde can be embraced as distinctly “modern” humor and can therefore be adapted to the current ideas and attitudes of contemporary society.

The growth of European industrialization coupled with the overwhelming pretentiousness of the Victorian era gave rise to distinctive social boundaries. While there had been previous class systems of overprivileged individuals governing masses of poor, disadvantaged people, the encouragement of industrialization and modernization created an atmosphere where social classes became aware of the benefits of “moving up” and how they could improve their own social standing. Victorian propriety dictated that everything be done at the zenith of “proper conduct” whether that be making sure no wrists or ankles are ever visible or refraining from looking into a handkerchief after you had blown your nose into it. Being sloppy and improper was a sign that someone is socially inept and, therefore, a lower class citizen. The better you were at propriety, the easier it was to prove your social status.

But being in constant check of your etiquette is a tiresome process. It is hard enough to figure out which of the numerous forks located around your dinner plate is used to eat an olive (because, God forbid, you actually use your hands!) much less how someone might express the sheer banality of it all. It would be as improper to ask what the point of all the enforcement was as it was to break these social codes themselves.

So what happens when you find yourself absorbed in the most privileged social class, forced to abide by these specific structures, and you see the whole scenario as a superficial waste? How do you express your attitudes and thoughts when they cannot be accepted in “proper” society?

Those who were successful at expressing these underlying resentments do so through comedy. By addressing the ridiculousness of the society and presenting it for what it was, artists like Carroll and Wilde could reach a vast audience ripe with their own resentment for Victorian/Industrial society. While Carroll addressed different aspects of literature, poetry, and art as well as the culture, Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest” takes a direct stab at the superficiality of Victorian culture. By addressing the irrationalities of the higher, “better” social class, we can adapt the messages found to circumstances we find in our modern society.

What is derived from one’s name is subject to unintentional interpretation. Both Gwendolen and Cecily are infatuated with finding and marrying a husband with the name Earnest. They are so intensely drawn to this name that they become completely disgusted when they discover their potential husbands are not who they claim to be. They would (theoretically) marry any person regardless of appearance as long as they have the proper moniker. Likewise, as modern individuals become famous, they tend to shorten or change their names to something more appealing to their target audience. Their talents are no different, but they seam more alluring as “Snoop-Dogg” as opposed to Calvin Broadus just as “Earnest” might seam better than Jack or Algernon.

If we think of the characters as upper class, we would assume that they would be semi-intelligent. As Wilde points out time and time again, this is an assumption that leads nowhere. Even as the play starts we get the impression that the balance of power is only in the hands of wealth and not intelligence. The houseservent, Lane, knows his place in the social structure more than any other character. He recognizes the social hierarchy and instead of showing admiration for his “superiors” he only acknowledges them and their inconsistencies enough not to overstep the social boundaries that are in place. When he states “it not polite to listen” with regards to Algernon’s piano playing, it shows his knowledge of what quality music sounds like while underhandedly insulting Algernon without him even realizing it. (Wilde 2) The inabilities to recognize their own stupidity and the sheer illogicality of their thought processes show how absurd these characters really are.

But why would the higher social classes embrace Wilde’s elaborate pictorial of less then ideal socialites? Wilde disguises the irrationality of the social classes through use of tangible anomalies establishing that “social concerns…are gradually supplanted by psychological and aesthetic ones, although the latter are always criticism and reflections of the social.” (Brantlinger 186) The social concerns Wilde expresses are acutely similar to the concerns associated with modern social problems.

Although Wilde indirectly addresses the problems of social status and irrational thought, the idea that organized religion had become no more than yet another social institution is a concept found in the works of both Wilde and Carroll. As Wilde shows the triviality of religious practices, Carroll directly attacks the very idea of Christianity with “The Walrus and the Carpenter.” The Oysters were lured into following the Walrus and the Carpenter (an allusion to the Pope and Jesus Christ) along the beach where they are eaten one by one. The Walrus shows his phony sympathy for the lives of the Oysters much like you would expect a religious official to be concerned with attendance rather than religious absolution: “’I weep for you,’ the Walrus said:/‘I deeply sympathize.’/With sobs and tears he sorted out/Those of the largest size, /Holding his pocket-handkerchief/Before his streaming eyes.” (Carroll line 49-58) Carroll’s resentment for religion is not an uncommon thought for a Victorian or contemporary individual to hold.

Along with addressing the issues associated with religion, Carroll puts his own ideas of literary and poetic construction into his work. While using nonsensical terms, fantasy-driven creatures, and a confusing array of poetic devices, Carroll pioneered the style of “nonsense poetry” which inspired various other writers eager to express their own concerns about society. The poem “Jabberwocky,” with an introductory paragraph so confusing that it requires an extra textual explanation in order for the fictional characters to understand, is perhaps one of the best examples of the nonsense poem style. This style is unlike any other that had come before it and is appreciated as both part of a children’s story and revolutionary poem form. “In fact, the entire poem [Jabborwocky] encourages the reader to ignore its modicum of prose sense and view it as a kind of bastardized madrigal, a new species of lyric spawned by adverse conditions and a desire to produce poetic-sounding verse at any cost.” (Rother 194)

So Oscar Wilde demonstrated the idiocy and banality of high society and Lewis Carroll showed how established social structures such as religion and literary academia are as futile as trying to brush the sand off of the beach. And although these ideas can be compared to thoughts and ideas of contemporary society, how can we distinguish the works of Wilde and Carroll as “modern?”

The answer is by looking at how they use parody to express their views. Wilde parodies high society to its extremities and Carroll parodies established structures of society. Making fun of your particular social position and those around you is a factor of modern humor that is embraced in nearly all forms of artistic expression. From John Stewert’s “The Daily Show” to the music of Weird Al Yankovic, social parodies show the imperfections associated with societal classes and the disdain felt by the public. Wilde and Carroll parody the culture they secretly condone in their works. Lewis Carroll and Oscar Wilde should be embraced as distinctly “modern” humor and can therefore be adapted to the current ideas and attitudes of contemporary society.

Works Cited

Brantlinger, Patrick. “Review of Ambivalent Laughter.”
Novel: a Forum of Fiction 15.2 (1982): 185-87.
25 Nov. 2006 edu/view/00295132/ap040044/04a00110

Carroll, Lewis. “The Walrus and the Carpenter.” Selected
Poems. Ed. Keith Silver. Manchester, UK: Carcanet Press
Limited, 1995. 30-34

Rother, James. “Modernism and the Nonsense Style.”
Contemporary Literature 15.2 (1974): 187-201.
25 Nov. 2006 edu/view/00107484/ap040027/04a00030/0

Wilde, Oscar. “The Importance of Being Earnest.” The Norton
Anthology of English Literature: The Victorian Age. Ed.
Julia Reidhead. 7th ed. New York, NY: Norton & Company,
2000. 1762-1805