--This is an image from another of Boucicoult's melodramatic plays, The Octoroon, but conveys the kind of staging that would take place for one of these plays.--Written and set during the Panic of 1857, a major economic downturn brought on significantly by financial speculation, "The Poor of New York" certainly has resonances with our contemporary situation, especially in attitudes toward bankers and finance. What specifically is the critique of banking offered here and what set of values oppose it?
--Though it is called "The Poor of New York," the social politics of the play seem complicated. How is poverty examined here? What does the play have to say about distinctions between rich and poor? Compare its politics and final call to action to the urban reformist texts of Child and Fuller: how are they similar or different?
--This play is described as a melodrama and while we will hear more about this means in class, it is safe to say that melodrama depends upon relatively simple moral distinctions between good and evil and a kind of hyperbolically emotional style. How do you respond to this as a reader? Do you think such a mode is still present in our culture and, if so, where? What are the pleasures and/or pains of melodrama for you?
[Part I]
ReplyDeleteWhile reading “The Poor of New York,” I came to the conclusion that if Boucicoult lived today, he would almost certainly write soap operas. Soap operas are, if anything, the descendents of this style of writing and this hyperbolically emotional style. Like many soap operas, “The Poor of New York” revolved completely around only a few families who, in a large city, somehow seem to run into each other all the time. Each person is connected by some history, some public but most of them secret. Lucy is secretly in love with Livingstone, who is friends with her brother Paul, whose father was murdered by Bloodgood, whose daughter wants to marry Livingstone. These convoluted connections are only seen in soap operas. There is, it seems, a kind of pleasure in this interconnectedness for soap opera viewers, and I imagine it must have been much the same in the nineteenth century. Today, when we watch the intro to a soap opera like All My Children, and we are introduced to each character one at a time, we know that somehow, these characters have to have some history. Perhaps it is oddly comforting, thinking that in real life too there might be these hidden connections that we aren’t aware of. Maybe the man who we passed on the subway yesterday really was the same man who was engaged to our cousin, but we just didn’t recognize him. In this way, both soap operas and “The Poor of New York” attempt to make a cohesive narrative out of events which seem completely random.
However, the reasons for these connections clearly differ between the modern soap opera and “The Poor of New York.” In “The Poor of New York,” the fact that every character was related in some fashion to one another creates a clearer moral. Because everyone was connected to one another, everyone can be present at the happy ending in which Livingstone and Lucy are married, and Bloodgood is forgiven. It allows everything to be tidily summed up in one scene. In contrast, the small cast of related characters in a modern soap opera today is somehow meant to do the opposite. Characters who have a history with one another can have blood feuds, old grudges, and ancient jealousies, which allows the soap opera to create new narratives as often as needed. They merely bring up an old enmity, and suddenly the plot continues. Occasionally another character is brought in as needed, but generally the characters of the soap opera are set up so as to allow the show to run indefinitely. When a soap opera ends, there is almost never an overarching moral. Even the audience would be hard pressed to chart a character’s development and say whether they were a good or evil person.
This brings up, however, another relationship between “The Poor of New York” and the soap opera; the almost total division between good and evil. In a soap opera, it is usually obvious who is in the wrong, just as it is in “The Poor of New York.” Bloodgood is clearly a horrible person, for cheating so many people. And yet, the narrative allows us to see that he has his good sides too. As Paul notes, “in the midst of [his] crime there was one virtue; [he] loved [his] child.” Often in soap operas this same saving grace is employed to explain a character’s actions. If a character is robbing someone, it’s to feed his own family. If he is lying, it’s to protect someone else. This decision to make the villain into a more human character in “The Poor of New York,” was an interesting one, I thought, given that it would have been quite easy to portray Bloodgood and all bankers as being purely selfish beings. But Bloodgood’s one virtue allows the audience to accept the Christian charity Paul bestows on him. Were Bloodgood any more of a fiend, the audience likely wouldn’t have been able to accept his getting away with such crimes.
[Part II}
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is the greatest pleasure in both “The Poor of New York” and most soap operas: watching the bad guys get caught. And if they are rich bad guys, all the better. Schaudenfreude, deriving pleasure at someone else’s misfortune, is all too often nearly inseparable from justice in soap operas. Is it the audience’s righteous anger that makes it so rewarding when Badger grabs the receipt, or is it simply the thrill of seeing him fall? Given that his is a moral text, Boucicoult tries to alleviate this somewhat through Paul’s forgiveness of Bloodgood at the end. But, and perhaps this shows how our modern melodramas have shifted in design, I can’t help but think that Boucicoult’s audience must have been at least a little disappointed to see him get away so easily, unpunished for his myriad of other crimes. Are we meant to believe that the fortune of Fairweather is enough to support Livingstone and Lucy, Paul and his mother, and the Puffy family forever? Today, I think that such a meager reprimand would not have been enough. In any modern soap opera, I have no doubts that Bloodgood would have been pushed through the window of some tall building (surviving of course, but suffering extensive amnesia).
--Nick Cobblah
(Blogspot said my post was too long, so I'll post it in two parts).
ReplyDeleteThe parallels between the situation presented in "The Poor of New York" and the situation that exists with the banking industry in America are actually really remarkable. Fairweather depositing his money in a bank and then being unable to withdraw it eerily reminiscent of the banking industry receiving a trillion dollars in tax payer bailout money and then sitting on it instead of using it to finance loans and strengthen the economy as intended. I think the attitude displayed in Boucicoult's play towards the banking industry is comparable to today's attitudes towards the banking industry.
There is a symbolism both to Fairweather's murder and to the fact that the man who recovers the deposit slip (and ultimately brings justice to Bloodgood) works in such a low level occupation (as a clerk). I think there is fuel for the argument that the symbolism of the first act, Fairweather's murder, could extend to today's situation. Where low income citizens have been milked of their tax dollars and then denied the benefits that money was supposed to harbor, leaving broke and jobless. Badger's socioeconomic status is probably what is most indicative of the play's political ideology. It is important to note the way in which, at the end of the play, the money is ultimately returned to the Fairweather estate. Bloodgood is greedy and wants the money for himself, whereas Badger has the interests of those within his economic tier in mind. This isn't particularly unique to plays or literature, often the hero has the group's interest at heart while the villain is only interested in the individual. Boucicoult supports an unrealistic version of capitalism in his play that I think many middle class American's embrace today. Even though this play vilifies the banking industry, it is far from a Marxist play (although this may be because Marx was still alive at the time of this play's inception and I'm not sure how popular his work was during his lifetime, especially in the west.). If this play were Marxist, the Bloodgood's bank would be completely dissolved and all of their assets would either be evenly distributed among the people of new york, probably via some means of centralized government. Instead, the Fairweather estate receives their money back and by extension Badger has allowed economic disparity to continue through out the US. The problem with this, and it is problem that still persist today, is that the play and the US population of today have unrealistic expectations regarding the trajectory of a capitalist society. We are fine with an individual gaining wealth, but only to a degree, at a certain point wealth becomes obscene and we denounce the tactics used by the economically advantaged to further their wealth.
(part 2)
ReplyDeleteI think the problem people of today as well as Boucicoult make is a failure to realize that our economic system is designed to allow wealth to snowball. The money acquired via this snowball effect has to come from somewhere, and inevitably it will come the less fortunate in greater and greater amounts. Of course, the banks of today aren't killing people to prevent them from withdrawing their money, but I think that act is mostly metaphorical in the play anyway. The play has to resort to an overly dramatic method of denying Fairweather his money, if only because bureaucracy is boring when transferred to the stage. This play is interesting because I think many of the attitudes displayed toward the banking industry still exist today, but it's also interesting because it has to be a melodrama. If this same basic plot were presented as a drama, we would feel differently come the plays end. Bloodgood is a stereotypical villain, he is simple and there is nothing likable in his composition, in a drama he would be more three-dimensional and we may leave the play feeling different about the banking industry then we do after reading this play. Badger would come off differently as well, he does blackmail Bloodgood after all, and we may see both characters as being more translucent then Boucicoult paints them in his play. Reading this play made me wonder if in another hundred years people will be watching movies and television that portrays banking in a negative light. My guess is that it will (and it will probably be called Wall Street 13: Shia Lebouf III needs work). Society dictates the issues addressed in plays/television/movies and without a significant alteration in society those issues are subject to recursion. This play only furthers to prove that point
My first idea of what to compare this melodrama to in modern times were HBO and Showtime shows. The difference with a lot of these shows is that they are more shallow in their morals. In essence, Weeds is about a widow who needs to support her family; Californication is about a sex-addict failing to be a good father; Shameless is about a poverty-level 21 year old sister taking care of her 6 siblings with an alcoholic father. This melodrama was a lot less shallow than these plots. The scene that really resonated with me was when Alida is talking about marriage and the morals of the poor families v.rich families. I typically respond very well to these shallow TV episodes on Showtime and HBO because they are funny in addition to being exaggerated dramas. I don't typically like very emotional and dry drama (like the soap operas Anoff refers to) but I responded differently to this melodrama. While the predictability and happy ending (the Fairweathers getting their deserved money back), drove me up the wall, something the message seems lasting across time. I like this idea of morality trumping money, the idea of a poor man being a begger v. a poor man struggling to support his family and faking contentedness. If this were made into an HBO episode, and if a little humor were added, It would be just like the TV shows I hate to admit to watching.
ReplyDeleteWhen we discussed Fuller and Child, we talked about how Fuller seemed more concerned with an individual, polite approach to poverty, while Child took on society and its institutions. I feel that The Poor of New York conforms more to Fuller’s methods. In other words, it is more concerned with poverty on an individual level than on the societal, taking the soap opera-like intersections that Nick mentioned and turning them into a lesson on how individuals can make a difference. For example, it is not the entire banking industry, but Bloodgood that is the focus and cause of poverty for the highlighted family; it is Livingstone alone who can save them. In this way, it is about redemption for the Fairweather family, and less about the nature of poverty. Though we do get some glimpses of how the poor live and survive from both the Fairweathers’ struggles and the Puffys’, we do not ever see “the poor of New York” as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHowever, at the end, we do get a suggestion that feels as if the problem of poverty extends beyond the two families in the play. Mrs. Fairweather addresses the audience: “when you leave this place, as you return to your homes, should you see some poor creatures, extend your hands to them, and the blessings that will follow you on your way will be the most grateful tribute you can pay to the Poor of New York” (297). Though this doesn’t align with Fuller’s advice to only help when asked, it does bear resemblance to the end of her piece. Fuller claims, “Blessed is he or she who has passed through this world, not only with an open purse and willingness to render the aid of mere outward benefits, but with an open eye and open heart, ready to cheer the downcast, and enlighten the dull by words of comfort and looks of love” (130). But still, the gesture is for the individual to do his or her part, through either monetary gifts and/or “looks of love,” not for complete reform of the systems in place.
The depiction, with the exception of Badger, is very black and white and the characters do not change in the course of the story. As the question implies, the roles of good and bad do not change (again with Badger being the exception). Bankers (Bloodgood and early Badger) do not shy away from betraying their patrons to make financial profit and this unscrupulous behavior allows Bloodgood to survive the two crises. In the first act, he benefits from a lucky coincidence, in the second, he benefits from "smart" business decisions that allow him to even benefit from the crisis. The high unemployment rate allows him to lower salaries and he can even increase his income. There is a clear distinction between bankers and the rest of society, which shows especially at Bloodgood's daughter, Alida. She has a relationship with a Duke, who constantly needs money from her, but her money cannot buy her social acceptance among the families with good names such as Livingstone's. For the bankers, the only thing that counts is monetary success and a dead sailor does not lead to any qualms. Alida's heart is "hard and dry as a biscuit.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, Badger is the only character that (really) develops, which, I think is because he also experiences poverty. For whatever reason, he got imprisoned in CA and, upon his return to New York he moves into the apartments next to the Fairweathers. Even though he still seeks financial gain through illegal means by blackmailing Bloodgood, he has changed and does not want to get out of his bad position on the expense of other poor people as can be seen when he returns the ring to Mrs. Fairweather despite considering to run off with it. This change of character is completed when he risks his life to rescue the deposit slip from the burning house to give it to the sailor's family. Furthermore, the moral superiority of the poor of New York is underlined when Paul - more or less - forgives Bloodgood and lets him walk after he gets the money. At the end of the play, Mrs. Fairweather concludes: "[...] we have learned the value of poverty. [...] It opens the heart."
So the traits of the poor in the story directly opposes the values of the bankers which becomes especially clear when Lucy chooses to be poor and unhappy so that Livingstone can escape poverty. Livingstone, who is accustomed to wealth (even so he cannot be equated with Bloodgood) is not willing to choose poverty for the sake of Lucy’s (and his) happiness.
Merriam-Webster defines a "melodrama" as "a work (as a movie or play) characterized by extravagant theatricality and by the predominance of plot and physical action over characterization." The Poor of New York is just that. Over-dramatic and sensationalized, as Prof. Evelev predicted in class, I found myself laughing out loud at the characters actions and reactions.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is similar to a lot of today's trashy soap operas. Today's soap operas are also over the top and over-dramatic. I often find myself wondering how the characters on the shows can have lives so much more eventful than my own. Soap operas also tend to follow the concept of good vs. evil, although I feel that it is a little bit less straightforward. Today's soap operas depend on one's opinion of the characters moral standing and I find modern day stories a lot more debatable. In the Poor of New York, I feel there is no question who is supposed to be viewed as good and who is supposed to be viewed as evil. To me, there is no question that Bloodgood is bad and Livingstone is good.
I, however, think it is the happy ending in the Poor of New York, that makes it different from a modern day soap opera. I feel that modern day soap operas never have that feel-good ending, perhaps because they are frequently canceled before there is a resolution.
I assume that what draws people to modern soap operas today is what drew people to melodramas. While watching a soap opera, you can't help but think it's ridiculous, but some how, the drama of it keeps you coming back for more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe portrayal of Bloodgood reminded me of the stock exchange crisis in 2010 and the related image of bankers who seemed to have a different understanding of moral values when it came to the discussion about their rightful earnings. It is impossible to understand for the common people who might get a bonus when their work efforts paid off, i.e. when the company they are working for made a profit due to good labor. Managers, on the other hand, seem to get their bonus in any way - even if they led their company (or worse: the whole country) into a financial disaster.
ReplyDeleteBloodgood, too, is portrayed as a bloodthirsty banker who does not refrain from taking money from the poor. The middle class and its hardworking people of which Puffy is a representative are an easy pray since they are “the worst kind of man; […] weak honest fool. […] always failing, always the dupe of some new swindler.” Moreover, Bloodgood's success is based on the levity of the people concerning their financial investments. The Captain was blinded by Bloodgood and trusted him with his entire fortune.
Aleida mentions that her heart just like her fathers is an iron safe. This can be seen in two ways: on the one hand his love for his daughter is deeply implanted in his heart, but on the other hand he doesn’t show any kind of sympathy to anybody else. The only thing that counts for him is profit and money. When it comes to his daughter’s wishes, he does not hesitate to pay. However, when it comes to paying his partner in crime (Badger), he rather wants to kill him than giving him money. In this respect he also seems to be a man of principles. Toward other people he always needs to be in control and he even invests money to buy the house Badger lives in before he is willing to let him take part in his business.
For Aleida especially, money seems to solve every problem and she can almost buy herself into the high society of New York. Money, however, can be trumped by one thing: love. Lucy loves Livingstone so much that she is willing to sacrifice her life and to be poor so that Livingstone marries Aleida and can live a life of financial security again. In the end Livingstone marries Lucy and leaves Aleida in the most humiliating way, in front of the society she wants to be part of she leaves her at the altar. Furthermore, her entire livelihood is placed into the hands of the (formerly) poor.
Aleida does not know how to lead a life of her own without her Dad supporting her. This inability reminds me of modern day children of rich families such as Paris Hilton. At least in the way they are portrayed by the media (e.g. “The simple Life”), they do not seem to be able to afford this kind of hedonistic lifestyle without the monetary support of their families.
The main critique offered on banking in “The Poor of New York” is that, in the very nature of accumulation of wealth, the rich man robs people of being able to live comfortably. Banking is merely the institution used by the greedy Bloodgood in an attempt to control every character except his daughter. The pursuit of enormous wealth by individuals creates a very large disparity between upper and lower classes, leaving a few with too much money to spend and many with too many needs to be met without help. The end “call to action” seems, to me, to be more similar to Fuller’s ideas of reform than Child’s. This is partly because the advice given to the audience at the end seems half-hearted, superficial, and disingenuous. It is in the end advice that this play resembles Fuller’s argument most. However, another similarity is presented in the resolution of the plot. It seems as if, despite all their tribulations, everything worked out for the best for they heroes of the play and they are better people for having experienced poverty. Beyond the naivety of the fairy-tale ending, the play seems to be saying that poverty is just a part of life that must be overcome on an individual basis. The play also places the blame of greed and excess at the feet of the individual, namely Mr. and Miss Bloodgood. Both of whom are punished with alienation at the end of the play. This goes against Child’s view of the city and many modern ideas concerning the cycle of poverty and/or crime. For example, crime is never really an option for anyone other than Mr. Bloodgood, Badger, and arguably, Miss Bloodgood. Yet, the link between crime and poverty is left mostly unexplored, again making the play seem superficial. The language used in the play didn’t help to better my opinion of its superficiality, either.
ReplyDeleteBouicoult’s play displays obvious elements of melodrama: while there may not be a clear hero, there is an obvious villain, and the implications of good/evil are clearly outlined. The characters are entirely two-dimensional and consistently play up one trait the character possesses, categorizing the character as thus. It seems as if melodrama is most commonly present in the unglamorous media outlet that is daytime television. Soap operas are frequently centered around family life, and generally the characters are all somehow connected through some obscure tie. This is definitely the case with “The Poor of New York.” There are even times in the play when the characters meet each other and aren’t even aware of their connection, such as when Badger happens to strike up a conversation with Mrs. Fairweather, the exact person he happens to be seeking out. This trend is fairly prevalent in romance films; the example that keeps coming to my mind is when Meg Ryan first sees Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle, and although she’s pursuing him, she doesn’t realize who he is when she first sees him (lots of pronouns…sorry).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don’t have much experience with soap operas, but (and I admit this hesitantly) certain aspects of the genre of melodrama appeal to me. Melodrama is a genre many people love to hate. The shows I watch that may be classified as melodramatic are the ones that I’m slightly ashamed to admit to watching, like Dawson’s Creek. The plotlines are constantly exaggerated, the characters are completely two-dimensional (Pacey as the comic relief, Joey as the intelligent one, Jen as the one with a dark past, etc.), and at least one character has some sort of crisis in every episode. I realize that I’m not watching something truly poignant, like whatever is playing at a local arts theater, but the fact remains that there is something appealing about melodrama. This is most likely at least partly due to the fact that audiences can usually expect the ending they want. The two characters who have been flirting all season will finally get together during the season finale; Livingstone doesn’t end up with the horrid Alida, but with his “true love” Lucy. Yes, the ending is completely expected, and frankly a little annoying. However, while I thoroughly enjoy a good tragedy, there is generally something about happy endings that appeals to the human condition. I think writers so often strive to create closure to fulfill a sensibility that things should “work out” in art. It’s so appealing because people rarely experience such gratifying conclusions in life, instead turning to fiction as an outlet.
I’m really glad that I had the chance to talk to Prof. Evelev about the kinds of plays that were popular in 19th century America before setting down to read this, because I think it gave me a better frame to view “The Poor of New York” with. Although the melodrama reads and is played fairly straight forwardly, it seems to have a variety of character types that have been pulled from Elizabethan theatre and updated to concern themselves with the topics and culture of the present. The Bard’s plays were meant to be a form of entertainment and a mirror that we could hold up to the face of nature, and I think it does this at no better point than with the end, where the audience is directly addressed. Greater action on the part of the viewer is requested than that she simply remember to take all her personal belongs when exiting the theatre; she is to remember that the Poor of New York are people too, and cast a friendly hand out to them when she next sees them on the street. It’s more than Shakespeare normally asked in his ending scenes; think of Puck at the end of “A Midsummer’s Night Dream”, who only asks that the audience remember that they “have but slumbered here / While these visions did appear” (V.epilogue. 3–4). In this way, the melodrama is an even greater social medium for American playwrights to use; the cruel hearts and overly rich can be critiqued without ruffling any feathers.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "The Poor of New York", I have to say that I sort of enjoyed it because of its over the top drama. I think this kind of genre appeals to people even though some might not admit it up front, because the ridiculousness gives people entertainment. This is probably the same reason why soap operas have been around this long. There is a fascination in our society about good vs. evil and it is pretty much everywhere; books, movies, television shows and the melodrama. However, the one thing that bothered me about this particular melodrama was the ending. I was sort of let down by the fact that Paul let Bloodgood go unpunished. The fact that Bloodgood was responsible for his father's death and kept Paul's rightful inheritance has to result in some sort of hatred for the man. In a show today, I think Bloodgood would certainly get punished for his actions. The fact that the Fairweathers were still kind even after what Bloodgood did to let just does not seem all that believable to me. I feel like anyone, including the Fairweathers, would want some type of justice to be done, if not for them at least for the memory of their father/husband.
ReplyDeleteComparing this melodrama to a recent soap opera today seems difficult in the fact that times are much different but when you look closely the events happening this story are very much relatable to today and they DO happen today! Someone is poor, someone is rich, someone is lying, someone is in love. It can be the same cliche show we see on TV today, such as others have mentioned. The only difference is I believe in the 19th century people came to watch this play because it was entertaining because I would think that it was not as common to talk about financial situations and love triangles then as common as it is today. In todays time you cannot turn on the news or a show without seeing some type of drama related to money, love, or murder. In those times it actually seemed like entertainment because they may not have actually known someone in that type of drama, today we watch soap operas because I bet some people could actually relate or know someone who could relate. The idea of a soap opera or melodrama in my own definition is something that is suppose to seem so dramatic, with everyone enter laced and secrets being hidden, and love affairs on the rise.The ending was happy in the this story, everyone was forgiven, the poor suddenly were well off and love grew, in todays soap operas blood would have been shed, someone would have been pregnant, and more outrageous secrets would come out. I think the audience and the time is really something to focus on here considering how different and open our lives are compared to someones in the 19th century, again they used melodrama for entertainment, we watch it for entertainment, comfort in knowing someone elses life is just as screwed up (if not more) and the fact that we have probably heard of a true story that could relate closely to the drama.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the melodrama is equated with easy fiction, the kind that you read for lazy enjoyment rather than making a point to dissect the meaning. This play was enjoyable because the characters, symbols, and other literary devices were simple and I could turn off my brain and enjoy the ease of the story. Melodramas seem to want the reader to not focus on the story, rather the larger issue or moral at hand. In The Poor of New York, the message is directly stated to help the poor. They are cast in a favorable light as good, genteel people as opposed to the outright villainy of the rich. Yet the message gets scrambled to me. While the misery of being poor made the Fairweathers better and loving people, they were still essentially rich the whole play as the money belonged to them. Reversely Mr. Bloodgood was rotten and horrible before he ever gained wealth, and getting the money just made him worse. If he was as a good of a person as the Fairweathers without wealth, he would have never taken Captain Fairweather's money. So if the reader does step outside of the essential story of the melodrama, they can see the inconsistencies. The Poor of New York can be argued that the rich are innately good and the poor are still vagabonds, as Mr. Bloodgood stole to gain his wealth and the Fairweathers had a right to it.
ReplyDelete--Heather Hobbs
In Boucicault’s “The Poor of New York”, poverty is examined through many different lenses, through characters in different social standings. The first lens begins with Bloodgood and his ruins and desperation to become wealthy for his daughter. He acquires wealth through devious actions, but once he is rich he looks down on everyone else for being poor. His daughter, Alida, behaves like a rich snob and treats people less than her, poorly. However, despite her money she isn’t welcomed into the intimacy of some of the wealthiest families herself. Like her father, she is also desperate in moving upward in the social ladder and doesn’t mind destroying Lucy’s and Mr. Livingstone love and happiness. Alida, has no problem marrying for social status and paying off someone’s debts in order to achieve her goal. Like her father, Alida and him both say they have iron safe hearts, they use other people to gain status and wealth and do not care who they stomp on in the process. Mr. Bloodgood and Alida, are desperate to achieve their monetary goals and will stop at nothing.
ReplyDeleteIn the second lens, Mrs. Fairweather and her children live in poverty, but were once wealthy. In their low class, they are just trying to make ends meet. Boucicault, portrays the need for survival and food through the Fairweather family, and the misfortunes that bestow upon them, as to suggest the poor are unlucky, with the exception of the recently poor Mr. Livingstone who is presented a chance of wealth through his once social standing. Through the Fairweather family, we also come in counter with the Puff’s and their lack of wealth and how both families try to support one another with their little fortune.
Throughout the story, the wealthy and poor are intertwined, with status changing. As a reader, we witness ruins to wealth, and wealth to poverty, and everyone ending up in their original class standings at the end of the story. I agree with Anoff in thinking of the story like a Soap Opera. Ever character is intertwined and their fortune or lack of, is a result of another character. The story, definitely reminds me of an ‘Days of Our Lives’ episode in which people lie to get what they want, and ‘good’ people suffer the consequences of the ‘bad’ characters actions, but in the end ‘good and bad’ get placed in their rightful standings. I also agree with Markus, in that all besides one character remains constant in their personality, which I think only enhances the ‘bad’ and ‘good’ qualities within the characters. It makes it clear for a reader to distinguish who they should, and should not like, similar to that in a soap opera most of the characters are good, or they are bad with very little change between the two. Overall the story, examines the desperation to become wealthy through greed and survival, with the ‘good’ characters succeeding.
Jatelle
Melodrama can be described as overly dramatic with it's plot and characters in order to attract readers through these emotions. I definitely believe this genre is still popular today, however, I think it has evolved from what was considered melodrama in the 18th and 19th centuries. I agree with Heather in that melodrama is "lazy enjoyment". Although this may be incorrect, I can see melodrama characteristics in the Twilight series. The emotions in this series is definitely heightened to pull the reader in. The series is very exaggerated, which I think is a crucial component to the melodrama genre. You can also compare this genre to soap operas today, which are exaggerated emotionally and plot wise to the fullest. Even though the plots of soap operas are usually pretty ridiculous, people enjoy them anyway because of the nonstop emotion. A melodramas purpose is not to be considered a great piece of literature, it's made for popularity.
ReplyDeleteI actually loved "The Poor Of New York", and for a moment I began to really get emotionally invested in the piece, even though it's tame compared to the stuff you see on television and read in books today. I definitely think the genre of melodrama exists in a variety of forms in today's society—they're just sitcoms, dramas, and reality television now. Even the news has become a bit melodramatic, as they report things that appeal to their viewers' emotions. It's a huge part of American's sources of entertainment, and is marketed to all demographics. Depending on what your frame of mind is, affects your reaction to melodrama accordingly—they teach you lessons, such as the ones taught in "The Poor Of New York" concerning wealth and morality, they provide an excellent source of entertainment [the better the piece, the easier it is to get swept up with the characters and storyline, both could be considered a pleasure or a pain], and lastly, they allow us to look into the lives of people who we might not encounter everyday, and see that fundamentally, our triumphs and tribulations are universal.
ReplyDeleteMelodrama is definitely still present today in soap opera formats. The thing I like the most about soap operas (specifically Days of Our Lives) is that the characters never change, so even though I don't watch the show for months at a time, I can sit down and watch just one episode and be completely caught up. The characters that were good are still good, and Stefano is still bad. If a character does switch from good to bad, it is almost always some freak psychological event that gives them amnesia or a split personality, making them, in effect, two different characters instead of one complex character.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachael that the Twilight series is very melodramatic. One feature that many melodramatic plays had in common during the 19th century was their crazy stage effects and use of animals to kind of compensate for the lack of plot depth. Twilight does the same thing. Instead of telling an original story, the movies have crazy effects for changing humans into werewolves, sparking vampires, and attractive men (an effect that would be hard to use on stage since the audience is so far away, but works very effectively in this series of movies.) There are also good and bad characters that are so set in stone, that even when a "good" character does a bad thing, no one believes that they have turned "bad." The character just made a decision with reasoning that isn't clear yet, and it will be for the greater good in the end.
As a reader, the simple moral hyperbolic distinctions between good and evil decrease the complexity of the story. Because characters are rarely a multi-faceted mixture of good and bad, the plot is predictable and its messages hardly resonate in the real world. To me, in a lot of ways, it's a simple allegory where the characters are more symbols than attempts an creating "real" people. Sort of like Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, the conflict, climax and resolution are all plotable. "The Poor of New York" is also allegorical in it's use of ironic naming: Bloodgood is actually the villain of the story, the Fairweathers have met with anything but good fortune, the Puffys are the poorest of this society, and Badger, while he acts as the conscience of Bloodgood, never succeeds in affecting his behavior. Once the patterns of naming is recognizes, the characters are easily identifiable archetypes.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Nick, Soap Operas aren't the first place I see the connection to melodrama. Unlike the melodrama, soap operas are never trying to achieve resolution and additionally, the characters all have both good and bad sides, making them arguably more complex than any of the characters in this play. I actually see a connection between the melodrama and reality tv. This may seem contradictory because I wrote earlier that the melodrama is completely unrealistic, but then again, so is reality tv. I see the connections because the shows are always the reality of a very specific group of people--almost entirely unlike the viewer--the Kardashians, Teen Mom II, the Real World, etc, and in this way, it's sort of fantastical. In a second way, the episodes always tie up as neatly as this play does, getting ready for the conflict of the next installment. Perhaps the only thing to be gained from melodrama is the catharsis achieved from being able to plot out conflict, climax, and resolution. So as a viewer and a reader, I admit that it's entertaining and a lot less work than other genres may require. The catharsis is not long lasting and the "lessons" are never life-changing, but it can be enjoyable.
Melodrama is off-putting because it relies on blatant plot points that suggest that the reader, viewer, or audience member is unable to grasp the story at hand. It's not necessarily true that it is the author's intention to insult the audience, but the implication remains. There is always the trouble of finding the line between subtlety and the fear that the reader won't "get it." The calculated narrative of a melodrama and its disregard for restraint is just one characteristic of this style of writing. Formulated narratives are a part of every genre though.
ReplyDeleteA melodrama resonates with readers because it doesn't require too much work to decipher. It also creates an access point that readers can relate to, takes that recognizable element and turns it into something too far fetched to come too close to the audience. Shows like Law and Order are entertaining, but not threatening to viewers because they make an already distant headline so dramatized that the reality of that particular event ever reaching the viewer seem impossible. Even young adult books that portray high school as a mafia of backstabbing girls with a Queen Bee or Top Dog are melodramas that sell to teen girls who can recognize characteristics of their own lives, but see it amped up in the pages of a book that will never actually reach their high school lockers.
Melodrama is a mind-numbing writing style that doesn't require the audience to be fully present. They have their place in the literary and artistic world reaching the masses in a way that may be blatant, but also assures that no one will not "get it." I'm not sure if it's my lack of faith in humanity, but I don't think melodramas are entirely bad. It seems that if we are a part of a culture that relies on McDonalds to feed it (where you don't even have to get out of your car), melodrama can cater to these masses. If the audience is already sitting on their couch with their eyes glazed over, obviousness may be able to reach them in a way that the subtlety of symbolism cannot. It is a genre that is entertaining until it tries too hard. Law and Order is entertaining and I'm not upset that I can find it on TV no matter what time of day it is.