“The seagulls in The Alchemist deserve not so much wealth as a perfect image of themselves.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are two groups of seagulls in The Alchemist; based on Jonson's commentary on his own work, he presented the image that deceived characters deserved neither of the two typical narrative rewards (i.e., wealth and self-perfection) unless they underwent significant changes. Of course, we have our Dapper, Drugger and Mammon in the first acts of the play as the standard "gulls" or tricksters within Jonson's satirical action. However, arguably the real seagulls in The Alchemist are the paying audience members themselves, and Jonson encourages the audience's mental participation in the show's adventure in a way that creates exactly this ironic relationship. Why are audience members seagulls? Surely they would think themselves intelligent enough not to be fooled: after all, the rich would pay for their seat in a shilling at the Blackfriars theatre. But as Jonson refers to the audience in the prologue, "fortune favors fools", suggesting that the wealthy audience are fools themselves. As promoted in “To the Reader,” we may be the “reader,” but we may not also be the “understander” of Jonson’s work. Material wealth is not the same as mental wealth. Jonson himself could be compared to Subtle, filling his dialogue with bombast to impress the listener, even if he is not understood. We recall Subtle's speeches to clients, particularly those given to Mammon in Act 2, Scene 2, in which we learn that Subtle (or rather Jonson) is keenly aware of the basic principles of what was considered practical alchemy. "Hermaphrodity", of the elements and of the soul (since attachment to the kinds of the physical would not result in the mental balance required to discover the stone) and the hermaphrodite child of "mercurial" water, were theories produced by contemporary alchemists . Indeed, even when Subtle is unobserved in the first scene, he gravely mentions his "work as a philosopher," and Face admits that Subtle practices "alchemy and algebra," in addition to his deception. Subtle simply adds exaltation to doctrines to compensate for his lack of specific expertise and impress the viewer: can't we say that Jonson does the same? His interpretation and observation of London's low society is disguised and shown as a farce, because an interesting farce will attract most customers. The comparison between Jonson and Subtle is fundamental to this reading and is mentioned by Jonson himself. Through writing The Alchemist, Jonson hopes for "better men" (Prologue): One of The Alchemist's goals is for the audience to see some of their own qualities reflected in the characters present. Criticism of The Alchemist often highlights the familiar clichés that the characters adhere to. From the beginning, as soon as we hear the name "Drugger" or "Face", we know what the role of these characters will be. But these characters are perfected and purified versions of true human qualities. Oscar Wilde praised the use of what he called Jonson's "ready-made" characters, writing of them "they are in no sense abstractions, they are types... true to nature". They are simply an extreme variant of the individuals we might observe in London. By having ready-made characters we are already familiar with, rather than more outlandish and unimaginable ones, we are able to see some truth in their words and relate their actions to our own.real world experiences. Like an alchemist, Jonson tells the audience in the prologue that he wishes to "cure" them of their vices and calls his characters "right correctives." Therefore, we might consider the deceived seagulls in the play as the perfect, distilled image of the audience's vices: real seagulls. In a sense, this is Jonson's mousetrap, staged characters of vice, used to force the audience to expose and contemplate their own follies. Yet Jonson knows that his goals may not be achieved and that "those who act may see, and yet not own" their dark deeds. Metatheatricality was one of Jonson's favorite techniques, particularly the persuasion of a critical audience. Take the big reveal in Epicene: if a viewer had been deceived and never imagined that Epicene was male, it shows that they would be so willing to believe in the constructed norms of society, rather than what was clearly before their eyes. The Alchemist is no different, forcing the audience to question their own conduct by looking at a perfect image of their own potential follies. My only question would be what the reception of these techniques was in the 17th century, where there was only a small market for subtle games. They were considered modest enough that they could be performed mostly outside the jurisdiction of the London Police and the play was usually banned in Oxford (although observer Henry Jackson noted that the Oxford premiere of The Alchemist was packed). I wonder if most viewers weren't. understandings", and take The Alchemist for what it is. Let us contemplate Jonson's imaginary seagulls and ask ourselves what they deserve, from the point of view of the "judging public", and whether we should feel sympathy towards them. Indeed, since the characters are ready-made and often generalized visions of a type of human being, we are able to see ourselves in them. However, this can work in two ways. Not only can it incite a sense of guilt for our vices, but it gives us greater propensity for sympathy towards them, and there is a universal desire that every viewer of The Alchemist shares with the seagulls: the desire for escape Dapper tells Face that he will "leave the law", once he has the stone, and throw his life in the game.Can't it be said that this man is deeply dissatisfied with his life and just wants a second chance to leave a chosen profession in a hurry Drugger claims to be "a young beginner" and does not know what to do with? his new shop. Not looking to use Subtle's service to avoid the heavy responsibility of owning the store? And the audience sits in front of these characters. They paid to commit themselves to witnessing an imaginary world forged with words to forget their suffering. Epicure Mammon can be particularly difficult to sympathize with, "greedy" and full of desire for "a list of wives and women." concubines." Probably, however, of all the "lusts" listed by Mammon, it is easiest to see one of our own. In Mammon's monologues to be addressed in Act II, Scene II, he touches on each of the seven deadly sins in turn. Unlike of other seagulls, his desire is not singular, and the more numerous his fantasies, the more likely they are to affect a member of the public Envy of another man's "pure and sublimated wife," or the feeling of inferiority towards the "town studs", could potentially be real puzzles that cause the viewer to reconsider their sinful thoughts Above all, I think it is important to consider the purpose of Mammon's dreams. These are plans that he has clearly spent much of his time.