The Contrast

by Royall Tyler

Short Why, my dear little prude, are we not all such libertines? Do you think, when I sat tortured two hours under the hands of my friseur, and an hour more at my toilet, that I had any thoughts of my aunt Susan, or my cousin Betsey?

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, School, Read For School, 18th Century

90 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1787

About the author

Royall Tyler (1757-1826) was an American jurist and playwright who wrote The Contrast in 1787 and published The Algerine Captive in 1797. He also wrote several legal tracts, six plays, a musical drama, two long poems, a semifictional travel narrative, The Yankey in London (1809), and essays. He was born in Boston, Massachusetts, he attended the Boston Latin School and then Harvard, where he earned a reputation as a quick-witted joker. After graduation, he joined the Continental Army. In late 1778, he returned to Harvard to study law, and was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1780. He opened a practice in Braintree, Massachusetts. In 1801, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Vermont as an assistant judge, and was later elected chief justice.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Contrast," according to my "Norton Anthology" was the first American bestselling drama. We've come along ways since, but for a play at the turn of the 18th century it's not bad. I read it to see if I could teach this in my American literature course to supplement a lot of the non-fiction that usually comes in most high school anthologies.

This is basically a comedy of errors mixed with some irony. Leititia, Charlotte, and Maria are the three female protagonists. Charlotte is the mean queen bee (Regina George), Leitita is the wealthy beta (Gretchen Wieners), and Maria is the sappy, emo member of the group (Karen, just with more brains and a lot more emo). The male protagonists are made up of Manly, Dimple, Jessamy, and Jonathan. Manly is Charlotte's sotic brother, Dimple is the caddish rake, Jessamy is the creepy social climber, and Jonathan is the country bumpkin.

The crux of the plot hinges around Maria's engagement to Dimple. Charlotte and Leititia judge her because she's going to marry Dimple even though she doesn't love him. This causes most of Maria's dialogue to consist of her bemoaning marrying someone her heart doesn't love but her head knows that it's a good match for money and family.

Dimple on the other hand doesn't care for Maria much either and late in the play we realize just how much he doesn't love her. Let's just say he's trying to play the field.

Manly "happens" to open the door to the wrong house and finds Maria in her parlor and they have a grand ol' time, which leads to both of them becoming all angsty that they can't be together. Can't you see how funny this all is?!

I will say that it reads better than I'm describing it and the ending is somewhat comical when everyone gets what's coming to him/her. This is definitely a more classical use of "comedy" in which it's not so much "hahahaha" funny, but "ouch, I'm laughing because that's true and I'm uncomfortable for being called out on in in a work of fiction like this" funny.

If I were teaching a college class I would certainly teach this piece. There's a lot here for students to see the roots of what would become American Literature. In fact, the reason I can even relate "Mean Girls" to this play is because this play has all of the elements that later writers would use to portray American comedy. So if you curious to know what early American drama is like, I would recommend this read. It's short, sweet, and too the point and you'll be edifying your literary diet.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

why was this like actually understandable?

[Anna Wolverton · Rating 5 out of 5]

has it's issues, obviously (it was 1787), but this is one of the funniest plays i have ever read. it felt like a 90s rom-com that i could watch a thousand times without ever getting bored.

[Joni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read this for class but I did not struggle through this for nothing. So you bet I am counting it as one of the books I’ve this year.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ah, The Contrast. This was a summer reading assignment and as long as it was and the material within it, I somehow found this to be a fun read. The characters are very quirky and there are a lot of half-humored jokes that are comparable to dry British humor that will make you double over laughing. In all honesty, I disregarded the redundancy of this novel and just had fun with it, ignoring my intuition as to what will happen (it's quite obvious) and allowing it to surprise me a bit. If you take it with a grain of salt, you will enjoy reading it.

[Seamaiden · Rating 3 out of 5]

I Had to read this for a course at my university. Surprisingly, it was pretty easy to read and actually really nice too. It did remind me a bit of Jane Austen's Emma. I guess the ladys reminded me a bit of Emma herself, and Manly of Mr. Knightley.

Jessamy and Mr. Dimple really wasted my time and I spent all of their scenes rolling my eyes but without Mr. Dimple there would be no plot, of course. I really liked Colonel Manly and as I said he did remind me of Mr. Knightley that I really liked as well.

A nice play, a nice melodrama.

[Alyce · Rating 2 out of 5]

Play gets two stars because Jonathan is extremely cute and the definition of a pre-modern himbo (I think). The play is so god damn obvious that it's frustrating to read. It's about Britian ideals vs American ideals. Britians are very bad. Okay, and what else? It's extremely black and white. If anyone can actually make a meaningful analysis of this simpleton play, I applaud you!

[Brian McCann · Rating 1 out of 5]

I know it has an important place in American theater history, but THE CONTRAST is just painful to read.

[Justin Ferguson · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Contrast," according to my "Norton Anthology" was the first American bestselling drama. We've come along ways since, but for a play at the turn of the 18th century it's not bad. I read it to see if I could teach this in my American literature course to supplement a lot of the non-fiction that usually comes in most high school anthologies.

This is basically a comedy of errors mixed with some irony. Leititia, Charlotte, and Maria are the three female protagonists. Charlotte is the mean queen bee (Regina George), Leitita is the wealthy beta (Gretchen Wieners), and Maria is the sappy, emo member of the group (Karen, just with more brains and a lot more emo). The male protagonists are made up of Manly, Dimple, Jessamy, and Jonathan. Manly is Charlotte's sotic brother, Dimple is the caddish rake, Jessamy is the creepy social climber, and Jonathan is the country bumpkin.

The crux of the plot hinges around Maria's engagement to Dimple. Charlotte and Leititia judge her because she's going to marry Dimple even though she doesn't love him. This causes most of Maria's dialogue to consist of her bemoaning marrying someone her heart doesn't love but her head knows that it's a good match for money and family.

Dimple on the other hand doesn't care for Maria much either and late in the play we realize just how much he doesn't love her. Let's just say he's trying to play the field.

Manly "happens" to open the door to the wrong house and finds Maria in her parlor and they have a grand ol' time, which leads to both of them becoming all angsty that they can't be together. Can't you see how funny this all is?!

I will say that it reads better than I'm describing it and the ending is somewhat comical when everyone gets what's coming to him/her. This is definitely a more classical use of "comedy" in which it's not so much "hahahaha" funny, but "ouch, I'm laughing because that's true and I'm uncomfortable for being called out on in in a work of fiction like this" funny.

If I were teaching a college class I would certainly teach this piece. There's a lot here for students to see the roots of what would become American Literature. In fact, the reason I can even relate "Mean Girls" to this play is because this play has all of the elements that later writers would use to portray American comedy. So if you curious to know what early American drama is like, I would recommend this read. It's short, sweet, and too the point and you'll be edifying your literary diet.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 3 out of 5]

This drama is a pitiable imitation of its European equivalents, as are the plays "Sheridan's School for Scandal" (1777) and Oliver Goldsmith's "She Stoops Conquer" (1773), which are obvious analogues.

However, Jonathan and Henry Manly's representations of the American Yankee stand out for their flashes of genius. There is also a focus on American values rather than European "decadence." Additionally, the "post revolutionary" gusto unambiguously ascertains the American accent. It attempts to capture the finest of European culture while impartially integrating native advancements. The indigenous American virtues have also been emphasised in an effort to compare them with unethical European culture.

Tyler's point is principally well served by the divergence between freshly developed American sentimentality and "British Elitism."

Nevertheless, being the first of its sort, the play undeniably appeals to people all over the world, and it actually stands out for how it handled the American public.
The language and the characters also advance the cause of American native values. It expressed the actual feeling and sentiment of Americans.

The play, in a sense, revived the American people to embrace American principles in a hitherto unheard-of fashion. It acts as a wake-up call for Americans who are torn between pretentious European ideals and vigorous but unprocessed American culture. That is where the play's implication and appeal to all cultures lie.

[Chrisangel · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you enjoy reading plays from centuries gone by, then you should like this one. It's fast reading, the dialog is witty, and there's not a lot of stage directions and descriptions, which can be really annoying (at least to me) when you just want to be entertained by the story.

It's too bad that Royall Tyler's writing wasn't appreciated more in his day. For that matter, neither was he. John and Abigail Adams rejected him as a worthy husband for their daughter, much preferring William Smith. And it looks like they goofed up with that decision.

[Sanders Miguel · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5
So, it was about love and lovers.
So what?
Well, I liked it. It wasn't thaaaaaaattt tedious. It was... interesting, but SHORT! But, to call it a classic is like to call the Notebook movie a classic- excuse me?

[David James · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a fun & easy read, but definitely of its time. 3 stars for historical significance.

[Lauren · Rating 1 out of 5]

idk its old and not my thing. but as a new yorker, poor Jonathan man, welcome to new york!

[Persy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found the plot and characters a bit one dimensional to be honest. Not my favorite, but not a bad read.

[Haleigh Dehn-Sadosky · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit over the top- but for America's first play it is worth the read, especially to anyone who is interested in early American Literature.

[Stronglysalty]

Probably my least favorite of the plays I've had to read for my theater class.

[Riley Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Funny!!

[Meredith · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting and cool to read such an early play in American history but ultimately drab

[Kylie · Rating 3 out of 5]

big fan of jonathon, but the rest of the characters were bland

*read this for class would’ve never knew it existed otherwise

[kait]

pro-american love pentagon?

[Emma Walls · Rating 2 out of 5]

Had to read it for lit. I laughed once which shocked me so it gets 2 stars.

[Magda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rating : 2,5

As the tittle suggest in the book we see contrast and actually more than one. The play highlightens and satirizes the differences between people: their culture, status and personalities. It shows the opposition of transactional nature of marriage and personal freedom of preference. It also shows the "blurring" between classes.

The play lacks exhaustive characterization and scene setting. And that's the main thing which really bugged me.

I got the feeling that the play was supposed to be light and entertaining but the author wrote it in a way that nearly everything seems serious.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this for ENGL 330 Enlightenment Literature Spring 2012. This is the first play by an American performed in American by a professional theater company. Written in 1787 it addresses many of the dominant questions of the day, especially that of what kind of republic is this to be?

This edition has a good intro by Cynthia A. Kierner and several pairs of excerpts from primary documents of the day addressing the topics of the play.

[Annathelle26 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amusing story. Easy to read, light and simple.

Jonathan was funny! A very likeable character, the one I liked most. His comic-relief parts amused me a lot. The other characters I found rather plain; in the neutral sense. Nothing special. Charlotte got on my nerves a lot. Dimple and Jessamy apparently seem to be mental cases... that part about the "laughing manual" finished me off. XD

On general terms, it was a merry little play. :)

[Mikey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly useful as a look at early American theater, the style is mostly too stilted and obvious for a modern reader (the hero's name is literally "Manly") and offers a sort of unambiguous patriotism which might have been necessary in the 1790s but is uncomfortable now. The somewhat strong female characters are a nice surprise though, as is the way it presents the (still very modern) act of dishonestly towards women as the principle failing of the society.

[Valerie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this for my theatre history class. Meh not a fan

[Isaac Timm · Rating 3 out of 5]

I swear that I reviewed this? Not Shakespeare sharp, but funny and light-hearted, it was interesting to see early American views of Republic and post revolutionary ideas.

[Colette · Rating 4 out of 5]

A witty play, it is timeless.

[Lucía · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was funny and simple. Humorous presentation of some stereotypes, half-jokes, but not much more to say. It was ok.