Clichés are a strange thing to judge an older text by, since it's often hard to say whether something that is commonplace and tired today wasn't fresh and revolutionary at the time. While I can't be sure about how new the tropes used by Molière in these two plays were when they were written, I know that they struck me as stale when I read them today.

Tartuffe features a bumbling, foolish, and quick to anger husband and a clever wife trying to undue his mistakes, a Homer and Marge Simpson for 17th century France. The antagonist is the titular Tartuffe, a hypocrite who hides in the mantle of piousness while secretly lusting after both wealth and a married woman. It's never believable that Tartuffe hoodwinked anyone, as he's only ever portrayed as an idiot only a hair's-breadth more clever than the bumbling husband. The play really beats you over the head with its message, that you should avoid being suckered by deception or self-deception, and that all that glitters isn't gold. Tartuffe's use of religion to mask his true intention may have been revolutionary at the time, but nowadays it's hard to go on an online forum without someone drawing the same connection between the church and deceit of the masses. Molière uses a royal deus ex machina to shoehorn in a happy ending.

The Misanthrope is slightly more interesting, mostly because of how it largely refuses to give the expected ending. There are some interesting characters here, but instead of exploring the worldview of a man who detests people, or one who shamelessly flatters everyone equally, or someone who can't restrain herself from flirting with everyone available, Molière treats these as amusing personalities for the play and nothing more. Large swaths of this play are characters just flat out refusing to communicate (something that is played for comedic effect in Tartuffe, but more briefly) and using this method to create dramatic tension has always rubbed me the wrong way. It's something that occasionally happens in real life, but rarely, and not usually for an extended conversation. It's a very artificial way to put two characters at odds with each other, and I take it as a sign of bad writing. Again, though, perhaps it wasn't so tired in the 17th century.

There are some good points to the plays as well, for instance women aren't passive objects but active participants in both plays, and Molière is gifted at crafting dialogue. I'm sure a production of either of these plays could be quite funny. Overall though, I expected something more from one of France's greatest playwrights. As Molière wrote:

Everything, madam, may be praised or blamed,
And each is right, in proper time and season.

Others have loved this play for hundreds of years, and I'm sure many will continue to do so for many years to come, but for me I'm afraid Molière's season has passed. ( )

This time around I only read The Misanthrope. It is, of course, an absolute pleasure from the first rhyming couplet to the last. It is even more dialogue-driven than most Moliere plays, perhaps somewhat more of a discourse and debate on manners and society and a little bit less of a madcap plot--although that is not entirely lacking either. And Alceste, the misanthrope of the title, is a particularly memorable figure. ( )

Read The Misanthrope and was surprised by how it held me. Generally, I find plays very dead on the page. Not this one. Moliere's keen wit and sharp characterizations comes through beautifully. He has this very light touch. And here's the funny thing--the play's in verse! Rhyming couplets for the most part. Here's part of what translator Wilbur says about it: "In this play, society itself is indicted, and though Alceste's criticisms are indiscriminate, they are not unjustified...." Let me add that Alceste thinks of himself as the only moral visionary about. Everyone else is ruined by the various social fraudulences of the day (1666). There are others who see through this faux civility, too, of course, but Alceste is the one whose pride spurs him on to ever greater truth telling. If the play weren't so funny, and Wilbur's verse so sharp, Alceste would be a very great bore indeed. Tartuffe I liked too. It's about this con man who, playing the role of the pious Christian, wheedles his way into the heart of a prosperous Paris householder. That man, Orgon, is so taken in by the fraud Tartuffe that he allows it to disrupt his very large household. But then he's caught trying to seduce the lady of the house. That moment of exposure provides enormous pleasure. Though the meter tends to slow the reader down a bit, both plays read very fast, about an hour each. ( )

Okay, I like tragedy better than comedy. Sorry if that makes me all emo.

These two plays by Moliere...I like them more than most comedies. I like them more than Shakespeare's comedies, and I like them at least as much as Aristophanes. They're very focused: each presents its case and makes it. I appreciate that. I suspect Alceste and Tartuffe and Dorine will stick with me as eponymous characters. But all that said, it's not like it changed my life. I only liked them. Sorry, French people? ( )

This time around I only read The Misanthrope. It is, of course, an absolute pleasure from the first rhyming couplet to the last. It is even more dialogue-driven than most Moliere plays, perhaps somewhat more of a discourse and debate on manners and society and a little bit less of a madcap plot--although that is not entirely lacking either. And Alceste, the misanthrope of the title, is a particularly memorable figure. ( )