ROUNDABOUT BLOG

In The Philanthropist, Christopher Hampton turns his wit on a group of characters living in the insular world of academia. His fascination seems to be with their utter self-absorption, rendering these people incapable of engaging with the world around them. Sure, a man in drag has shot the Prime Minister, and yes, terrorists are on the hunt for prominent English writers – but who cares about that when there are departmental love affairs to discuss!

Hampton’s main character is Philip, a man who doesn’t necessarily ignore the events going on in the larger world but who can’t seem to form an opinion about them at all. Philip is so neutral that he had to teach philology (the study of form and meaning in linguistic expression) rather than literature. After all, it would be hard to teach the latter subject when you’ve never read a book you didn’t like.

What Hampton is doing here is an inversion of Moliere’s play, The Misanthrope. In that play, the character Alceste is Philip’s polar opposite – he just can’t keep his opinions to himself, and they tend to be pretty unfavorable. A little flattery may get him out of a lawsuit, but Alceste can’t keep his criticism to himself; and when it would be easy to tell an acquaintance that he’s written a lovely sonnet, Alceste simply must tell the man not to quit his day job.

If Philip is neutral and unengaged, then Alceste is overly-engaged with the world around him. But is there really a line between these two characters that can represent the proper amount of engagement?

I look at engagement today as being informed about what is going on in the world, enough to understand the general issues and have the ability to express a viewpoint, but not necessarily to be an expert. And I’ll admit it – I judge people who, like the characters in The Philanthropist, don’t seem to bother to know what’s happening in the world because they’re caught up in more solipsistic matters. For instance, a discussion with friends recently revealed that one had never heard of the $700 billion bail-out plan that had been headline news for over a week. I internally “tsk tsked” her for missing something so important, but it also occurred to me that maybe things aren’t so cut and dry when it comes to forming opinions. After all, should I really be throwing stones if much of my news is taken in via Comedy Central? How much am I really engaging by getting information through what is essentially a filter, as so many of us do (whether it’s Jon Stewart, Fox News, or many others)? We’re getting our opinions at the same time that we’re getting the information that should be helping us to form them. Hey, it’s a time-saver (and who among us doesn’t love that?), but are we losing something along the way?

Posted by Jill Rafson, Literary Manager