Is it Important to be Earnest or are Ernest People Important?

I loved reading this play and think it is my favorite piece of literature so far this semester. I thought the wit that Wilde used fit perfectly and gave the work added meaning and entertainment value. The multiple identities of characters really made me think that everybody is a bunburyist, only to a less extent. I’m unsure as to whether it is a good or bad thing, but believe it might be a necessary aspect of society when done appropriately. In my life I take on a variety of roles. I am Michael the student, Michael the son, Michael the older brother, Michael the heavy drinker, Michael the rationalist, Michael the irrationalist etc etc etc. There are all the same person, but I do act different in these situations. It makes me wonder if I changed my name at one of those roles, would I come off as a bunburyist? I also appreciated the ease of the text to read. It went very fast and I was able to visualize much of the play as it was happening. I am now an Oscar Wilde fan.
We should take his discussion of identity seriously. I think he is critiquing people who change who they are at the core for certain situations and saying that it is okay to be oneself. His humor does not conceal his critical ideas at all, but rather enhances them. They grab the readers attention and get the readers in an identity crisis. Lady Bracknell would not let Jack marry her daughter because he did not have a known origin. When she found out what his was, and that it was proper, she did let him. Jack never changed. The only thing that changed was human knowledge. Wilde is being very critical of people being judgmental and foolish, putting too much emphasis on what someone is rather than who someone is.