What do you think?
Rate this book
Man and Superman
Shaw began writing Man and Superman in 1901 and determined to write a play that would encapsulate the new century's intellectual inheritance. Shaw drew not only on Byron's verse satire, but also on Shakespeare, the Victorian comedy fashionable in his early life, and from authors from Conan Doyle to Kipling. In this powerful drama of ideas, Shaw explores the role of the artist, the function of women in society, and his theory of Creative Evolution. As Stanley Weintraub says in his new introduction, this is "the first great twentieth-century English play" and remains a classic exposé of the eternal struggle between the sexes.
This edition:
Man and Superman was the first drama to be broadcast on the BBC's Third Program on October 1, 1946. To celebrate Radio 3's 50th anniversary, the play was directed by Sir Peter Hall, and preserved for all time in this lush audio dramatization.
"A comedy and a philosophy", Man and Superman is based on the Don Juan theme, and using all the elements from Mozart's Don Giovanni, Shaw reordered them so that Don Juan becomes the quarry instead of the huntsman.
Boasting an outstanding cast including Ralph Fiennes, Juliet Stevenson, Dame Judi Dench, John Wood, Nicholas Le Prevost, and Paul Merton, this release includes an exclusive interview with director Sir Peter Hall.
This edition:
Man and Superman was the first drama to be broadcast on the BBC's Third Program on October 1, 1946. To celebrate Radio 3's 50th anniversary, the play was directed by Sir Peter Hall, and preserved for all time in this lush audio dramatization.
"A comedy and a philosophy", Man and Superman is based on the Don Juan theme, and using all the elements from Mozart's Don Giovanni, Shaw reordered them so that Don Juan becomes the quarry instead of the huntsman.
Boasting an outstanding cast including Ralph Fiennes, Juliet Stevenson, Dame Judi Dench, John Wood, Nicholas Le Prevost, and Paul Merton, this release includes an exclusive interview with director Sir Peter Hall.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1903
328 people are currently reading
7,407 people want to read
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
2,361books4,002followersGeorge Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
May 6, 2018
الإنسان والسوبرمان هي ثاني أفضل ما قرأت لشو بعد بجماليون
فالمسرحية برغم طولها المفرط إلا أنها وجبة عقلية ممتعة
وفيها يستغل شو سخريته اللاذعة وأسلوبه الجذاب
في ابتداع نوع متميز من المسرحيات
ألا وهو مسرح الأفكار
:::::::::::::::
نيتشه- هكذا تكلم زارادشت
--------------------
لقد ورد لفظ السوبرمان قبلا على لسان لوسيان
الكاتب اليوناني الساخر
ثم غوته في فاوست الشهيرة
ولكنه بمفهومه عند نيتشه اكتسب بعدا مختلفا
فهو يراه تطورا حتميا لأشكال أعلى من الحياة
ولكنه أيضا يراه
"أبعد ما يكون عن الحتمية
فهو تحدٍ دائم للروح البشرية قد لا يتحقق أبدا"
وعلينا كمخلوقات بشرية أن نكافح
لنصل إلى هذا النموذج الأمثل للكمال
:::::::::::::::
تكنيك شو في مسرحيته يحتاج التوقف عنده طويلا
فهو لا يبني مسرحا داخل مسرح فقط
فهناك تداخل ما بين حبكة الفودفيل الاجتماعية
وبين نقاشات فلسفية من الطراز الرفيع
وهي تعتمد كثيرا على التداخل ما بين الحلم والواقع
وهنا الحوارات هي البطل الأوحد
الحدث يبدو ثانويا برغم تشابكه وتعقده
والشخصيات تبدو مرسومة فقط كي تعلي من قيمة هذه الحوارات
وتحقق لشو رغبته في إثراء أفكاره تلك
ومناقشتها بكل الطرق الممكنة
ووجهات النظر المختلفة
:::::::::::::::
خلال السنوات الأولى من القرن العشرين
كانت هناك فورة بين معاصريه بسبب نظرية التطور
والجدال الأبدي عن ماهية روح الانسان تحت وطأة كل هذه الاكتشافات الجديدة
وصراعات الأفكار والمبادئ
إنها تعكس الهموم التي كانت تشغل عقول المفكرين
والمهتمين بقضية الانسان
:::::::::::::::
تدور المسرحية حول فتاة شابة تدعي آن
تجد نفسها بعد وفاة أبيها
تحت وصاية رجلين
الأول هو رامسدن ليبرالي عجوز
ينتمي الى العصر الفيكتوري
والثاني تانر وهو كاتب ثوري
ألف كتابا أسماه :الثوري الكامل
الرجلان مختلفان تمام الاختلاف
رامسدن ينتمي الى الفكر النهضوي المحافظ
بينما ينتمي تانر إلى الأفكار الحديثة
والتي تدو مزيجا من تطور داروين وانسان نيتشه الأسمى
فتانر مشغول بفكرة السوبرمان
ويبحث في كيفية تأمين الشروط المناسبة لولادته
ونشأت
ولديه أفكار تبدو غريبة وسخيفة بالنسبة إلى رامسدن المحافظ
فهو يرى مثلا أن المرأة هي المسيطرة على الرجل
حتى حين يعتقد الرجل أنه هو المسيطر
وعلى ذلك لن يتزوج من آن حتى وإن كانت تريد ذلك
فالزواج سيحيله الى كائن بيولوجي بحت
وسيضع حدا لنشاطاته الفكرية
فهذا العمل ال بيولوجي هو وظيفة المرأة
والمرأة فقط
:::::::::::::::
وبعد دخول شخصيات جديدة وتشابك مزيد من الأحداث
تأتي ذروة متعة المسرحية في الحلم الذي يحلمه تانر
فنرى أوبرا دون جيوفاني بشكل مختلف
بملامح شخصيات المسرحية المعاصرة
وتدور الحوارات الممتعة بينهم في أمور عدة
بينما يقف الشيطان على عتبة جهنم مسرتسلا في الحديث معهم جميعا
:::::::::::::::
برغم اختلافي مع كثير من الفكار الواردة في المسرحية
إلا أنها لاقت إعجابا كبيرا في نفسي
كثرة ما ألهبت عقلي بأفكارها
وبالطبع لأسلوب شو الاذع السخرية
والذي لا منافس له
اقتباسات من النسخة العربية
الإنسان والسوبرمان هي ثاني أفضل ما قرأت لشو بعد بجماليون
فالمسرحية برغم طولها المفرط إلا أنها وجبة عقلية ممتعة
وفيها يستغل شو سخريته اللاذعة وأسلوبه الجذاب
في ابتداع نوع متميز من المسرحيات
ألا وهو مسرح الأفكار
:::::::::::::::
ما الإنسان إلا حبل منصوب بين الحيوان والإنسان المتفوق
فهو الحبل المشدود فوق الهاوية
إن في العبور للجهة المقابلة مخاطرة
وفي البقاء وسط الطريق خطراً
وفي الإلتفات إلى الوراء
وفي كل تردد وفي كل توقف خطر في خطر..
نيتشه- هكذا تكلم زارادشت
--------------------
لقد ورد لفظ السوبرمان قبلا على لسان لوسيان
الكاتب اليوناني الساخر
ثم غوته في فاوست الشهيرة
ولكنه بمفهومه عند نيتشه اكتسب بعدا مختلفا
فهو يراه تطورا حتميا لأشكال أعلى من الحياة
ولكنه أيضا يراه
"أبعد ما يكون عن الحتمية
فهو تحدٍ دائم للروح البشرية قد لا يتحقق أبدا"
وعلينا كمخلوقات بشرية أن نكافح
لنصل إلى هذا النموذج الأمثل للكمال
:::::::::::::::
تكنيك شو في مسرحيته يحتاج التوقف عنده طويلا
فهو لا يبني مسرحا داخل مسرح فقط
فهناك تداخل ما بين حبكة الفودفيل الاجتماعية
وبين نقاشات فلسفية من الطراز الرفيع
وهي تعتمد كثيرا على التداخل ما بين الحلم والواقع
وهنا الحوارات هي البطل الأوحد
الحدث يبدو ثانويا برغم تشابكه وتعقده
والشخصيات تبدو مرسومة فقط كي تعلي من قيمة هذه الحوارات
وتحقق لشو رغبته في إثراء أفكاره تلك
ومناقشتها بكل الطرق الممكنة
ووجهات النظر المختلفة
:::::::::::::::
خلال السنوات الأولى من القرن العشرين
كانت هناك فورة بين معاصريه بسبب نظرية التطور
والجدال الأبدي عن ماهية روح الانسان تحت وطأة كل هذه الاكتشافات الجديدة
وصراعات الأفكار والمبادئ
إنها تعكس الهموم التي كانت تشغل عقول المفكرين
والمهتمين بقضية الانسان
:::::::::::::::
تدور المسرحية حول فتاة شابة تدعي آن
تجد نفسها بعد وفاة أبيها
تحت وصاية رجلين
الأول هو رامسدن ليبرالي عجوز
ينتمي الى العصر الفيكتوري
والثاني تانر وهو كاتب ثوري
ألف كتابا أسماه :الثوري الكامل
الرجلان مختلفان تمام الاختلاف
رامسدن ينتمي الى الفكر النهضوي المحافظ
بينما ينتمي تانر إلى الأفكار الحديثة
والتي تدو مزيجا من تطور داروين وانسان نيتشه الأسمى
فتانر مشغول بفكرة السوبرمان
ويبحث في كيفية تأمين الشروط المناسبة لولادته
ونشأت
ولديه أفكار تبدو غريبة وسخيفة بالنسبة إلى رامسدن المحافظ
فهو يرى مثلا أن المرأة هي المسيطرة على الرجل
حتى حين يعتقد الرجل أنه هو المسيطر
وعلى ذلك لن يتزوج من آن حتى وإن كانت تريد ذلك
فالزواج سيحيله الى كائن بيولوجي بحت
وسيضع حدا لنشاطاته الفكرية
فهذا العمل ال بيولوجي هو وظيفة المرأة
والمرأة فقط
:::::::::::::::
وبعد دخول شخصيات جديدة وتشابك مزيد من الأحداث
تأتي ذروة متعة المسرحية في الحلم الذي يحلمه تانر
فنرى أوبرا دون جيوفاني بشكل مختلف
بملامح شخصيات المسرحية المعاصرة
وتدور الحوارات الممتعة بينهم في أمور عدة
بينما يقف الشيطان على عتبة جهنم مسرتسلا في الحديث معهم جميعا
:::::::::::::::
برغم اختلافي مع كثير من الفكار الواردة في المسرحية
إلا أنها لاقت إعجابا كبيرا في نفسي
كثرة ما ألهبت عقلي بأفكارها
وبالطبع لأسلوب شو الاذع السخرية
والذي لا منافس له
اقتباسات من النسخة العربية
إن الطاعون و المجاعات والزلازل والعواصف كانت كلها عرضية
إن شيئا أكثر ثباتا و أكثر قسوة و أكثر تدميرا كان مطلوبا
و كان هذا الشيء هو الإنسان
فهو الذي اخترع اّلات القتل و التعذيب من السيف والبندقية و الغاز السام و الكرسي الكهربائي
و فوق كل هذا اخترع العدل و الواجب و الوطنية و ما شابهها من الأمور التي تجعل من هم أكثر توحشا يصيرون أكثر إنسانية بدلا من أن يظلوا هم الأكثر تدميراً بين المدمرين
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
فى الأدبيات القديمة تقرأ عن زلازل و أوبئة
و قيل لنا أن هذا يظهر قوة و عظمة الله و ضاّلة شأن الإنسان
أما حاليا, فالأدبيات تصف المعارك الحربية
فى المعركة يطلق مجموعتان من الرجال النار بعضهم على بعض مستخدمين الطلقات و المتفجرات إلى أن يهرب أحد الفريقين من أرض المعركة
و يطارده الفريق الاّخر على ظهور الجياد ليمزقه نهائيا
و تقرر الأدبيات أن هذا يظهر عظمة الإمبراطوريات و ضعف المغلوب
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
بالنسبة إلى تلك المعارك يجرى الناس فى الشوارع يصرخون فرحا و يستحثون حكومتهم على إنفاق مئات الملايين على القتل بالرغم من أن أقوى الوزراء لا يستطيع إنفاق بنس زيادة على الفقراء أو على الأوبئة
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
حين أضع اعتبارا لكِ كما تقولين
معناه أن تحل إرادتك محل إرادتي
فكيف إذا كانت إرادة أسوأ من إرادتي
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
أستطيع أن أعطيك مئات الأمثلة و لكنها جميعا تأتى في نفس السياق: إن القوة التي تحكم الأرض ليست هي قوة الحياة
و إنما قوة الموت
والحاجة الداخلية التي أمدت الحياة بالقوة
لتنظم نفسها في صورة البشر
ليست هي الحاجة إلى حياة أعلى و أسمى
وإنما الى اّلة أكثر كفاءة في التدمير و القتل
January 12, 2023
منذ نحو قرن من الزمان يبدو أن الرجل الأوروبي لم يكن لديه قرنان في رأسه أو على الأقل لم تكن ظاهرة بارزة كما هو معروف عنه الأن. فالمسرحية تبدأ بالفتاة التي تأتي أهلها حامل بطفل ترفض أن تخبرهم من أباه و ينقسم الجمع لبعض من يشفق عليها و بعض من يسلقها بألسنة حداد إلا أن الوضع في النهاية لم يجر مجرا شرقيا بل انتصرت الحرية المطلقة و قرر الجميع أن لها الحق في أن تفعل ما تريد.
حتى الأن تمر أحداث المسرحية بحوارات فلسفية خفيفة في إيقاع بطيء و لكن بلا ملل حتى يبدأ الفصل التالي.
ينتقل الفصل التالي للتجهيز لرحلة السفر و الترفيه و هو أكثر الفصول مللا و ان كنا لا زلنا نرتبط بنفس الموضوع و ندور في إطاره حتى يأتي الفصل الثالث.
إنني استطيع عرض آلاف الأمثلة عليكم و كلها تصل إلى نتيجة واحدة. هي أن القوة التي تحكم الأرض ليست هي قوة الحياة و لكنها قوة الموت. و بأن الضرورة الذاتية التي أتاحت للحياة هذا الجهد الذي استطاعت به الحياة تطوير نفسها إلى أن ظهر الإنسان ليست هي الحاجة إلى نوع من الحياة الراقية و لكنها الحاجة إلى المزيد من وسائل التدمير. إن الطاعون و المجاعة و الزلازل و العواصف لم يرتبط حدوثها على الأرض بعامل الصدفة أو غيره .. كما أن النمر أو التمساح يبلغان من بشاعة المنظر حدا كبيرا. و مع ذلك فهما ليسا على درجة كبيرة من الوحشية . لكأن الحاجة كانت تدعو إلى شيء أكثر ثباتا .. أكثر هدوءا. أكثر غباء في التدمير. فكان هذا الشيء المدمر هو الإنسان.في الفصل الثالث ننفصل تماما عن المسرحية و كأننا دخلنا مسرحية أخرى ثم ننفصل عن هذا الانفصال بانفصال أخر و نستغرق في حلم أحدهم و في كلا الانفصالين حوارات فلسفية ساخرة عن الحرية و الاقتصاد و السياسة و الدين و الثقافة و هي حوارات ممتعة و ان كنا نتساءل طول الوقت عن علاقة كل ذلك بموضوع المسرحية.
ما أردت سؤالك عنه يا جوان هو: لماذا ترهق الحياة نفسها بالحصول على العقل؟ لماذا لا تقنع بإسعاد نفسها فحسب؟في الفصل الأخير نعود مرة أخرى لموضوعنا على استحياء و تنتهي المسرحية نهاية سعيدة للجميع
لأنه بدون العقل تستطيع أن تسعد نفسك. و لكن دون أن تدرك أنك فعلا سعيد. و من ثم تفقد كل إحساس بالسعادة.
لو أن عقلي كان عقل كلب فلن يخدم إلا أهداف الكلاب. لكن الواقع أن عقلي مشغول بنوع من المعرفة لا يخدمني أنا شخصيا. بل يجعل جسمي عبئا ثقيلا على شخصي ... و إذا لم أتذرع بهدف أعتنقه و أسعى لتحقيقه فالأفضل لي ألا أكون فيلسوفا. بل عاملا على محراث في حقل.
September 10, 2017
It's Nobel Revisit Month (it is a very small one-woman festival, so don't worry if you have never heard of it!), and "Man And Superman" is on the schedule, because I need to laugh a bit.
I must have been laughing when I took notes on the treatise/reflection/play or whatever else it is, because I can hardly read my handwriting. Well, some people would now claim that it is never possible to read it, and that I should finally give up my cursive, but usually I myself know what I mean.
Luckily, Shaw explains what HE means with this strange little book in the beginning, otherwise it would be easy to get lost somewhere in the beginning, middle or end:
"Fortunately for us [he means all of us lovely goodreaders!], whose minds have been so overwhelmingly sophisticated by literature, what produces all these treatises, and poems and scriptures of one sort or another is the struggle of life to become divinely conscious of itself instead of blindly stumbling hither and thither in the line of least resistance [he is NOT talking about my handwriting!]."
So that is the mission on which he sets out, - to make the struggle of life divinely conscious - and he handles it with quite a lot of elegance, while lashing out at his preferred enemies at the same time, holding up a mirror for people to see the uncomfortable truth of the illogical behaviour we are all mastering.
I was drawn back to this book because of its reflections on heaven and hell, and namely Dante and Milton. As I have a predilection for authors discussing other authors, I found Shaw's ideas on these giants of literature hilarious. Act three in the play/treatise is mostly concerned with the illogical beliefs connected with heaven and hell, and features an unforgettable dialogue where the devil justifies himself, referring to the bad publicity he has received:
"Hell is a place far above their comprehension: they derive their notion of it from two of the greatest fools that ever lived, an Italian and an Englishman. The Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire, and venomous serpents: all torture. This ass, when he was not lying about me, was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton believes that the whole of his silly story is in the Bible. What else he says I do not know; for it is all in a long poem which neither I nor anyone else ever succeeded in wading through."
I just love his irreverent comment about Milton. Shaw, I am quite sure, had read him more than once, as his devil is a great reincarnation of Milton's furious individualist shouting:
"Better reign in Hell than serve in Heaven!"
And as for Dante himself, he didn't manage to depict Heaven as an appealing place either, and Shaw offers the explanation in this brilliantly funny dialogue:
"ANA. Can anybody—can I go to Heaven if I want to?
THE DEVIL. [rather contemptuously] Certainly, if your taste lies that way.
ANA. But why doesn't everybody go to Heaven, then?
THE STATUE. [chuckling] I can tell you that, my dear. It's because heaven is the most angelically dull place in all creation: that's why."
It takes a "divinely conscious" author of Shaw's intellect to make fun of those two giants of literature while showing his deeply rooted respect for them. And he would be a lovely example in the essay I am not going to write about authors quoting Dante's .
I do think that I still like best of Shaw's oeuvre so far, but it is hardly possible to find a reflection on human brilliance and folly that is equally light-hearted and deep, witty and serious. Shaw deserved his Nobel Prize!
And the curtain of his play falls to the stage direction:
"Universal Laughter."
I must have been laughing when I took notes on the treatise/reflection/play or whatever else it is, because I can hardly read my handwriting. Well, some people would now claim that it is never possible to read it, and that I should finally give up my cursive, but usually I myself know what I mean.
Luckily, Shaw explains what HE means with this strange little book in the beginning, otherwise it would be easy to get lost somewhere in the beginning, middle or end:
"Fortunately for us [he means all of us lovely goodreaders!], whose minds have been so overwhelmingly sophisticated by literature, what produces all these treatises, and poems and scriptures of one sort or another is the struggle of life to become divinely conscious of itself instead of blindly stumbling hither and thither in the line of least resistance [he is NOT talking about my handwriting!]."
So that is the mission on which he sets out, - to make the struggle of life divinely conscious - and he handles it with quite a lot of elegance, while lashing out at his preferred enemies at the same time, holding up a mirror for people to see the uncomfortable truth of the illogical behaviour we are all mastering.
I was drawn back to this book because of its reflections on heaven and hell, and namely Dante and Milton. As I have a predilection for authors discussing other authors, I found Shaw's ideas on these giants of literature hilarious. Act three in the play/treatise is mostly concerned with the illogical beliefs connected with heaven and hell, and features an unforgettable dialogue where the devil justifies himself, referring to the bad publicity he has received:
"Hell is a place far above their comprehension: they derive their notion of it from two of the greatest fools that ever lived, an Italian and an Englishman. The Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire, and venomous serpents: all torture. This ass, when he was not lying about me, was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton believes that the whole of his silly story is in the Bible. What else he says I do not know; for it is all in a long poem which neither I nor anyone else ever succeeded in wading through."
I just love his irreverent comment about Milton. Shaw, I am quite sure, had read him more than once, as his devil is a great reincarnation of Milton's furious individualist shouting:
"Better reign in Hell than serve in Heaven!"
And as for Dante himself, he didn't manage to depict Heaven as an appealing place either, and Shaw offers the explanation in this brilliantly funny dialogue:
"ANA. Can anybody—can I go to Heaven if I want to?
THE DEVIL. [rather contemptuously] Certainly, if your taste lies that way.
ANA. But why doesn't everybody go to Heaven, then?
THE STATUE. [chuckling] I can tell you that, my dear. It's because heaven is the most angelically dull place in all creation: that's why."
It takes a "divinely conscious" author of Shaw's intellect to make fun of those two giants of literature while showing his deeply rooted respect for them. And he would be a lovely example in the essay I am not going to write about authors quoting Dante's .
I do think that I still like best of Shaw's oeuvre so far, but it is hardly possible to find a reflection on human brilliance and folly that is equally light-hearted and deep, witty and serious. Shaw deserved his Nobel Prize!
And the curtain of his play falls to the stage direction:
"Universal Laughter."
November 12, 2022
This play is really very learned
It was written by this guy Bernard
And really I think the title is a bit of a lie
Because this Superman doesn’t wear a cape or fly
Or catch bad guys like Lex Luther or Braniac
It seems to be all about an idea invented by that maniac
With a name nobody can spell, Friedrich Nietzche
About whom GB Shaw is keen to teach ya
As for the rest, a smorgasbord of intellectual dumplings
Enlivened by the characters’ neverending grumblings
There’s a hypocritical romantic
Whose psychology tends to the frantic
And another guy who wants a revolution
Whose ideas were borderline offensive where they weren’t lilliputian
There’s a hoity-toity mademoiselle
And a long debate that takes place in Hell
Outrageous opinions are bandied around
Shaw’s firecracker paradoxes often astound
But it’s okay, nobody in this play gets hurt
And the revolutionary ends up (spoiler alert)
It was written by this guy Bernard
And really I think the title is a bit of a lie
Because this Superman doesn’t wear a cape or fly
Or catch bad guys like Lex Luther or Braniac
It seems to be all about an idea invented by that maniac
With a name nobody can spell, Friedrich Nietzche
About whom GB Shaw is keen to teach ya
As for the rest, a smorgasbord of intellectual dumplings
Enlivened by the characters’ neverending grumblings
There’s a hypocritical romantic
Whose psychology tends to the frantic
And another guy who wants a revolution
Whose ideas were borderline offensive where they weren’t lilliputian
There’s a hoity-toity mademoiselle
And a long debate that takes place in Hell
Outrageous opinions are bandied around
Shaw’s firecracker paradoxes often astound
But it’s okay, nobody in this play gets hurt
And the revolutionary ends up (spoiler alert)
April 22, 2022
I think this is my first reading of George Bernard Shaw’s Man and Superman, an unwieldy play that I heard produced by Sir Peter Hall, featuring Dame Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes. I had a huge Collected Plays of Shaw to keep me on track, as the production is more than four hours long, and Hall insisted on producing the whole thing, though that almost never happens. The play draws on Shaw’s reading of Nietzsche’s Superman concept AND Byron’s Don Juan (?!) and features one act with Juan in Hell. That’s the act most companies skip altogether.
I am reading or re-reading, with the help of taped radio productions, many of the Shaw classics, but by my fifth play I am growing a little tired of the central figure in many of his plays, a pontificating blowhard male sharing his views of society. Hall says this is what he doesn’t like about Shaw, that some of his leading characters are just the mouthpieces for his social views (or the opposite of them). But Hall justifies producing Shaw’s plays because the dialogue is often clever and provocative, and since this one is almost entirely dialogue--not much action--perfect for radio.
According to Nietzsche, a Superman is a person beyond Christian morals (and guilt). Beyond good and evil. Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment tested the theory, as did the teens Leopold and Loeb in Chicago. And then Shaw, whose Superman, John Tanner, is an anti- romantic anti-hero, is actually bested by a woman, Ann, who enacts the role of Dona Juana, essentially, becoming her own woman, moving out of The Doll’s House. Like Henry Higgins from Pygmalion, Tanner is a confirmed bachelor (we’ll see about that!). That’s the central joke, though you have to wait more than four hours for the punchline. It’s billed as a light comedy of manners, but with all this baggage? I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone but Shaw fans (or philosophy majors, maybe).
I am reading or re-reading, with the help of taped radio productions, many of the Shaw classics, but by my fifth play I am growing a little tired of the central figure in many of his plays, a pontificating blowhard male sharing his views of society. Hall says this is what he doesn’t like about Shaw, that some of his leading characters are just the mouthpieces for his social views (or the opposite of them). But Hall justifies producing Shaw’s plays because the dialogue is often clever and provocative, and since this one is almost entirely dialogue--not much action--perfect for radio.
According to Nietzsche, a Superman is a person beyond Christian morals (and guilt). Beyond good and evil. Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment tested the theory, as did the teens Leopold and Loeb in Chicago. And then Shaw, whose Superman, John Tanner, is an anti- romantic anti-hero, is actually bested by a woman, Ann, who enacts the role of Dona Juana, essentially, becoming her own woman, moving out of The Doll’s House. Like Henry Higgins from Pygmalion, Tanner is a confirmed bachelor (we’ll see about that!). That’s the central joke, though you have to wait more than four hours for the punchline. It’s billed as a light comedy of manners, but with all this baggage? I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone but Shaw fans (or philosophy majors, maybe).
December 3, 2020
drugo čitanje:
Kad sam prošle godine završio sa ovom knjigom, otpriike u slično doba godine, automatski sam dobio novopridošlicu omiljenim knjigama. Pošto ne volim da čitam o autoru nešto posebno pre nego što pročitam za mene prvo njegovo delo, kako bi mi utisak književnosti ostao na književnosti, o Šou sam čitao tek nakon završetka drame. I svašta nešto ima da se pročita... Diskutabilan čika, sve u svemu, iako na osnovu neke stručnije literature mogu da zaključim da je bio nešto razumniji nego kakvim ga Vikipedija opisuje (a i to mi govori zdrav razum), no opet, diskutabilan čika.
I tako odlučih da ga pročitam opet, sad tako uprljan Šoovom sopstvenom istorijom. I utisak mi se ama uopšte nije promenio.
Šoovo superiorno vladanje engleskim jezikom je neverovatno za posmatrati, njegovo odbijanje apostrofa i presmešan odnos prema fonetici dijalekata (izvinjavam se svim lingvistima na čerečenju izraza koje ne razumem u potpunosti), način na koji daje svojim likovima beskompromisne solilokvije, zaista je divno uživanje čitati njegovo pisanje. Filozofija prisutna u knjizi je začudjujuće dvojaka – iako je Šo gajio veoma pozitivan odnos prema didaktičkoj umetnosti, ovde postoji veoma ravnopravno višeglasje; ako nas nečemu “uči”, to je (ekstravagantnoj) diskusiji. I čak gde se mogu nazreti njegove malo... kontroverznije ideje, to je uvek u službi likova (koji neretko svojim delanjem ih potpuno pogaze).
Dakle, sve u svemu, i dalje jedno od najsmešnijih i najrazboritijih dela koje sam imao užitak da pročitam i retka knjiga koja ostaje toliko zabavna i pri ponovnom čitanju.
----
prvo čitanje:
Elem: ne sećam se tačno kako sam došao na ideju da čitam Šoa. Znam samo da sam gledao njegovu diskografiju, a Pigmalion mi beše suviše mejnstrim, te here we are. Sedim tako u Japanu (skromnohval), u tom trenutku jedno mesec i po zasigurno, bez kindla, te primoran da gomilam knjige koje ne znam kako ću vratiti nazad u rodni mi Govnograd. I dodje meni konačno Šo jednog lepog, letnje-kišnog dana (ne sećam se kakav je dan bio, no da ne bude baš samo anoniman). Otvorim knjigu, vidim da ima uvodno pismo od triesšes stranica, zatvorim, uzmem Horovica i u momentu na Šoa zaboravim.
Spadoh tako posle nekog vremena na poslednje dve knjige (u ovom trenutku, od mučenog Foleta sam već odustao) - Šo i Kristian Novak, ali kako se ne osetih u datom trenutku posebno suicidalno, raspoloženje koje cenim da je neophodno za Černu mati, vratih se na Šoa. Uvodno pismo bi dosta teško za čitanje, iako krcato zanimljivim razmišljanjima o tome zašto je tačno Šo odabrao da napiše dramu analog Don Žuanu, sve do dela kada, parafraziram, kaže 'of course, all wise men read the foreword only after reading the actual work', na šta se ja osetih prozvanim, pa se konačno dadoh u čitanju drame, ostavljajući pismo za neka bolja vremena.
Čovek i natčovek je (što bi pretpostavljam bio prevod na zerbski) drama, koja je po mom mišljenju pre roman jer prosto ne vidim način na koji nešto ovako, hm, obojeno, može da bude na adekvatan način predstavljeno na drvenim daskama. Sve u svemu, štivo, kako god ga nazvali - roman, drama, svetopismo - koje je duboko pametno, mudro, URNEBESNO (a ovo dolazi od nekoga ko je za svaku knjigu nazvanu urnebesnom (izuzev ser Terija) jedva jednom do dvaput izdahnuo kroz nos sa silinom nečeg što jedva može da se nazove smehom), sa multiplicitetom uzvičnika i ALL CAPS replika (Šo je začetnik instant mesendžer komunikacije), napisano perfidnom lakoćom i nikad boljim vladanjem engleskog jezika (ali zaista, u Šoovim rukama engleski poprima nekakav nadrealan kvalitet kakav ja do sad nisam sreo, te je neophodno čitati u originalu). Knjiga koja je suštinski o evoluciji, ali i svemu ostalom, kako to već najbolje knjige jesu. Ima tu pasaža o religiji, o umetnosti, o revoluciji, ma milina je čitati n+1 solilokvij koji sebi dozvoljavaju Šoovi junaci (ne zezam, neretko monolozi traju i po dve stranice, i vrlo je samosvestan toga Šo, te ubacuje pojedine running gag-ove). Morao bih da napomenem da je takodje možda malo pristupačnija muškom rodu, tzv 'knjiga za dečake', na isti način na koji i Hemingvej neretko odzvanja tim nekim nazovimoga muškim iskustvom. Ne bih reč promenio ovde, knjiga za sva vremena, u toj meri da mi dodje da je počnem nanovo.
I SAD MOGU DA PROČITAM UVODNIK
5+
Kad sam prošle godine završio sa ovom knjigom, otpriike u slično doba godine, automatski sam dobio novopridošlicu omiljenim knjigama. Pošto ne volim da čitam o autoru nešto posebno pre nego što pročitam za mene prvo njegovo delo, kako bi mi utisak književnosti ostao na književnosti, o Šou sam čitao tek nakon završetka drame. I svašta nešto ima da se pročita... Diskutabilan čika, sve u svemu, iako na osnovu neke stručnije literature mogu da zaključim da je bio nešto razumniji nego kakvim ga Vikipedija opisuje (a i to mi govori zdrav razum), no opet, diskutabilan čika.
I tako odlučih da ga pročitam opet, sad tako uprljan Šoovom sopstvenom istorijom. I utisak mi se ama uopšte nije promenio.
Šoovo superiorno vladanje engleskim jezikom je neverovatno za posmatrati, njegovo odbijanje apostrofa i presmešan odnos prema fonetici dijalekata (izvinjavam se svim lingvistima na čerečenju izraza koje ne razumem u potpunosti), način na koji daje svojim likovima beskompromisne solilokvije, zaista je divno uživanje čitati njegovo pisanje. Filozofija prisutna u knjizi je začudjujuće dvojaka – iako je Šo gajio veoma pozitivan odnos prema didaktičkoj umetnosti, ovde postoji veoma ravnopravno višeglasje; ako nas nečemu “uči”, to je (ekstravagantnoj) diskusiji. I čak gde se mogu nazreti njegove malo... kontroverznije ideje, to je uvek u službi likova (koji neretko svojim delanjem ih potpuno pogaze).
Dakle, sve u svemu, i dalje jedno od najsmešnijih i najrazboritijih dela koje sam imao užitak da pročitam i retka knjiga koja ostaje toliko zabavna i pri ponovnom čitanju.
----
prvo čitanje:
Elem: ne sećam se tačno kako sam došao na ideju da čitam Šoa. Znam samo da sam gledao njegovu diskografiju, a Pigmalion mi beše suviše mejnstrim, te here we are. Sedim tako u Japanu (skromnohval), u tom trenutku jedno mesec i po zasigurno, bez kindla, te primoran da gomilam knjige koje ne znam kako ću vratiti nazad u rodni mi Govnograd. I dodje meni konačno Šo jednog lepog, letnje-kišnog dana (ne sećam se kakav je dan bio, no da ne bude baš samo anoniman). Otvorim knjigu, vidim da ima uvodno pismo od triesšes stranica, zatvorim, uzmem Horovica i u momentu na Šoa zaboravim.
Spadoh tako posle nekog vremena na poslednje dve knjige (u ovom trenutku, od mučenog Foleta sam već odustao) - Šo i Kristian Novak, ali kako se ne osetih u datom trenutku posebno suicidalno, raspoloženje koje cenim da je neophodno za Černu mati, vratih se na Šoa. Uvodno pismo bi dosta teško za čitanje, iako krcato zanimljivim razmišljanjima o tome zašto je tačno Šo odabrao da napiše dramu analog Don Žuanu, sve do dela kada, parafraziram, kaže 'of course, all wise men read the foreword only after reading the actual work', na šta se ja osetih prozvanim, pa se konačno dadoh u čitanju drame, ostavljajući pismo za neka bolja vremena.
Čovek i natčovek je (što bi pretpostavljam bio prevod na zerbski) drama, koja je po mom mišljenju pre roman jer prosto ne vidim način na koji nešto ovako, hm, obojeno, može da bude na adekvatan način predstavljeno na drvenim daskama. Sve u svemu, štivo, kako god ga nazvali - roman, drama, svetopismo - koje je duboko pametno, mudro, URNEBESNO (a ovo dolazi od nekoga ko je za svaku knjigu nazvanu urnebesnom (izuzev ser Terija) jedva jednom do dvaput izdahnuo kroz nos sa silinom nečeg što jedva može da se nazove smehom), sa multiplicitetom uzvičnika i ALL CAPS replika (Šo je začetnik instant mesendžer komunikacije), napisano perfidnom lakoćom i nikad boljim vladanjem engleskog jezika (ali zaista, u Šoovim rukama engleski poprima nekakav nadrealan kvalitet kakav ja do sad nisam sreo, te je neophodno čitati u originalu). Knjiga koja je suštinski o evoluciji, ali i svemu ostalom, kako to već najbolje knjige jesu. Ima tu pasaža o religiji, o umetnosti, o revoluciji, ma milina je čitati n+1 solilokvij koji sebi dozvoljavaju Šoovi junaci (ne zezam, neretko monolozi traju i po dve stranice, i vrlo je samosvestan toga Šo, te ubacuje pojedine running gag-ove). Morao bih da napomenem da je takodje možda malo pristupačnija muškom rodu, tzv 'knjiga za dečake', na isti način na koji i Hemingvej neretko odzvanja tim nekim nazovimoga muškim iskustvom. Ne bih reč promenio ovde, knjiga za sva vremena, u toj meri da mi dodje da je počnem nanovo.
I SAD MOGU DA PROČITAM UVODNIK
5+
July 23, 2015
Shaw's first attempt to explore the concept of evolution
23 June 2012
This phrase above, which appears in the epilogue, pretty much sums up the theme of the entire play, and that is that it is impossible for man to evolve simply because we do not want to evolve, and everytime somebody comes along to show us how to evolve we either kill them, or completely corrupt their teachings so as to bring us back to the position that we were in prior to this person coming along. I will discuss examples of this later on in this commentary (which will actually be quite long because there is quite a lot in this play) and I will also how Shaw's philosophy, as I see it, applies to the teachings of the Bible.
One of the things that I really like about Shaw's plays is that he begins a lot of them with a commentary on the play, thus (unlike many other authors) he will actually tells us what he intends to demonstrate in the play in these commentaries. In some cases he also has a epilogue at the end (as he does in this one) which ties up all of the ideas that he has explored and outlines his conclusions. Now, this is one of Shaw's earlier plays so we see more immature thought and insight into his philosophy here, and in fact the play, while playing an important role in his philosophy, is only a part of the bigger picture, which only comes out at the end.
His opening (or dare I call is a prologue) is a letter to a fellow named Arthur Walkely (I am unsure if this person existed or not, but I will assume that he does, and the main reason I say this is because his conclusion is a 'handbook' written by the play's protagonist) and he appears to be about writing a Don Juan play. Now, we have probably all heard of Don Juan and how he attacked windmills (actually I think that is Don Quioxte), but that is not the purpose of the play or the character. Shaw indicates that Don Juan was originally conceived by a monk who wanted to write a story about the futility of putting off one's salvation. The idea was that Don Juan rejected the church, wanting instead to live a wild life, and then become Christian later on in life when he is no longer old enough to have fun. However he does not get to live to an old age as he dies young, and in sin. While the story was supposed to be a warning, it had the opposite effect in that the story was not received as a warning but as the romaticised idea of a rebellious hero, one that everybody wanted to be, but did not have the courage to do so for fear of going to hell.
Much of the letter involves sexuality and sexual coupling and one may wonder what this has to do with evolution, but this will be explained later as we move through the play. He discusses how the modern theatre of his day explored sexual attraction, but only to a certain point. Victorian England saw itself as civilised and above these base ideas of sexual pleasure. It was not a concept of lust but a concept of romantic love, and unfortunately sex does not play a part in Victorian romantic love (it is too disgusting). He explores the impossibility of writing such a play in this era as ideas have changed, but in many cases nothing has actually changed. He points out that in Shakespeare pretty much all of the lovers are naturally lovers and no pushing needs to occur to bring them together, however it is still done so as to add depth to the play. The only play in which a character goes out to win a wife is in The Taming of the Shrew, in which Petrucchio pursues Katerina, however there is no love involved in this, rather it is purely a commercial choice, and if it was not for the fact that Katerina had money, then Petruchio would not have been interested.
Unrequited love, as he explored in Shakespeare, is dangerous and leads to madness, as he points out in Hamlet. It is natural for Ophelia and Hamlet to come together and couple, there is that natural attraction there, however, ignoring the intrusion by Polonius, Hamlet rebuff's Ophelia's advances, and continues to do so with tragic consequences (namely her suicide). We must remember that at this stage Hamlet was feigning madness to learn if Claudius really is a murderer, and while he may have loved Ophelia, he did not trust her, and as such did not bring her into his plans. Thus Ophelia sees a man whom she loves descending into madness, and in turn she herself also descends into madness. This unrequited love ends very badly as the action moves pretty much straight from the funeral to the throne room, which results in a fencing match in which everybody dies.
Now, remembering that this is a play about the philosophy of evolution, I will continue exploring Shaw's ideas as I encountered them in this book. As we know England at this time was undergoing a period of great change. The industrial revolution was behind them and through pressure many reforms to the social network had been made including universal education and the universal male voting franchise. However Shaw is concerned as to whether this would actually raise the working class and the poor into the bourgeoisie. He says that it does not and in fact it dilutes the voting power by giving it to people that have no understanding of the nature of government and governing a country. In fact he does not seem to believe that it is possible to raise such a person out of their class, not due to the lack of mobility, but rather due to a lack of willpower to actually want to move out of that class. I disagree as John Wesley had proven otherwise in that when he established his church he went out among the poor and the dispossessed and preached to them, and built a church from them. Within at least one generation it was discovered that the poor were no longer poor and had entered the middle class. Mind you, during this time the theatre was still portrayed the wealthy as the upper class elite as the main characters while the poor were portrayed as comical and ignorant. This has always been the case, and in many ways, still is the case today.
As a side note, Shaw also discusses what he considers a good writer and what he doesn't. Dickens and Shakespeare, as far as he is concerned, are not good writers as they have no overarching philosophy which they explore, while others, such as Shelly, Goethe, Nietzsche, Blake, Bunyan, and Tolstoy, do, and he would prefer to be influenced by somebody who has a philosophy rather than somebody who does not. I agree with him to an extent on this, but I feel that because we know so little about Shakespeare as a person, as opposed to Shakespeare the legend, I feel that it is not possible to comment on his philosophy or not.
Now, I should get onto the play, and as he indicates at the opening to the play, it is a philosophy and a comedy. The first part of the play is very difficult to follow, but once we get to act three, everything begins to come to light. In a way this is a romantic comedy, but he indicates at the beginning is that it is not the man who initiates the romantic relationship, but the woman. While it is traditional for the man to approach the woman, it is the woman who has the power to say yes or no. One quote of his, in relation to polygamy, is that a woman would rather have a tenth of a first rate man than a whole of a third rate man. We see this in the play with Ann because at the beginning of the play it is implied that her relationship will form with Octavian, however we suddenly discover at the end that this was never her intention, and it was Tanner that she wanted, and while he resists, she continues to push and persist until he capitulates.
Shaw uses the concept of a play within a play in Man and Superman, in a sense because by moving the main philosophy out of the immediate play, he takes it out of his mouth and puts in into the mouth of the protagonist, Tanner. He does the same at the end where the handbook is written not by himself but by Tanner, and he even uses the idea of a socialist meeting to push through the idea of Tanner's revolutionary nature. The play within a play could be termed as 'The Devil and Don Juan' or 'Don Juan in Hell'. The characters in the main play also take roles in this play, and we see a continual movement in action from the home to Spain, to the play within a play, and out again.
Shaw's concept of hell, as outlined in the play, is that while it is a place for those who reject God, it is not necessarily bad. Don Juan, who never wanted to go to hell in the first play, suffers, however Ann, who had resigned herself to being a denizen of hell, does not. They ask about the gulf, and Shaw (as taken up by Lewis later) indicates that the idea of the gulf is a parable, and that the gulf exists not in reality but in our mind. While it is possible to move between heaven and hell, and to connect with the denizens of hell, it is the mindset of the denizens that create the gap. He uses the example of the philosophy class and the bull ring, or the concert hall and the race track. People who go to one, do not go to the other, and if they do, they dislike it intensely and want to escape. Therefore, in their mind, they create a gulf, and to be trapped in the place where their mind is not set creates for them a hell.
While people have written about hell, Shaw indicates the impossibility of actually truly understanding its nature, as he writes 'the Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire … this ass, when he was not lying about me (the devil is speaking) was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton thinks this jolly story is in the Bible'.
Now, I have written quite a lot so far and I still have not got to the main theme of evolution. Now, when we speak of evolution we are not talking about a physical process that moves us from an ape (if we believe that) to our current form. Nietzsche was not talking about that either, and Hitler's idea that the German people were more highly evolved was taking Nietzsche completely out of context. The problem with Nietzsche though was that he was insane. It seemed that the idea of the superman, and the fact that he could never attain that ideal was too much for him. Fortunately Shaw is very compus mentus, and unlike Nietzsche, is easy to read. The idea is that we do not evolve physically but rather socially and spiritually. Unfortunately we do not want to evolve that way, we want to become like the X-men, namely superheroes. However this is not the Shaw's (and Nietzsche's) idea of evolution.
It appears that Shaw's idea is that the first step towards us becoming further evolved, is to shed these ridiculous ideas of civilisation. The fact that we have telephones, motor cars, planes, televisions (and the list goes on) does not necessarily mean that we have become evolved, in fact it is quite the opposite. As Shaw says, the gentleman relies on his servants more than the servants rely upon the gentleman. Our pursuit of wealth and luxury has not made us more evolved, but rather more dependant on our current lifestyle (as is evidenced by 'Lifestyle Packages' offered by insurance companies, so that wealthy people can maintain their lifestyle in the event of a tragedy). It is much easier to go from being poor to being rich than the other way around (and just look at the number of suicides that occur whenever there is a massive economic downturn).
As I indicated at the beginning, the reason we are not evolving is because we do not want to evolve. Take the idea of coupling again and how Shaw indicates that it is not the man's choice but the woman's. The man puts himself out to stud and the woman says either yes or no. However, you have probably heard the saying 'nice guys finish last' and that women would prefer a jerk than a decent guy. Look, I am not saying that it is true (there are a lot of nice married guys out there), but if the case is that bad men get the girls while the good men miss out, then is it not the case that the decent, evolved, people are dying out to pretty much be replaced by jerks.
Let us also consider what happens whenever somebody comes along to try to move us towards evolving. Basically it is human nature to silence anybody who preaches a message of evolution that does not involve us becoming powerful beings, but rather evolving by becoming more socially orientated and ethical beings. The classic case is Jesus Christ: he was crucified (though biblically that was always going to happen, and while he died, he rose again from the dead). Other examples include Martin Luther King, who was heavily involved in the civil rights movement, but the idea of treating people as equals was repugnant. Let us also consider a movement towards socialism. It is rejected and attacked at every turn, and not just in the United States. Take Russia for example. Russia was supposed to be turned into a 'worker's democracy' however the pure ideal never even had the option to bud before the seed was destroyed by Stalin. This is the same with the church, for Christ's moving humanity to evolve was first viciously attacked by the Roman State, and when that failed, the church was infiltrated and taken back full circle to where it begun.
I suspect this idea is biblical, and remember Shaw nowhere in this play attacks the teachings of Christ or the Bible, but rather the way humanity teaches from the Bible. The concept of the Bible is that human">ity was created perfect, but something happened that caused us to degenerate. Thus the entire Bible (or at least the first part) demonstrates the downward spiral of degeneration (spiritual and social) that we have been afflicted with. The second part is not only a biography of Jesus Christ, but also an indication of how we can cease that degeneration, and then move back onto the path of evolution, however we cannot do it on our own, we need God's help (and that is where Christ came in, and why he died) to cease degenerating and to return to the path of evolution.
I recently saw a production of this play by the National Theatre and have written some further thoughts on the play .
23 June 2012
We admit that when the divinity we worshipped made itself visible and comprehensible, we crucified it.
This phrase above, which appears in the epilogue, pretty much sums up the theme of the entire play, and that is that it is impossible for man to evolve simply because we do not want to evolve, and everytime somebody comes along to show us how to evolve we either kill them, or completely corrupt their teachings so as to bring us back to the position that we were in prior to this person coming along. I will discuss examples of this later on in this commentary (which will actually be quite long because there is quite a lot in this play) and I will also how Shaw's philosophy, as I see it, applies to the teachings of the Bible.
One of the things that I really like about Shaw's plays is that he begins a lot of them with a commentary on the play, thus (unlike many other authors) he will actually tells us what he intends to demonstrate in the play in these commentaries. In some cases he also has a epilogue at the end (as he does in this one) which ties up all of the ideas that he has explored and outlines his conclusions. Now, this is one of Shaw's earlier plays so we see more immature thought and insight into his philosophy here, and in fact the play, while playing an important role in his philosophy, is only a part of the bigger picture, which only comes out at the end.
His opening (or dare I call is a prologue) is a letter to a fellow named Arthur Walkely (I am unsure if this person existed or not, but I will assume that he does, and the main reason I say this is because his conclusion is a 'handbook' written by the play's protagonist) and he appears to be about writing a Don Juan play. Now, we have probably all heard of Don Juan and how he attacked windmills (actually I think that is Don Quioxte), but that is not the purpose of the play or the character. Shaw indicates that Don Juan was originally conceived by a monk who wanted to write a story about the futility of putting off one's salvation. The idea was that Don Juan rejected the church, wanting instead to live a wild life, and then become Christian later on in life when he is no longer old enough to have fun. However he does not get to live to an old age as he dies young, and in sin. While the story was supposed to be a warning, it had the opposite effect in that the story was not received as a warning but as the romaticised idea of a rebellious hero, one that everybody wanted to be, but did not have the courage to do so for fear of going to hell.
Much of the letter involves sexuality and sexual coupling and one may wonder what this has to do with evolution, but this will be explained later as we move through the play. He discusses how the modern theatre of his day explored sexual attraction, but only to a certain point. Victorian England saw itself as civilised and above these base ideas of sexual pleasure. It was not a concept of lust but a concept of romantic love, and unfortunately sex does not play a part in Victorian romantic love (it is too disgusting). He explores the impossibility of writing such a play in this era as ideas have changed, but in many cases nothing has actually changed. He points out that in Shakespeare pretty much all of the lovers are naturally lovers and no pushing needs to occur to bring them together, however it is still done so as to add depth to the play. The only play in which a character goes out to win a wife is in The Taming of the Shrew, in which Petrucchio pursues Katerina, however there is no love involved in this, rather it is purely a commercial choice, and if it was not for the fact that Katerina had money, then Petruchio would not have been interested.
Unrequited love, as he explored in Shakespeare, is dangerous and leads to madness, as he points out in Hamlet. It is natural for Ophelia and Hamlet to come together and couple, there is that natural attraction there, however, ignoring the intrusion by Polonius, Hamlet rebuff's Ophelia's advances, and continues to do so with tragic consequences (namely her suicide). We must remember that at this stage Hamlet was feigning madness to learn if Claudius really is a murderer, and while he may have loved Ophelia, he did not trust her, and as such did not bring her into his plans. Thus Ophelia sees a man whom she loves descending into madness, and in turn she herself also descends into madness. This unrequited love ends very badly as the action moves pretty much straight from the funeral to the throne room, which results in a fencing match in which everybody dies.
Now, remembering that this is a play about the philosophy of evolution, I will continue exploring Shaw's ideas as I encountered them in this book. As we know England at this time was undergoing a period of great change. The industrial revolution was behind them and through pressure many reforms to the social network had been made including universal education and the universal male voting franchise. However Shaw is concerned as to whether this would actually raise the working class and the poor into the bourgeoisie. He says that it does not and in fact it dilutes the voting power by giving it to people that have no understanding of the nature of government and governing a country. In fact he does not seem to believe that it is possible to raise such a person out of their class, not due to the lack of mobility, but rather due to a lack of willpower to actually want to move out of that class. I disagree as John Wesley had proven otherwise in that when he established his church he went out among the poor and the dispossessed and preached to them, and built a church from them. Within at least one generation it was discovered that the poor were no longer poor and had entered the middle class. Mind you, during this time the theatre was still portrayed the wealthy as the upper class elite as the main characters while the poor were portrayed as comical and ignorant. This has always been the case, and in many ways, still is the case today.
As a side note, Shaw also discusses what he considers a good writer and what he doesn't. Dickens and Shakespeare, as far as he is concerned, are not good writers as they have no overarching philosophy which they explore, while others, such as Shelly, Goethe, Nietzsche, Blake, Bunyan, and Tolstoy, do, and he would prefer to be influenced by somebody who has a philosophy rather than somebody who does not. I agree with him to an extent on this, but I feel that because we know so little about Shakespeare as a person, as opposed to Shakespeare the legend, I feel that it is not possible to comment on his philosophy or not.
Now, I should get onto the play, and as he indicates at the opening to the play, it is a philosophy and a comedy. The first part of the play is very difficult to follow, but once we get to act three, everything begins to come to light. In a way this is a romantic comedy, but he indicates at the beginning is that it is not the man who initiates the romantic relationship, but the woman. While it is traditional for the man to approach the woman, it is the woman who has the power to say yes or no. One quote of his, in relation to polygamy, is that a woman would rather have a tenth of a first rate man than a whole of a third rate man. We see this in the play with Ann because at the beginning of the play it is implied that her relationship will form with Octavian, however we suddenly discover at the end that this was never her intention, and it was Tanner that she wanted, and while he resists, she continues to push and persist until he capitulates.
Shaw uses the concept of a play within a play in Man and Superman, in a sense because by moving the main philosophy out of the immediate play, he takes it out of his mouth and puts in into the mouth of the protagonist, Tanner. He does the same at the end where the handbook is written not by himself but by Tanner, and he even uses the idea of a socialist meeting to push through the idea of Tanner's revolutionary nature. The play within a play could be termed as 'The Devil and Don Juan' or 'Don Juan in Hell'. The characters in the main play also take roles in this play, and we see a continual movement in action from the home to Spain, to the play within a play, and out again.
Shaw's concept of hell, as outlined in the play, is that while it is a place for those who reject God, it is not necessarily bad. Don Juan, who never wanted to go to hell in the first play, suffers, however Ann, who had resigned herself to being a denizen of hell, does not. They ask about the gulf, and Shaw (as taken up by Lewis later) indicates that the idea of the gulf is a parable, and that the gulf exists not in reality but in our mind. While it is possible to move between heaven and hell, and to connect with the denizens of hell, it is the mindset of the denizens that create the gap. He uses the example of the philosophy class and the bull ring, or the concert hall and the race track. People who go to one, do not go to the other, and if they do, they dislike it intensely and want to escape. Therefore, in their mind, they create a gulf, and to be trapped in the place where their mind is not set creates for them a hell.
While people have written about hell, Shaw indicates the impossibility of actually truly understanding its nature, as he writes 'the Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire … this ass, when he was not lying about me (the devil is speaking) was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton thinks this jolly story is in the Bible'.
Now, I have written quite a lot so far and I still have not got to the main theme of evolution. Now, when we speak of evolution we are not talking about a physical process that moves us from an ape (if we believe that) to our current form. Nietzsche was not talking about that either, and Hitler's idea that the German people were more highly evolved was taking Nietzsche completely out of context. The problem with Nietzsche though was that he was insane. It seemed that the idea of the superman, and the fact that he could never attain that ideal was too much for him. Fortunately Shaw is very compus mentus, and unlike Nietzsche, is easy to read. The idea is that we do not evolve physically but rather socially and spiritually. Unfortunately we do not want to evolve that way, we want to become like the X-men, namely superheroes. However this is not the Shaw's (and Nietzsche's) idea of evolution.
It appears that Shaw's idea is that the first step towards us becoming further evolved, is to shed these ridiculous ideas of civilisation. The fact that we have telephones, motor cars, planes, televisions (and the list goes on) does not necessarily mean that we have become evolved, in fact it is quite the opposite. As Shaw says, the gentleman relies on his servants more than the servants rely upon the gentleman. Our pursuit of wealth and luxury has not made us more evolved, but rather more dependant on our current lifestyle (as is evidenced by 'Lifestyle Packages' offered by insurance companies, so that wealthy people can maintain their lifestyle in the event of a tragedy). It is much easier to go from being poor to being rich than the other way around (and just look at the number of suicides that occur whenever there is a massive economic downturn).
As I indicated at the beginning, the reason we are not evolving is because we do not want to evolve. Take the idea of coupling again and how Shaw indicates that it is not the man's choice but the woman's. The man puts himself out to stud and the woman says either yes or no. However, you have probably heard the saying 'nice guys finish last' and that women would prefer a jerk than a decent guy. Look, I am not saying that it is true (there are a lot of nice married guys out there), but if the case is that bad men get the girls while the good men miss out, then is it not the case that the decent, evolved, people are dying out to pretty much be replaced by jerks.
Let us also consider what happens whenever somebody comes along to try to move us towards evolving. Basically it is human nature to silence anybody who preaches a message of evolution that does not involve us becoming powerful beings, but rather evolving by becoming more socially orientated and ethical beings. The classic case is Jesus Christ: he was crucified (though biblically that was always going to happen, and while he died, he rose again from the dead). Other examples include Martin Luther King, who was heavily involved in the civil rights movement, but the idea of treating people as equals was repugnant. Let us also consider a movement towards socialism. It is rejected and attacked at every turn, and not just in the United States. Take Russia for example. Russia was supposed to be turned into a 'worker's democracy' however the pure ideal never even had the option to bud before the seed was destroyed by Stalin. This is the same with the church, for Christ's moving humanity to evolve was first viciously attacked by the Roman State, and when that failed, the church was infiltrated and taken back full circle to where it begun.
I suspect this idea is biblical, and remember Shaw nowhere in this play attacks the teachings of Christ or the Bible, but rather the way humanity teaches from the Bible. The concept of the Bible is that human">ity was created perfect, but something happened that caused us to degenerate. Thus the entire Bible (or at least the first part) demonstrates the downward spiral of degeneration (spiritual and social) that we have been afflicted with. The second part is not only a biography of Jesus Christ, but also an indication of how we can cease that degeneration, and then move back onto the path of evolution, however we cannot do it on our own, we need God's help (and that is where Christ came in, and why he died) to cease degenerating and to return to the path of evolution.
I recently saw a production of this play by the National Theatre and have written some further thoughts on the play .
February 18, 2010
Shaw has two distinct classes of follower: there are those who enjoy his vivid characters and humor, and those who idolize him as a revolutionary spiritual force. Each appreciates a different side of Shaw's character, and each of his plays presents a struggle between his creative instinct and his revolutionary ambitions.
His need to play the iconoclast was not limited to his socialism, his vegetarianism, and his contempt for medicine. Shaw was never afraid to adopt unpopular ideas, especially when they were novel and contentious. Yet, for as hard as he fought for new ideas, he often undermined them with slights and satire.
Those who believe in Shaw the prophet tend to ignore these subversions, or to chalk them up to playful sardonicism, but Shaw's constant doubts are not so easy to ignore, if one strains a bit to listen over the vehement philosophical outbursts which surround them.
Man and Superman represents perhaps the finest balance between his two extremes, neither overpowering the other. In this achievement he comes his closest to the style of Shakespeare, whom he idolized and often compared himself to in predictably favorable terms.
He once rewrote the third act of 'Cymbeline', which has been attributed partially to Shakespeare, excepting the messy third act, which was likely finished by an unknown playwright. In his preface, Shaw states with confidence that his childhood love of Shakespeare allowed him to recreate the Bard's voice and style perfectly; an assertion only Shaw's apostles fail to smirk at.
Like most authors, Shaw is not at his best when confirming his own superiority, which is one reason 'Man and Superman' retains its appeal. He finds many opportunities to place his pet ideas in the mouth of his author surrogate, but doesn't make the character either infallible or sympathetic.
His long diatribes, though impassioned, are rarely successful, and usually end in confusion or self-deprecation. Shakespeare always allows us to try on this or that idea, without coming out overwhelmingly for one side or the other. Shaw usually misses this trick, growing too one-sided or losing his argument altogether between the busyness of his various allegories, symbols, satires, jokes, romantic cliches, and existential realism. 'Man and Superman' is still very complex, relying on lengthy debates, idiomatically overwrought scene descriptions, coincidences that encourage disbelief, and an extended allegorical dream sequence (which is usually left out, reducing both production costs and pretension); but for once, Shaw is mostly able to maintain the elaborate balance between elements.
His author surrogate will be familiar to any Shaw reader, as are his other characters. Drawn from his familiar pool, we have the impassioned young political philosopher, the hypocritical romantic, the woman defined purely by her 'strength', the woman who knowingly takes advantage of the relationship between sex and money, the always 'bullet headed' capitalist, the conservative and blustery father, the clever mother who fails to control her daughter, and the rebellious servant.
He also reuses the same double marriage plot that tends to undermine his oft-asserted loathing of Romanticism. Between the repetition of character archetypes, ideas, and plot, Shaw's society plays can feel more like drafts than distinct visions. They differ chiefly in who wins which arguments, and whether or not the marriages are ultimately engaged.
In structure and satire, 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' is a in terms of character, but 'Man and Superman' takes the prize for ideas explored, in both number and depth. 'Candida' presents a of the conflict between the philosopher and the hypocrite, but shares with 'Man and Superman' a rushed and unsure climax. Both rely on a debate of competing philosophies to move the plot along ('Candida' being starker in that regard), and both are ultimately content to leave the clash of ideas behind, instead resolving with the spiritual sentimentalism of a pretentious romance.
Another author might have used such an ending to show that in the end, thought must give way to action, and rarely gracefully. Instead, Shaw takes a common and disappointing stance: when his numerous ideas and faculty for reason eventually run out of steam, he personifies his ignorance in a grandiose phrase ('Life Force'), closes his eyes reverently, and declares profundity achieved.
It is the unremarkable endgame of every self-declared prophet, and is a good enough trick to impress those who are as desperate to feel important as they are to avoid the work necessary to become so. Again, Shaw makes the one mistake which will always separate him from Shakespeare: overcommitment.
Though he maintains balance and subtlety through much of the narrative, he loses his control at the moment of conclusion, undermining all the hard work that led up to it, and proves once again that he is peerless in at least one regard: he has no enemy as great as himself.
His need to play the iconoclast was not limited to his socialism, his vegetarianism, and his contempt for medicine. Shaw was never afraid to adopt unpopular ideas, especially when they were novel and contentious. Yet, for as hard as he fought for new ideas, he often undermined them with slights and satire.
Those who believe in Shaw the prophet tend to ignore these subversions, or to chalk them up to playful sardonicism, but Shaw's constant doubts are not so easy to ignore, if one strains a bit to listen over the vehement philosophical outbursts which surround them.
Man and Superman represents perhaps the finest balance between his two extremes, neither overpowering the other. In this achievement he comes his closest to the style of Shakespeare, whom he idolized and often compared himself to in predictably favorable terms.
He once rewrote the third act of 'Cymbeline', which has been attributed partially to Shakespeare, excepting the messy third act, which was likely finished by an unknown playwright. In his preface, Shaw states with confidence that his childhood love of Shakespeare allowed him to recreate the Bard's voice and style perfectly; an assertion only Shaw's apostles fail to smirk at.
Like most authors, Shaw is not at his best when confirming his own superiority, which is one reason 'Man and Superman' retains its appeal. He finds many opportunities to place his pet ideas in the mouth of his author surrogate, but doesn't make the character either infallible or sympathetic.
His long diatribes, though impassioned, are rarely successful, and usually end in confusion or self-deprecation. Shakespeare always allows us to try on this or that idea, without coming out overwhelmingly for one side or the other. Shaw usually misses this trick, growing too one-sided or losing his argument altogether between the busyness of his various allegories, symbols, satires, jokes, romantic cliches, and existential realism. 'Man and Superman' is still very complex, relying on lengthy debates, idiomatically overwrought scene descriptions, coincidences that encourage disbelief, and an extended allegorical dream sequence (which is usually left out, reducing both production costs and pretension); but for once, Shaw is mostly able to maintain the elaborate balance between elements.
His author surrogate will be familiar to any Shaw reader, as are his other characters. Drawn from his familiar pool, we have the impassioned young political philosopher, the hypocritical romantic, the woman defined purely by her 'strength', the woman who knowingly takes advantage of the relationship between sex and money, the always 'bullet headed' capitalist, the conservative and blustery father, the clever mother who fails to control her daughter, and the rebellious servant.
He also reuses the same double marriage plot that tends to undermine his oft-asserted loathing of Romanticism. Between the repetition of character archetypes, ideas, and plot, Shaw's society plays can feel more like drafts than distinct visions. They differ chiefly in who wins which arguments, and whether or not the marriages are ultimately engaged.
In structure and satire, 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' is a in terms of character, but 'Man and Superman' takes the prize for ideas explored, in both number and depth. 'Candida' presents a of the conflict between the philosopher and the hypocrite, but shares with 'Man and Superman' a rushed and unsure climax. Both rely on a debate of competing philosophies to move the plot along ('Candida' being starker in that regard), and both are ultimately content to leave the clash of ideas behind, instead resolving with the spiritual sentimentalism of a pretentious romance.
Another author might have used such an ending to show that in the end, thought must give way to action, and rarely gracefully. Instead, Shaw takes a common and disappointing stance: when his numerous ideas and faculty for reason eventually run out of steam, he personifies his ignorance in a grandiose phrase ('Life Force'), closes his eyes reverently, and declares profundity achieved.
It is the unremarkable endgame of every self-declared prophet, and is a good enough trick to impress those who are as desperate to feel important as they are to avoid the work necessary to become so. Again, Shaw makes the one mistake which will always separate him from Shakespeare: overcommitment.
Though he maintains balance and subtlety through much of the narrative, he loses his control at the moment of conclusion, undermining all the hard work that led up to it, and proves once again that he is peerless in at least one regard: he has no enemy as great as himself.
September 23, 2011
If only this play were done as a comic book... it would still really, really, really suck (but then, you never know about the quality of the artwork).
This book was so bad that I stopped reading it halfway through Act III, near about line 360. In fact, right after this passage, which I pick up toward the end of a one and one-half page-long ramble that some sad sack actor will be expected to recite from memory:
Blah, blah, blah... and Shaw's starting point for this drivel was to differentiate and mock Dante's and Milton's respective visions of Heaven and Hell. Why I could not tell you... it has seemingly little to do with Shaw's explicitly stated purpose of writing a story around a Nietzchean ubermensch (as defined by Shaw, that's anyone -- but usually a man -- whose sociopathic amorality makes it possible to achieve greatness)... and I should add that Shaw's "Don Juan" here does not really seem to fit those qualities nor to really behave consistently or intelligently.
One last complaint -- Shaw seems less to have written this for performance than for an imagined literary posterity. (Apparently successfully, alas.) The play is bracketed by a lengthy explanation/apologia and an equally rambling socialist manifesto ostensibly penned by one of the play's characters (and thus hyped by the play's stage action), which might suggest that the author was at least somewhat aware that his work could not stand on its own merits. Add to that ludicrous stage directions/commentary like this which opens Act III:
Sure, you could parse this book for "ideas," and find in it morsels to fuel various sides of various social or religious debates. Of course, you could accomplish as much by randomly pulling paragraphs off the internet. The profundity to which your source material is put is not a guaranteed reflection on the quality of the source material. So by all means, spare yourself now.
This book was so bad that I stopped reading it halfway through Act III, near about line 360. In fact, right after this passage, which I pick up toward the end of a one and one-half page-long ramble that some sad sack actor will be expected to recite from memory:
THE DEVIL. I could give you a thousand instances; but they all come to the same thing: the power that governs the earth is not the power of Life but of Death; and the inner need that has nerved Life to the effort of organising itself into the human being is not the need for higher life but for a more efficient engine of destruction. The plague, the famine, the earthquake, the tempest were too spasmodic in their action; the tiger and crocodile were too easily satiated and not cruel enough: something more constantly, more ruthlessly, more ingeniously destructive was needed; and that something was Man, the inventor of the rack, the stake, the gallows, the electric chair; of sword and gun and poison gas: above all, of justice, duty, patriotism, and all the other isms by which even those who are clever enough to be humanely disposed are persuaded to become the most destructive of all the destroyers.
DON JUAN. Pshaw! all this is old. Your weak side, my diabolic friend, is that you have always been a gull: you take Man at his own valuation. Nothing would flatter him more than your opinion of him. He loves to think of himself as bold and bad. He is neither one nor the other: he is only a coward. Call him tyrant, murderer, pirate, bully; and he will adore you, and swagger about with the consciousness of having the blood of the old sea kings in his veins. Call him liar and thief; and he will only take an action against you for libel. But call him coward; and he will go mad with rage: he will face death to outface that stinging truth. Man gives every reason for his conduct save one, every excuse for his crimes save one, every plea for his safety save one; and that one is his cowardice. Yet all his civilization is founded on his cowardice, on his abject tameness, which he calls his respectability. There are limits to what a mule or an ass will stand; but Man will suffer himself to be degraded until his vileness becomes so loathsome to his oppressors that they themselves are forced to reform it.
THE DEVIL. Precisely. And these are the creatures in whom you discover what you call a Life Force!
DON JUAN. Yes... you can make any of these cowards brave by simply putting an idea into his head.
THE STATUE. Stuff! As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it’s as universal as sea sickness, and matters just as little. But that about putting an idea into a man’s head is stuff and nonsense. In a battle all you need to make you fight is a little hot blood and the knowledge that it’s more dangerous to lose than to win.
Blah, blah, blah... and Shaw's starting point for this drivel was to differentiate and mock Dante's and Milton's respective visions of Heaven and Hell. Why I could not tell you... it has seemingly little to do with Shaw's explicitly stated purpose of writing a story around a Nietzchean ubermensch (as defined by Shaw, that's anyone -- but usually a man -- whose sociopathic amorality makes it possible to achieve greatness)... and I should add that Shaw's "Don Juan" here does not really seem to fit those qualities nor to really behave consistently or intelligently.
One last complaint -- Shaw seems less to have written this for performance than for an imagined literary posterity. (Apparently successfully, alas.) The play is bracketed by a lengthy explanation/apologia and an equally rambling socialist manifesto ostensibly penned by one of the play's characters (and thus hyped by the play's stage action), which might suggest that the author was at least somewhat aware that his work could not stand on its own merits. Add to that ludicrous stage directions/commentary like this which opens Act III:
We may therefore contemplate the tramps of the Sierra without prejudice, admitting cheerfully that our objects—briefly, to be gentlemen of fortune—are much the same as theirs, and the difference in our position and methods merely accidental. One or two of them, perhaps, it would be wiser to kill without malice in a friendly and frank manner; for there are bipeds, just as there are quadrupeds, who are too dangerous to be left unchained and unmuzzled; and these cannot fairly expect to have other men’s lives wasted in the work of watching them. But as society has not the courage to kill them, and, when it catches them, simply wreaks on them some superstitious expiatory rites of torture and degradation, and then lets them loose with heightened qualifications for mischief, it is just as well that they are at large in the Sierra, and in the hands of a chief who looks as if he might possibly, on provocation, order them to be shot.Just you try being the director staging that nonsense.
Sure, you could parse this book for "ideas," and find in it morsels to fuel various sides of various social or religious debates. Of course, you could accomplish as much by randomly pulling paragraphs off the internet. The profundity to which your source material is put is not a guaranteed reflection on the quality of the source material. So by all means, spare yourself now.
May 30, 2021
Words cannot describe how horrible this play is. Acts 1, 2 and 4 constitute a banal Victorian love comedy in the style of Oscar Wilde which is seldom as funny as the genre requires. Act 3 which runs2 hours on its own is a bombastic reflexion on Heaven, Hell and Nietzsche's concept of life force. If all four acts are performed, the play runs to 6.5 hours which is well beyond the limits of any normal theatre-goer. The last time the Shaw Festival of Niagara-on-the-Lake performed the complete work, the critic of the Toronto Star claimed that she started to suffer from indigestion mid-way through.
While "Man and Superman" has the occasional good moment, I found it difficulty to forgive it for its many dreadful passages. What particularly indisposed me towards it was the fact that Shaw repeatedly compared it to Mozart's sublime "Don Giovanni".
While "Man and Superman" has the occasional good moment, I found it difficulty to forgive it for its many dreadful passages. What particularly indisposed me towards it was the fact that Shaw repeatedly compared it to Mozart's sublime "Don Giovanni".
January 2, 2015
Look, there are three awesome acts in this and then there's that whole thing in the middle where Don Juan argues with the devil. Is the rest of the play just an excuse for Act III? Is it, like, the bread around a Don Juan / Satan sandwich? I preferred the bread.
I didn't hate the Don Juan / Satan part. I underlined a whole bunch of stuff that was really smart and / or funny. I just...it obviously goes on too long. The characters acknowledge it themselves!
Pygmalion was better.
Soundtrack:
- Fishbone
-
I didn't hate the Don Juan / Satan part. I underlined a whole bunch of stuff that was really smart and / or funny. I just...it obviously goes on too long. The characters acknowledge it themselves!
Pygmalion was better.
Soundtrack:
- Fishbone
-
November 21, 2021
Bernard Shaw meets Nietzsche for breakfast, Dante for lunch, Faust for dinner and shares a nightcap with Mozart
This is a complex play, in so many ways, typical of GBS. His loquaciousness really knows no bounds and I commend any actor who has the temerity to take on the main male roles in this play. The speeches are long and interminable. Where one playwright might use one word, GBS doesn't just use ten, he'll go for the full century for good measure. And this is the major downfall to this play. It's rarely performed in its entirety, often having the 3rd act excised from performance, which really defeats the object of the play.
Essentially, it's a play about Don Juan, the "Don Giovanni" of Mozart, but turned as the prey of a manipulative conniving mademoiselle in the form of Dona Ana/Ann Whitefield. It's a really fascinating idea and there are many literary and intellectual references within the play. But, therein lies its problem, it's a conceited lumbering beast that somehow overwhelms its master.
Obviously, being the playwright that he is, there has to be Fabian motifs and socialist ideals, I understand, and indeed commend, his enthusiasm about using the play as an educational tool. However, there's just too much here: it could so easily have been 2 separate plays, which indeed, it has been performed as such. It's really a play within a play; like looking at a picture with 2 different perspectives within.
The dream sequence in Act III is the major stumbling block. Yet, that is the crux of the play; the Don Juan debate versus the Devil and the statue/Commander is fascinating, erudite and truly theatrical. But, at over 50 pages long, it is only part of the aforementioned Act and I would be getting quite twitchy if I was in a theatre seat for that duration!
Ultimately, whilst I would love to see this play performed, I'd prefer a good theatre director to rearrange and rewrite it, in order to really appreciate a performance. Otherwise, I might just be guilty of falling asleep!
😴
4 dazzling but incordinated starbursts.
This is a complex play, in so many ways, typical of GBS. His loquaciousness really knows no bounds and I commend any actor who has the temerity to take on the main male roles in this play. The speeches are long and interminable. Where one playwright might use one word, GBS doesn't just use ten, he'll go for the full century for good measure. And this is the major downfall to this play. It's rarely performed in its entirety, often having the 3rd act excised from performance, which really defeats the object of the play.
Essentially, it's a play about Don Juan, the "Don Giovanni" of Mozart, but turned as the prey of a manipulative conniving mademoiselle in the form of Dona Ana/Ann Whitefield. It's a really fascinating idea and there are many literary and intellectual references within the play. But, therein lies its problem, it's a conceited lumbering beast that somehow overwhelms its master.
Obviously, being the playwright that he is, there has to be Fabian motifs and socialist ideals, I understand, and indeed commend, his enthusiasm about using the play as an educational tool. However, there's just too much here: it could so easily have been 2 separate plays, which indeed, it has been performed as such. It's really a play within a play; like looking at a picture with 2 different perspectives within.
The dream sequence in Act III is the major stumbling block. Yet, that is the crux of the play; the Don Juan debate versus the Devil and the statue/Commander is fascinating, erudite and truly theatrical. But, at over 50 pages long, it is only part of the aforementioned Act and I would be getting quite twitchy if I was in a theatre seat for that duration!
Ultimately, whilst I would love to see this play performed, I'd prefer a good theatre director to rearrange and rewrite it, in order to really appreciate a performance. Otherwise, I might just be guilty of falling asleep!
😴
4 dazzling but incordinated starbursts.
May 5, 2020
In Act III Scene 2 of Man and Superman, Don Juan asks the Devil:
Well, now you know the answer, folks. Shaw did.
"Oh, come! who began making long speeches? ..."
Well, now you know the answer, folks. Shaw did.
February 21, 2013
مسرحية غريبة حول طبيعة الكائن البشري والشيطان.
April 14, 2021
4.75/5
Likely the most based and Nietzschean novel ever written even if it does go in for a dose of socialism.
Likely the most based and Nietzschean novel ever written even if it does go in for a dose of socialism.
December 18, 2012
I feel I should qualify this 4-star rating: it's based more on the results of reading the book than on my enjoyment of the book itself. Shaw is a hell of an intellect and a delightfully acerbic critic of society, and there are several trenchant observations and commentaries in Man and Superman. However, when he veers toward -- for example -- an argument for state-sponsored eugenics, it gets kind of appalling.
If I were to rate the book solely on agreement with his propositions, it'd be a lower score due to the mixed bag: Shaw's keener observations are rather undermined by his apparent belief in the utility of eugenics as well as by his sourer cynicism. At one moment he exhibits concern for the well-being of all people and admirably progressive opinions against capital punishment; at another he expresses sharp disdain for the common fellow or "riffraff." Consensus notwithstanding, the book had me thinking in overdrive. I was repeatedly moved to scribble down quotes and ideas and rebuttals, more so than most books inspire. That definitely counts for something.
If I were to rate the book solely on agreement with his propositions, it'd be a lower score due to the mixed bag: Shaw's keener observations are rather undermined by his apparent belief in the utility of eugenics as well as by his sourer cynicism. At one moment he exhibits concern for the well-being of all people and admirably progressive opinions against capital punishment; at another he expresses sharp disdain for the common fellow or "riffraff." Consensus notwithstanding, the book had me thinking in overdrive. I was repeatedly moved to scribble down quotes and ideas and rebuttals, more so than most books inspire. That definitely counts for something.
June 22, 2024
okurrrr if you’re into misogyny and eugenics you’ll love this 😍🔥🔥
December 25, 2017
Reader: Oh, hi, book! How are you doing?
Book: Contemplating the sense of life! [Three pages speech about the sense of life], you see?
Reader: Erm... yes... anyway, have you been anywhere nice recently?
Book: I have been to the Sierra Nevada, captured by bandits, held for ransom and then gone to hell.
Reader: They killed you?!
Book: Oh, no, I fell asleep.
Reader: And you couldn't have done that at home?
Book: What is the sense in sleeping if you don't do it in charming surroundings? And at least now I understand the relevancy of my life, of my struggles, and why I am where I am and who I am and [forty pages on the sense of life].
Reader: Good for you. Hey, did you hear? Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are getting married.
Book: [Ninety pages on the truth and state of courtship and marriage, sex and procreation]
Reader: I'm sorry to hear that. You won't be watching it then?
Book: I don't have eyes.
Reader: Oh, right... sorry.
Book: No problem.
Reader: Well, are you alright now after your kidnapping?
Book: Not very. I have been kidnapped again.
Reader: Oh... okay? Do you need any help?
Book: A divorce attorney, I suppose.
Reader: ... you mean you've gotten married?
Book: No, I mean I've purchased a new house. Of course I got married. What else do divorce attorneys do?
Reader: Watching their friends get married and lovingly stroking their bank accounts?
Book: That too.
Reader: So, your kidnapping is your marriage?
Book: What else is marriage?
Reader: A reckless waste of money for the excuse to wear a beautiful dress only once in your life?
Book: It is the appreciation of the beautiful that results in wednappings.
Reader: You could always fake your own death.
Book: Oh, but I can't. I want to be with her.
Reader: Then why did you get married?
Book: She trapped me.
Reader: And that's what divorce attorneys are good for.
Book: But what is the use? I will always be her slave.
Reader: You can divorce her.
Book: Yet I shall always be her slave.
Reader: Or you can divorce her.
Book: And I shall still always be her slave.
Reader: Then clearly you get off on that and I wish you all the best. At least your sex life will be interesting.
Book: Sex with paper sounds rather painful.
Reader: You are an eBook.
Book: Oh, rig- *catches a virus and dies*
Reader: And I wasn't even invited to your devildamn wedding! *shakes head and trots off to become a divorce attorney*
(Curtain)
Book: Contemplating the sense of life! [Three pages speech about the sense of life], you see?
Reader: Erm... yes... anyway, have you been anywhere nice recently?
Book: I have been to the Sierra Nevada, captured by bandits, held for ransom and then gone to hell.
Reader: They killed you?!
Book: Oh, no, I fell asleep.
Reader: And you couldn't have done that at home?
Book: What is the sense in sleeping if you don't do it in charming surroundings? And at least now I understand the relevancy of my life, of my struggles, and why I am where I am and who I am and [forty pages on the sense of life].
Reader: Good for you. Hey, did you hear? Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are getting married.
Book: [Ninety pages on the truth and state of courtship and marriage, sex and procreation]
Reader: I'm sorry to hear that. You won't be watching it then?
Book: I don't have eyes.
Reader: Oh, right... sorry.
Book: No problem.
Reader: Well, are you alright now after your kidnapping?
Book: Not very. I have been kidnapped again.
Reader: Oh... okay? Do you need any help?
Book: A divorce attorney, I suppose.
Reader: ... you mean you've gotten married?
Book: No, I mean I've purchased a new house. Of course I got married. What else do divorce attorneys do?
Reader: Watching their friends get married and lovingly stroking their bank accounts?
Book: That too.
Reader: So, your kidnapping is your marriage?
Book: What else is marriage?
Reader: A reckless waste of money for the excuse to wear a beautiful dress only once in your life?
Book: It is the appreciation of the beautiful that results in wednappings.
Reader: You could always fake your own death.
Book: Oh, but I can't. I want to be with her.
Reader: Then why did you get married?
Book: She trapped me.
Reader: And that's what divorce attorneys are good for.
Book: But what is the use? I will always be her slave.
Reader: You can divorce her.
Book: Yet I shall always be her slave.
Reader: Or you can divorce her.
Book: And I shall still always be her slave.
Reader: Then clearly you get off on that and I wish you all the best. At least your sex life will be interesting.
Book: Sex with paper sounds rather painful.
Reader: You are an eBook.
Book: Oh, rig- *catches a virus and dies*
Reader: And I wasn't even invited to your devildamn wedding! *shakes head and trots off to become a divorce attorney*
(Curtain)
July 28, 2017
سمى توفيق الحكيم هذا النوع ب"مسرح الأفكار" او "المسرح الفكري" فهو يتميز بضعف الحدث نفسه أو هامشيته أمام سيل الأفكار والفلسفة المتدفق في الحوار ...
مسرحية طويلة للغاية ولكنها تستأهل كل دقيقة ..
الفكرة تبدو في البداية تقليدية حول المعركة مابين الأصالة والتقاليد والعراقة من جهة والحرية والحداثة والإشتراكية من جهة أخرى ..
ثم تتحول في خط موازي إلى المعركة مابين الرجل والمرأة وفكرة الرجل عن المرأة وسعيها للزواج لكيانها البيولوجي ونفور المرأة من وصفها بذلك الوصف وكأنه احتقار لها في حين انها كائن يسعى للبقاء والتطور والسعي نحو علاقة فكرية مادية إلى جانب الحب والعلاقة الجسدية...
حين يفهم البطل الإشتراكي الساعي نحو الحرية وال��جاح أن الفتاة تحبه وتسعى اليه يهرب منها في لحظة خيالية إلى صحراء اسبانيا حيث تقبض عليه عصابة ثم تتحول المسرحية الى فانتازيا خالصة في تحول الشخصيات إلى شخصيات اخرى في النار ومناقشة فلسفية عن ماهية الجنة والنار في شكل ساخر وعبثي يُذكرنا بأن برنارد شو كان لا ديني أصلا ...
تنتهي المسرحية بالنهاية السعيدة الدائمة في تلك الفترة الزمنية الكتابية بزواج الرجل من المراة التي تحبه ويحبها ..
لا نغفل هنا ابدا اسلوب برنارد شو الساخر شديد الهزل والجمل الصغيرة اللاذعة مابين الحوارات
شغلني فقط خجل الأمريكي من ذكر جنسيته في تلك الفترة الزمنية وكان أمريكا كانت سُبة أو خلافه
واعجبتني جملة البطل للفتاة عن تربية أمها .. انها "أفيال أليفة تفترس أفيال برية" وكان التقاليد والعادات تريد أن تُدجن الحرية والتطور...
مسرحية رائعة
مسرحية طويلة للغاية ولكنها تستأهل كل دقيقة ..
الفكرة تبدو في البداية تقليدية حول المعركة مابين الأصالة والتقاليد والعراقة من جهة والحرية والحداثة والإشتراكية من جهة أخرى ..
ثم تتحول في خط موازي إلى المعركة مابين الرجل والمرأة وفكرة الرجل عن المرأة وسعيها للزواج لكيانها البيولوجي ونفور المرأة من وصفها بذلك الوصف وكأنه احتقار لها في حين انها كائن يسعى للبقاء والتطور والسعي نحو علاقة فكرية مادية إلى جانب الحب والعلاقة الجسدية...
حين يفهم البطل الإشتراكي الساعي نحو الحرية وال��جاح أن الفتاة تحبه وتسعى اليه يهرب منها في لحظة خيالية إلى صحراء اسبانيا حيث تقبض عليه عصابة ثم تتحول المسرحية الى فانتازيا خالصة في تحول الشخصيات إلى شخصيات اخرى في النار ومناقشة فلسفية عن ماهية الجنة والنار في شكل ساخر وعبثي يُذكرنا بأن برنارد شو كان لا ديني أصلا ...
تنتهي المسرحية بالنهاية السعيدة الدائمة في تلك الفترة الزمنية الكتابية بزواج الرجل من المراة التي تحبه ويحبها ..
لا نغفل هنا ابدا اسلوب برنارد شو الساخر شديد الهزل والجمل الصغيرة اللاذعة مابين الحوارات
شغلني فقط خجل الأمريكي من ذكر جنسيته في تلك الفترة الزمنية وكان أمريكا كانت سُبة أو خلافه
واعجبتني جملة البطل للفتاة عن تربية أمها .. انها "أفيال أليفة تفترس أفيال برية" وكان التقاليد والعادات تريد أن تُدجن الحرية والتطور...
مسرحية رائعة
July 17, 2014
Review first published on BookLikes:
"... the book about the bird and the bee is natural history. It's an awful lesson to mankind. You think that you are Ann's suitor; that you are the pursuer and she the pursued; that it is your part to woo, to persuade, to prevail, to overcome. Fool: it is you who are the pursued, the marked down quarry, the destined prey. You need not sit looking longingly at the bait through the wires of the trap: the door is open, and will remain so until it shuts behind you for ever."
I liked Man and Superman as a comedy of manners. But saying I liked it because of the flippant interplay between the characters, the witty dialogue and the satire of Edwardian society is hardly an analysis of Shaw's most philosophical work.
However, the sad truth in my case is that I just cannot remember what Shaw's point was in Man and Superman. I'm sure he had one but I got distracted by the candy-floss comedy in which he wrapped his message.
So, I may have to read this again sometime - or go and watch the play. I hear there is also a film version with Peter O'Toole.
"... the book about the bird and the bee is natural history. It's an awful lesson to mankind. You think that you are Ann's suitor; that you are the pursuer and she the pursued; that it is your part to woo, to persuade, to prevail, to overcome. Fool: it is you who are the pursued, the marked down quarry, the destined prey. You need not sit looking longingly at the bait through the wires of the trap: the door is open, and will remain so until it shuts behind you for ever."
I liked Man and Superman as a comedy of manners. But saying I liked it because of the flippant interplay between the characters, the witty dialogue and the satire of Edwardian society is hardly an analysis of Shaw's most philosophical work.
However, the sad truth in my case is that I just cannot remember what Shaw's point was in Man and Superman. I'm sure he had one but I got distracted by the candy-floss comedy in which he wrapped his message.
So, I may have to read this again sometime - or go and watch the play. I hear there is also a film version with Peter O'Toole.
January 16, 2010
No, not that Superman, dumbass. The other one. You know, Nietzsche? The Übermensch? Blond beast? None of this rings a bell? What did you do at that fancy school of yours for four years?
So anyway, Man and Superman is uber-bad. And now I don’t know what to make of Shaw. Heartbreak House was unexpectedly awesome: smart, funny, pessimistic—everything you could ask for in a play. But this one…blech. A lumbering and tendentious monster. It’s like a highbrow, 1905 version of All in the Family: no topical issue left unexplored, no talking point undelivered. Except Shaw gets off a few good lines, which All in the Family never did, as far as I remember. Meathead was a funny name, though. I laughed at that when I was seven.
So anyway, Man and Superman is uber-bad. And now I don’t know what to make of Shaw. Heartbreak House was unexpectedly awesome: smart, funny, pessimistic—everything you could ask for in a play. But this one…blech. A lumbering and tendentious monster. It’s like a highbrow, 1905 version of All in the Family: no topical issue left unexplored, no talking point undelivered. Except Shaw gets off a few good lines, which All in the Family never did, as far as I remember. Meathead was a funny name, though. I laughed at that when I was seven.
September 21, 2018
I am quite amazed at the tension between Ann and Jack Tanner, despite the fact that Jack announced so emphatically that he had the least intention to marry Ann. Still, whenever they met, Jack was interested in converse with Ann, who took advantage of the twists and turns in the conversation to snare her prey. Actually in real life, women do that every day. And the older women get, the more women have to engage in such activities. Well, probably not every woman. Some just completely give up on relationships.
Read
January 27, 2025Het voelt alsof dit boek speciaal voor mij geschreven was. Het bevat alles waarvan ik houd: een Don Juan, speculaties over vooruitgang, grappige dialogen, en licht problematische begin-twinigste eeuwse politieke filosofie.
Bedankt Nils voor de aanrader.
Bedankt Nils voor de aanrader.
February 5, 2017
I had so much fun reading this! My first experience with modernist drama!
Man and Superman struck me as picturesque, easy to imagine and follow. The humor is awesome too; couldn’t resist some laughs here and there. The most hilarious scene is when Tanner and Straker are captured by the lovesick brigand Mendoza; and after when, with an unusual build up of familiarity and affinity between prisoners and captor, Mendoza starts reading some poems he wrote for his Louisa, who turns out to be Straker’s little sister. After some clenched fists and repressed tension, all the same, the night ends amiably with everyone falling asleep while languished Mendoza is still blurting out his third-rate poetry.
Here’s a glimpse:
The play starts with a Roebuck Ramsden, a haughty bald intellectual and old-timer, sitting in his library. After a while, a very romantic fool called Octavius joins him and professes his love for the girl under his guardianship. Tanner, a philosopher and political reformer, comes barging in like mad because Ann’s father has granted him her guardianship too. Ramsden and Tanner are now livid over the joint custody, sipping from a glass of hatred (not really) and almost getting at each other’s throats – they hate each other if you haven’t already guessed and the two clearly epitomize the conflict between old and new. Oh! And not to mention that Tanner hates Ann and calls her a hypocrite and a coquette, and rightly so.
Don’t worry I’m not going to spoil this for you.
The philosophic comedy continues with a car crash, a man’s attempt to run away from marriage, a held up by generous brigands, a dream about Lucifer and Don Juan having a philosophical debate (two mouthpieces for Shaw; couldn’t think of better praters really), a man’s willful descent from aristocracy and a final yielding to the Life Force. And that stands for sex.
So everything considered, this is a masterpiece, a pastiche – political, economical, psychological and philosophical. Read it! By all means! It’s one of those literary breezes!
This review is licensed under a .
Man and Superman struck me as picturesque, easy to imagine and follow. The humor is awesome too; couldn’t resist some laughs here and there. The most hilarious scene is when Tanner and Straker are captured by the lovesick brigand Mendoza; and after when, with an unusual build up of familiarity and affinity between prisoners and captor, Mendoza starts reading some poems he wrote for his Louisa, who turns out to be Straker’s little sister. After some clenched fists and repressed tension, all the same, the night ends amiably with everyone falling asleep while languished Mendoza is still blurting out his third-rate poetry.
Here’s a glimpse:
The play starts with a Roebuck Ramsden, a haughty bald intellectual and old-timer, sitting in his library. After a while, a very romantic fool called Octavius joins him and professes his love for the girl under his guardianship. Tanner, a philosopher and political reformer, comes barging in like mad because Ann’s father has granted him her guardianship too. Ramsden and Tanner are now livid over the joint custody, sipping from a glass of hatred (not really) and almost getting at each other’s throats – they hate each other if you haven’t already guessed and the two clearly epitomize the conflict between old and new. Oh! And not to mention that Tanner hates Ann and calls her a hypocrite and a coquette, and rightly so.
Don’t worry I’m not going to spoil this for you.
The philosophic comedy continues with a car crash, a man’s attempt to run away from marriage, a held up by generous brigands, a dream about Lucifer and Don Juan having a philosophical debate (two mouthpieces for Shaw; couldn’t think of better praters really), a man’s willful descent from aristocracy and a final yielding to the Life Force. And that stands for sex.
So everything considered, this is a masterpiece, a pastiche – political, economical, psychological and philosophical. Read it! By all means! It’s one of those literary breezes!
This review is licensed under a .
April 12, 2015
I have a huge inferiority complex about myself. That prevents me to approach great books, lest I wouldn't understand the great writers. I had heard the name of Bernard Shaw and how great a writer he was, in my school days. But never dared to read him.
Now, that some gray hairs have begun to reveal themselves in my head, I have been trying to imbibe some of the thoughts of great minds. Some times I fail, sometimes they fail me, but some other times, they get in to my mind and make me realize things that I have never thought of before - at least in their terms. Those are exhilarating moments of my life.
Reading 'Man and Superman' is one of those moments.
Man's eternal search for finding the 'Superman' who he can relate to and idolize at the same time is the basic theme of the book. And for a man being 'Superman' he has to sacrifice the social norms like 'marriage and conformity' and naturally would face resistance. Rationalization of this constitute the basic dialogues of the play.
Full of quotes that would make you think, and chortle simultaneously, makes this great 'comedy and philosophy' - as the author likes to put it, one of the finest reads of my life.
I would read it multiple times.
I loved especially the The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion
Respect for the 'English Nietzsche'.
Now, that some gray hairs have begun to reveal themselves in my head, I have been trying to imbibe some of the thoughts of great minds. Some times I fail, sometimes they fail me, but some other times, they get in to my mind and make me realize things that I have never thought of before - at least in their terms. Those are exhilarating moments of my life.
Reading 'Man and Superman' is one of those moments.
Man's eternal search for finding the 'Superman' who he can relate to and idolize at the same time is the basic theme of the book. And for a man being 'Superman' he has to sacrifice the social norms like 'marriage and conformity' and naturally would face resistance. Rationalization of this constitute the basic dialogues of the play.
Full of quotes that would make you think, and chortle simultaneously, makes this great 'comedy and philosophy' - as the author likes to put it, one of the finest reads of my life.
I would read it multiple times.
I loved especially the The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion
Respect for the 'English Nietzsche'.
October 1, 2012
: هذه المسرحية ستبقى على طاولتي ولن أعيدها أبدا الى الرف فهي تضحك وتبكي وتأسرك لعظم جمالها ؛ فأردت أن أضع اقتباسات لها فلم استطع ولكن لم يبقى سوى صدى جزء منها يلاتحقني كل يوم
كلا كلا كلا صغيرتي لا تصلي إذا قمتٍ بذلك فانك سوف تهدرين الفائدة الرئيسية لهذا المكان "أي جهنم". هنالك كلمات كتبت على المدخل هي: (أترك وراءك كل أمل،انت الذي تدخل). فقط تأملي أية راحة تلك! لأنه ما الأمل؟ نوع من المسؤولية الاخلاقية.في هذا المكان ليس هنالك أمل ، وبالنتيجة لا واجب، لا عمل، لاشي يتم الحصول عليه بالصلاة، لا شيء يكون مهدورا بالقيام بما تحبين. جهنم، باختصار، هي مكان حيث لا يتوجب ان تعمل أي شيء سوئ تسلية نفسك.
وضعت " لما أضفته للتوضيح
February 19, 2021
Shaw, our good, old satirist and intellectual iconoclast, offers his audiences a full peek into his philosophy and political ideology through his greatly amusing comedy of manners, 'Man and Superman' which was first staged in London's Royal Court Theatre in 1905. The play is popularly loved for its humorous sequences of secret marriages, confused love affairs and inheritance debates. However, when analysed on a philosophical level, the play is revealed to be so much more than just a light romantic comedy; primarily because it deeply engages with Nietzsche's ideas, particularly his concept of the Übermensch which is merged with Shaw's new concept of ‘Life Force.’ The third act is a long dream sequence based on the Don Juan legend as it appears in Mozart's opera 'Don Giovanni.' I just wish Shaw knew some word economy because the play is too long. As a reader, I enjoyed the wry humour, sarcasm and philosophical meanings incorporated in a well-structured and interesting plot. But the ending could have been better was what I thought.
January 15, 2024
Well, what a load of misogyny and male superiority. I don't care if it was written over 100 years ago. GBS should be ashamed of himself. His idea of an amusing play about a battle in the war between the sexes hurt my ears to listen to.
December 24, 2022
İlk defa Shaw okudum, beğendim. Yoğun bir kitap / oyun. Shaw’un ne kadar dolu olduğunu anladım.
Want to read
May 10, 2025This is a book that F. Scott Fitzgerald recommended in his College of One, a set of 40 books he considered necessary for an education:
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.