My junior year of high school we spent two weeks discussing Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion”. At that time I had enjoyed the play, it was comical, dramatic, had an underlying romance, and unlike many of the other works we read that read that year I actually felt like I understood it. When I saw that reading as one of my assignments for this course I was very excited and thought that it would be an easy blog, I could just skim the reading and write a quick entry. I was wrong! Skimming the text turned into my reading every word of it, and once again becoming absorbed by Shaws writing. This time however I was able to find more meaning to the text. I realized how Shaw was revealing his disgust for the Victorian class system, and his frustration with society as whole in his play.
Henry Higgins can easily be mistaken for an arrogant, selfish man who is hung up on the superficial nature of society. When Shaw fist introduces Higgins in the opening act on the street, my first reaction was that he was pretentiously obsessed with rank in society. Feelings for him changed towards the end of the play when I realized that he was actually an advocate for treating people as people despite their class. Victorian society was obsessed with class and status, the more “refined” you were (which is a nicer way of saying how wealthy or elite) determined your place in society. It would be easy to think that the lower class suffered the most however the text makes it appear it was the middle class. Perhaps the author felt that the poor were too ignorant to know what they were missing out on, while the middle class (when having occupations as governess’ and other roles serving the rich) were reminded on a daily basis what they were being cheated of. Shaw uses this play as a way to fight against society. Through his characters I think Shaw attempts to prove we are all humans and deserve to be treated the same. Class, wealth, colloquialisms, clothes, possessions, and education should not be what define us. We should all be free to the same opportunities and have equality among all classes. Many of the other Victorian writers focus on the inequalities between men and women, however Shaw goes beyond that and to the larger scale that all society is based on injustices. One thought that Shaw suggests in the text I found particularly poignant. The idea that we may praise the upper class for their “culture” and knowledge of the arts, but do they know meanings behind the words, is this really any reason that they are treated better?
“You see, we’re all savages, more or less. We’re supposed to be civilized and
cultured – to know all about poetry and philosophy and art and science, and so
on; but how many of us known even the meanings of these names.” (1036)
What should it matter if somebody knows more in these subjects then another? What is the relevance? What does any of that do to better society or make them more worthy then somebody who has no knowledge? These are all questions that were raised by this statement of Higgins. I think they are very valid and worth wondering, because even today we praise some scholars for their higher education, but what is the point if they do not know a greater meaning for it and put their skills into practice.
One of the other ideas Shaw raises along the same lines is that there is no true difference between a “lady” and a “flower girl” (in other words rich and poor), these are just titles and only is different because of the way people treat them and the title which society brands them.
“You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the
dressing and the proper way of speaking), the difference between a lady and a
flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.” (1057)
The only difference between classes during this time was materialistic. None of these things were earned or deserved but rather the luck of being born into wealth. This is a principle which Shaw and many other influential writers spoke out against and warned society of falling victim to. I really enjoyed how Shaw was able to provoke so many questions and thoughts within the audience and cleverly disguising this political message behind the comedic personalities
3 comments:
Mary Beth,
Excellent posting on Shaw's Pygmalion! You clearly have gotten much deeper into the play than your first reading in high school. This is why it is often worthwhile to reread a great text--reading it in a new context, and from a different perspective, can open up a lot of new insights. Great work.
Mary Beth,
Like yourself several of the works we have read for this class I had previously read for my high school english classes. You stated that because you had read this previously that you felt you could simply skim and get an easy blog out of it. However, you ended up reading the entire work over again. This happened to me several times too and like you each time I read them I learned something new. I think you did a great job expressing all the new meaning that you found from reading the work again and I enjoyed reading about the insights you had.
Mary Beth,
I really enjoyed your writing on Pygmalion. This is the first time I have read it and you have inspired me to go back and read it again. I missed some of the connections that you made and they are now so obvious. Great post.
Post a Comment