 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Major Barbara for performance and study includes Shaw's complete Preface. It also includes a highly regarded twenty-four page introduction, a list of the principal dates in the life of Bernard Shaw, and a selected bibliography. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was a prolific writer. He made a handsome living expounding on social and political problems with a razor-sharp tongue. A world without hypocrisy would have given little sustenance to Shaw, who delighted in his priviledged position. Living above wretched privation and poverty of the early twentieth century, he profitted handsomely from a meticulous enumeration and elucidation of pain and suffering. In the case of his ownership of large chunks of stocks in companies which were the purveyors of oppression, he played a dual role of robber baron surrogate and chronicler of misery. Shaw was a hero. He was very popular with all classes, from the most elite and richest, through the middle classes to the meekest inheritors of the earth. For a dose of reality attend a Shaw play. No matter how truthful, it's no less artificial than Huxley's soma or feelie movies. It's effects are just about as short lived. Therein lies Shaw's true greatness. He was quite useful as a defuser of potentially dangerous truths. Is the pen mightier than the sword? Shaw's writings are proof that it is. Some may say that culture is based upon virtue or some other good thing. But that is hypocritical. Fortunately for Shaw, culture is based upon hypocrisy. He could find material about which to write virtually anywhere. Humans utter hypocrisies whenever they speak of culture, especially when they speak of important issues. Shaw was therefore not surprisingly prolific; he had such a rich supply of material with which to work. Was Shaw brilliant? He says what people don't wish to say, not what they do not know. Is this brilliance or is it boldness? If it be boldness, what is it's purpose? Truth can have devastating consequences if not handled properly. Shaw's continued efficacy amounts to attention attenuation, the most effective method of managing truth. Once a dangerous truth has been defined, described and examples given, it doesn't go away but people still ignore it. How convenient. Shaw was praised by the meek and by the powerful, but for different reasons. Shaw's plays have become well known in the most elite circles. Many situations which develop in society at large are comparable to a situation which had been described in a Shaw play. Conversations about such similar circumstances end quickly when reference is made to Bernard Shaw. It's sort of like telling jokes by the numbers. They are so familiar that all one needs to do is utter a number to produce laughter. Then it's over. There's nothing more to be said. History repeats and repeats. Life repeats as well. Injustices occur. Hypocrisy cloaks injustice. Shaws plays make perennial injustices prosaic. People become inured to them. Why bother with a long explanation? Why become embroiled in anger? Just nod at the mention of the appropriate play or character and be done with it. Psychologically it amounts to an effective use of attention attenuation. What about the oppressed? Plain, simple, naked truth. Shaw gives hope to the oppressed. Truth is used effectively. Shaw accurately and faithfully describes the life of the oppressed, or one may say, their plight since life and plight are equivalent for the helpless oppressed who are indeed helpless else they wouldn't be oppressed. Shaw uses truth to strip away hypocrisy thus describing the life of the oppressed as they see it. Which is, of course as it is. And this gives a hope for change. Which, of course, is rarely if ever realized. But hope is very useful. Its alternative, despair, is dangerous and potentially destructive. This dangerous human emotion is banished by the hope provided by Shaw's play. Shaw's plays should not be read without his prefaces. "I would give six of the plays that Shakespeare did write for one of the prefaces he ought to have written," he wrote. Was Shaw brilliant? He says what people don't wish to say, not what they do not know. Is this brilliance or is it boldness? If it be brilliance, what is his modus operandi? Syntactical genius or semantic expertise? Both. Try reading the text of Major Barbara's introduction or its preface. The operative word is try. A professor of English literature might read a passage to a select group or to a lecture hall full of students. The professor might then stop to ask rhetorically what Shaw had said. The professor would have a Buckleyesque advantage. He would be familiar with every syntactical twist and turn. He would be familiar with the semantic ramification of every esoteric term and of every archaic expression as well as with the precise definition of each word. Which would not be fair at all. Who said life was fair? Certainly not George Bernard Shaw. He says many things which would not be tolerated in today's political climate if anyone were to understand what he had said. Understanding Major Barbara: Daddy Warbucks Evil North Korea? |
"The men may all be heroes - or fools since this is Shaw's comic view of Balkan chivalry - but the women are definetly more than their match. Duration: Approximately 2 hours This is a full dramatic performance including sound effects and music. Performed by: Elizabeth Brown, Wendy Thatcher, Sara Orenstein, Simon Bradbury, Donald Carrier, William Webster, Norman Browning, and Andrew Gillies." |
|
Three Plays for Puritans : The Devil's Disciple, Caesar and Cleopatra, Captain Brassbound's Conversion (Penguin Classics) Book Description This volume reveals Shaw's constant delight in turning received wisdom upside down and celebrates the triumph of individual conscience over accepted morality. |
 Three Plays for Puritans |
|
Pygmalian and My Fair Lady. |
 Pygmalian My Fair Lady |
|
Major Barbara, Heartbreak House, Saint Joan, and Too True to Be Good" |
 |
|
What if a British or Japanese prime minister or an American president were told, "The members of your cabinet are all the dullest dogs I know. They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated: they are only college passmen. They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly." It wouldn't have any effect. Everyone would surely recognize it as a blurb from one of Bernard Shaws plays. Not original. Therefore of doubtful veracity.
The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, |
