George Bernard Shaw Books

Shaw has packed many high-level topics into this play, while at the same time keeping long portions of the dialogue fairly low-level. Two topics jump out most frequently: hell and enjoyment. His take on each respective topic is fresh, seemingly from an entirely new perspective.

In the third act, the characters' conversation stands out in a couple ways. The explanation of hell from Don Juan, the Statue, and The Devil's point of view is unique. From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, it reeks of blasphemy, twisting around the traditional views to show things as they really are: The devil finally gets to tell his side of the story; heaven is boring; anyone can go between the two afterlives whenever they please. What is interesting is that Shaw's hell can fit with the Judeo-Christian/Biblical facts, something that the blasphemy police certainly will not give any credence to or spend any time investigating. His idea that heaven and hell are created for those who are going there matches perfectly with Biblical theology. A person not living in the grace of Jesus would hate heaven just as much as a person living in his grace would hate hell. Biblical theologians would not agree (if one could get them to listen) that people can choose their own eternity, nor would they agree with the concept of non-believers enjoying themselves in hell, even if one could get them to voice their belief that they will be given over to all the desires of their flesh.

What is fascinating about Shaw's hell is just that idea - that if life is about your passions and enjoyment (namely, the flesh) then your afterlife will be personal to those same passions and enjoyment. At this point, the conservative Judeo-Christians would be sharpening their inquisition equipment in a fervent rage because much of the play speaks to that idea of personal enjoyment during life, specifically the English. Don Juan says that humans live to try to understand life more but later adds to that idea by saying that understanding only helps us to know that we are enjoying ourselves. Life then becomes the pursuit of enjoyment, and hell mimics that pursuit as a sort of eternal amusement park. In a statement that seems like a pre-response to his opponent's case, Don Juan then says that although he spent his whole life looking for pleasure, he never found it. If it could ever happen, it is that response which could appease the frantic theologians. The devil, being the father of lies has pulled the eternal wool over everyone's eyes, both the living and the dead, and has gotten them to abandon their real purpose.

Shaw's flirtation with both sides of the controversy is what allows this play such success. He angers both the proponents and opponents of Christian "myths" and then offers possible solutions to appease both sides.

Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens

In this title, G.B. Shaw outdoes himself. Not only does he manage to turn up with a Don Juan play in our modern day and age, which is full of cynicism, and doesn't give in to 'medieval' codes of behaviour, but he even manages to turn around the table. Here, the hunter becomes the hunted, forced to flee from his pursued/pursuer. Shaw includes in this play an ingenious conversation between the original 15th century characters, which not only explains about Don Juan's philosophy, but shines a new light upon our own lives, here and today.

In this title, G.B. Shaw outdoes himself. Not only does he manage to turn up with a Don Juan play in our modern day and age, which is full of cynicism, and doesn't give in to 'medieval' codes of behaviour, but he even manages to turn around the table. Here, the hunter becomes the hunted, forced to flee from his pursued/pursuer. Shaw includes in this play an ingenious conversation between the original 15th century characters, which not only explains about Don Juan's philosophy, but shines a new light upon our own lives, here and today.

The writings of Bernard Shaw in this particulat play, invites to you use your mind to understand life and philosphy. It has such great insight into many aspects of human nature and at the same time is exteremely funny and really takes you into it's pages. The writing has impecable style and this is truly a classic play.

George Bernard Shaw was called, with good reason, the "English Nietzsche". Though Nietzsche was an aristocrat and Shaw a socialist, both cherished the dream of the superman and looked forward to the day when he would be realised. Both, however, were characterised by their mordant wit and intellectual cynicism, in which "Man and Superman" abounds. Shaw manages to compress a number of disparate themes into a relatively taut dramatic format, even throwing in a scene in which Don Juan, the Devil and a gang of anarchist brigands make an appearance. The central event of the plot involves the wealthy Tanner, a member of the "Idle Rich Class" making himself subservient to the Life Force and seeking the perfect woman to marry, who would guarantee him a very special offspring, his ideal, the superman himself. Though Shaw was not known to have read the works of Bergson at that time, nor to have been conversant with his vitalist doctrine of the Life Force, his use of the Life Force motif and the philosophical underpinnings of the play attest to a pure Bergsonism. The most delightful part, however, is the "Revolutionist's Handbook" at the end, which contains Shaw's most scandalous anti-Establishment jibes. For instance, "Do not do unto others as you would them do unto you. They might not have the same taste."

If Bernard Shaw were not the second greatest playwright in the English language, this biography would not have such significance; and were it not for Shaw's multidimensional personality, this book would not possess so many fascinating dimensions. Sally Peters acknowledges her debt, and gives us a work without self-conscious authorship. It is a book that invites reading and rereading. Much has been made of Shaw's homosexuality; but Dr. Peters' focus is broader and deeper than that. A story, which often reads like the most engrossing fiction, Bernard Shaw: The Accent of the Superman, is a rewarding resource for any serious student of modern drama.

Peters, Sally. Bernard Shaw: The Accent of the Superman. New Haven: Yale University Press.

If Bernard Shaw were not the second greatest playwright in the English language, this biography would not have such significance; and were it not for Shaw's multidimensional personality, this book would not possess so many fascinating dimensions. Sally Peters acknowledges her debt, and gives us a work without self-conscious authorship. It is a book that invites reading and rereading. Much has been made of Shaw's homosexuality; but Dr. Peters' focus is broader and deeper than that. A story, which often reads like the most engrossing fiction, Bernard Shaw: The Accent of the Superman, is a rewarding resource for any serious student of modern drama.

Was Shaw gay? Dr. Peters builds a convincing argument that he probably was and that he used his vast intellect to erect every possible defense against his homosexual leanings ever coming to sustained expression. I thought I knew Shaw but I will never again look at him again now that I have read this provocative volume. I am giving it only 4 stars, however, because even my interest (and I am a fan of Shaw) could not be sustained for the entire length of this discussion of Shaw's romances/flirtations/avoidances.

This is a complete and wonderful biography of Bernard Shaw. Dr. Peters has written a thorough and fasinating history of a complex man. For the definitive word on Shaw, read this book.

this book is a work of art and is the primary source of all the biographies of Wilde. I particularly liked the last part of the book where Harris debates Wilde about male to male love vs. male to female love.Harris is plainly not intimidated by Wilde's witticism's and keeps to a serious vein without being rankled or becoming victimized by Wilde's ability to trivialize subjects with a veneer of parody. Among more of Harris insights is the statement that Bosie,(Wilde's "lover") and Bosie's father the Marquiss of Quennsbury are really 2 opposite ends of the same log.Harris biography seems more like a piece of literature and the life of Wilde,could even Dickens have thought up such a character as Oscar Wilde,I know Poe did!!

One cannot improve upon the remarks fore-mentioned of George Bernard Shaw's. Long before public figures of no talent were thrust upon us, literate minds instead of marketeers gathered around the chosen few as johnny-come-latelys and would rarely disappoint. This is a thrilling,gripping read.Style,tact and endless grace in words for a tragic,painful public artist run throughout this personal account.Much can be gained from savoring this moment in time if one aspires celebrity and fame and wants to avoid its dizzying pitfalls.

I picked this book up in a used book store for [money] more than when it was purchased new in 1960. The pages literally crumbled as I turned them, but I couldn't put the book down. I was enthralled with the life of Oscar Wilde. Now, this biography isn't one written years after the subject's death from scraps of information. No. This is written by a very close friend of Wilde's, Frank Harris. In being written by someone of such closeness, it lends credence to the harsh words the author had to say of Wilde. Harris calls him lazy and slothenly. Of course, Wilde caused quite a sensation in his time. He was imprisoned under other pretenses, but mainly because he was a homosexual in a time period when this was not acceptable. Oscar was one who did not care what others thought of him. He was determined to live a life of pleasure and to make money doing things that he liked: writing and speaking. However, he did a great deal of leaching off of others. There's no denying Wilde's genius. I have yet to read any of his works except for a short essay entitled "The Soul of Man Under Socialism." To me, the thoughts seemed profound. But Harris says that Oscar never said or wrote anything original; he merely took other people's thoughts, meshed them together, and said them in a more profound way. This is a biography that reads like a fine story. Harris is a great writer and has more first-hand knowledge of his subject than any other biographer that I've read. I'd reccomend this book to others without reservation.

"The best life of Oscar Wilde", said George Bernard Shaw after reading this book. I cannot but agree with him utterly. No unnecesary data is wasted, no long reflexions bore us. It's just an Oscar's very close friend telling us with great elegance and delicacy the story of one he has admired and loved so much, but without fear of saying the truth. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Of course, the reader has to know Mr Harris is the true "lead actor" in the story he's telling us, always supporting the Truth and the Right. But one can easily forgive him for that in reward for the great moments un Oscar's life he's saved from oblivion and darkness. A wonderful work of art itself, this biography must be read by every admirer of that Prince of Charm Oscar Wilde was. X. Careaga

"The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism" was published in 1927, when George Bernard Shaw was at the very pinnacle of his success as a playwright. (He had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for "St Joan" two years earlier.)

It purported to be a political primer for the "intelligent woman" who knew little or nothing of politics. This literary device of addressing an imaginary, ignorant audience allowed Shaw to start from the beginning. Clear your mind of all preconceptions, he said, and let us first look at the facts. What are the conditions under which the mass of mankind lives in the industrialized world? What is "politics"? What is the real meaning of the words "capitalism" and "socialism" and "communism"? What is the present state of society if examined without any of these labels? Why is it like this?

Having cleared the ground, Shaw then addressed that most fundamental of all social questions, the question to which his entire adult life had been devoted. How is the wealth of the world to be divided up?

Shaw was (to put it mildly) a committed socialist. And The Guide pulled no punches in asserting that socialism is the only sane answer to that question. However, he played scrupulously fair in his presentation of the facts. He described with absolute clarity the causes, conditions and present (1927) state of private property, political parties, banking, revolutions, facism, the stock market, credit, the national debt, universal adult suffrage, investment, strikes and poverty.

In short, the primary value of this extraordinary work was its conceptual clarity. Whether or not readers shared Shaw's opinions, merely by reading the book they could not help but greatly - and usefully - increase their understanding of their world.

The question for modern readers, seventy-five years later, is whether The Guide can help us to understand the modern world.

The answer is Yes.

As a test, borrow a copy of the book and read the chapter entitled "Banking". Just that one chapter. If you do not understand at least twice as much about what a bank is, and does, than you did before, then you need not bother with anything else in the book and you can return it with thanks. Otherwise, as a clincher, read the chapter entitled "Revolutions". I will be very surprised if you do not then buy your own copy.

That said, there are a couple of traps. Firstly, Shaw's English is now somewhat dated. He often uses very much longer sentences, with more subordinate clauses, than we commonly do today. This is ultimately helpful in conveying his meaning, but not immediately so to the modern reader. The Guide is therefore somewhat wearing to read for any length of time. It is not an easy book to skim.

Secondly, since Shaw does have a definite polemical intention (he wants us to become socialists), and since few writers have ever been more skilful at delivering a message while appearing not to, the reader has to be permanently on guard against taking Shaw's statements as facts. He is expert at the art of covertly leading readers to his own conclusions. The effort required to resist all this is also rather exhausting.

These shortcomings aside, and they are significant, The Guide stands as one of the great literary political works of the twentieth century. It is also one of the few genuinely hopeful contributions to the discipline we now call sociology. This reflects neither an earlier, cheerier worldview (in 1927 in England there was every reason to despair), nor a utopian naïveté (Shaw had a clearer sense than most of the horrors of which mankind is capable). No, the sense of hope that suffuses The Guide derives from Shaw's own inextinguishable, strangely realistic generosity of spirit.

In comparing Shaw with his famous fellow-socialist author H.G.Wells, C.P.Snow commented that "Shaw was a kinder, but colder man". He was. And both his kindness and his coldness inform The Guide: matchless detachment, combined with the utmost charity and reasonableness.

"The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism" was George Bernard Shaw's political magnum opus. He had spent much of the previous forty years writing about politics and society, often in the guise of drama, musical criticism or "prefaces" to his published plays. And he continued to do so for the remainder of his life, the last major political work appearing only a few years before his death in 1950.

But this book is It. "The Intelligent Woman's Guide" summarizes all his thinking, all his reading, all his public speaking, all his experience, all his hopes and all his fears for the future. It is the culmination of a lifetime dedicated to the betterment of mankind by political means. In his twenty more years of work - including "The Apple Cart", "Too True to be Good", and "Everybody's Political What's What" - Shaw never wrote anything as good again. There was nothing more he needed to say.

this guy shaw looks at a seemingly complicated matter the most convincing way i have ever encountered. from the very first page this is fascinating business written with clarity and in an easy-to-understand way.
read this book - it will explain much of the world we live in!
and in addition it will give you an excellent idea of how to approach any problem from a very practical and day-to-day point of view.

Absolute genius. Shaw gives a understandable and accurate explantion of socialism and capitalism. It seems particularly revelvant in today's societal struggles with class, race, and politics. A book everyone who is interested in social justice should read.

A great companion to reading the works of George Bernard Shaw. It helps to understand the literary techniques singular to the author, the socio-political background of his writings and the themetic structure prevalent throughout all his works. This is truly a necessary companion to reading his work.

A great companion to reading the works of George Bernarnd Shaw. It helps to understand the literary techniques singular to the author, the socio-political background of his writings and the themetic structure prevalent throughout all his works. This is truly a necessary companion to reading his work.

Jeffrey Hatcher's play, which is based on George Bernard Shaw's novel _The Unsociable Socialist_ is a wonderfully funny play, with some delightful one-liners: the opening line "Hetty, I'm leaving you" is bound to catch the audience's attention. It also has a well mixed class of good roles for both men and women. A great alternative for those looking to do a period turn-of-the-century piece but are tired of doing yet another production of Oscar Wilde's _The Importance of Being Earnest_. Shaw purists beware, though, it is not totally faithful to the novel, there are some significant departures.

SMASH is a wonderful play about a young socialist who leaves his wife after only having been married for one hour so that he can try to make England a socialist country by first taking over a girls college. There are many obstacles which he must first overcome before obtaining the ultimate prize. SMASH is a gloriously humorous and an excellent choice for any small theater as well as any that aren't so small; not only because of any crowd it might draw, but is fun for anyone in the production staff as well. I would recommend it to anyone, even as just something to pick up and read for a good laugh.

I have always admired Shaw, but really, this time he has outdone even Heartbreak House. Shaw skillfully leads us into supposing Englnad about 50 years in the future from when he wrote it, and with a British constitution. From the "Royal Veto" to the point at which America declares "The Declaration of Independence is cancelled, we wish to rejoin the British empire" this truly is a "political extravaganza". I have never laughed so much at the way government is portrayed, and yet we learn a lesson throughout: the illusion of democracy extends to places where we wouldn't have looked and gives a wonderfully applicable look to America's government now, every government!

Back to Methuselah, by Bernard Shaw, was an excellent read. The preface of the book deals with mankind's thoughts, institutions, and most sacred beliefs. Shaw gives a history of the different beliefs regarding the nature of man and the universe. He reveals his own mental struggles and evolution. He portrays the church and its followers as idolaters. This is because they worship god as a portrait of man, a devious and condemning one at that. He is right in saying that their superstitions and legends actually deter people from the divine. This is because when a rational educated man, as he puts it, understands science, he will condemn religion and believe in no god. But, as Shaw exclaims, an irreligious man is no good at all, and may be even worse for the human race. The irreligious man stems from Darwin. Shaw tells the history of Darwin and claims that he never intended on creating such a material reality as evolution. Darwin was merely adding observations of the material realm to the current scientific knowledge. It is the misinterpretation of his work that has led to the faction known as evolutionism. Darwin is not even the founder of the theory of evolution. Lamarck first conceived it. He first proposed Creative Evolution. Which basically says that beings will change. Shaw also gets into politics. He reveals how man's ignorance caused by the legends of religions and evolution have created havoc for mankind. They have created wars because of material greed and religious fanaticism. Both have missed the "Big Picture" altogether. The rest of the book is several comedic plays where Shaw tries to display creative evolution and both mankind's history and future. The opening play takes place in the Garden of Eden. Here is where man began. Adam and Eve are very ignorant creatures playing in the garden. This all changes when Adam discovers a dead fawn and thus death. They learn from the snake about the possibilities of their imagination and their existence. They were once other animals and willed their way to where they were now. The snake puts new words and realities in their heads, and they begin to create a new reality by pure will alone. The snake is not evil. They learn to eat and take in the energy of the land. Adam and Eve fear living for eternity and recapitulate another. Their children are unlike them in the sense that they eat meat and kill. This causes the animals to be scared and build defenses against them. Then murder takes place, and it is all down hill from there. History pretty much goes the way it did in our books where greed and power rule the land. The next play takes place after the First World War. Here, we see the politics of the day and the theory of creative evolution is envisioned in The Gospel of the Brothers Barnabas. The two brothers have the theory that until man can live three hundred years man will continue to suffer. This is because man can not become more than the barbarian materialist that he is. After a period of three hundred years however, man will get bored of the childish fantasies and evolutionize spiritually. This is all mixed in with the politics of the day and a lot of humor. They claim in their gospel that this can happen by merely believing it or willing it. In the next play, That Thing Happens. It is 2170 AD. People from the very last play actually live three hundred years. This happens because they were introduced to the theory and did not doubt it. A man and a woman both discover each other in a political scenario similar to the last act. They are both three hundred years old (they remember each other from before) and have been discovered by the "normal" people. These normal people are very powerful political icons. They both tell their sad stories of having to live many lives and pretending to die. They did this for financial reasons (pensions and what not) and to keep their secret concealed. They are on a completely different "level" than the rest, and regard everyone else as aged children. This was a fact that I became aware of as I have aged. As a child one believes that adults are some mature different race. But one learns that most are merely aged children. I can not imagine being three hundred years old and dealing with short lived ones. (Or maybe I can imagine it J) The next act takes place in 3000 AD. Here we see the plight of the short lived ones in the Tragedy of an Elderly Gentleman. The three hundred-year-olds have claimed their own island away from the rest of the world. They no longer concern themselves with the irrelevant plights of mankind, as we know it. They do interact however. Here we see a group of short lived ones (again very high in politics) coming to seek advise from the oracle. The oracle is merely anyone with enough time on their hands to deal with the short-lived ones. They put on a charade for them because that is what they expect. They treat them well but are very blunt. They even tell them they display a charade of the oracle. They reveal that the short-lived ones could live longer if they only believed. Here we also see the politics of the centenarians. They are struggling with leaving the "norms" alone or destroying them. The oracle answers their questions (as he always does) by telling them they are fools. They are fools because they are concerned with childish desires. We clearly see the difficulties and misunderstandings between the two races. In the final act we pretty much end up where we began, and see As Far as Thought can Reach. Except there is no animals and it is the year 31,920 AD. Humans live forever as in Eden. They can only die by falling or getting struck by lightning. Humans are hatched from eggs at the age of 17, and live four years indulging in their fantasies. After this they grow tired and explore both their minds and the universe. Here they become ancients (they resemble modern day extraterrestrials from encounters, which is interesting) and wander about creating universes in their minds. They eventually become pure life energy (god?). The ancients help the young people when they are needed. But soon lose the capacity for human speech and language. Thus, they no longer can communicate with the humans. We see the struggles the young ones go through. There is also an interesting situation of the young ones creating two human beings. We see the limitations and emotions of our human race in the new creations, and they are eventually destroyed. The soul is the creator and the master. Yet, the body and the material reality become the master of the soul. In the end Adam, Eve, and the serpent have a conversation. They were there all along. They chat about the state of things and their children. Their creator, Lilith, talks to us in the end. She contemplates destroying all and starting fresh. She explains that the ancients are close, so she will be patient. For they soon will become One with her and supersede her. This book is truly a world classic. I find it disheartening that it is no longer printed. I will most likely search a copy out. My personal studies have led me to ponder the points raised in this book before even reading it. Books seem to have a way of finding you. I was once an atheist and a material evolutionist. As Shaw points out, I was kept away from religion because of the myths. I was also fortunate to have parents that did not try to control my mind and thoughts. My studies into math and science, particularly physics, have ironically taken me back to the metaphysical or spiritual. While my journey has just begun, it is books like these that keep hope and faith alive. To be honest, I never imagined reading a book like this in our school system. I could go on forever, and I usually am not this cordial in my writing. It is usually more "scientific", so to speak. Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed this book.

Like many writers at the turn of the 20th Century, Shaw was very much interested in "the woman question," for women were becoming increasingly independent and more of a challenge to men in both public and private spheres. Although he also addressed these issues in such other plays as PYGMALION and MAN AND SUPERMAN, CANDIDA is perhaps his clearest statement on the subject. Written in 1894, it is a statement that has proven timeless. It is easily among the favorite performance pieces of world theatre.

The plot is quite simple. The Rev. Morrell is a minister with a taste for reform--and he has had the good fortune to marry the perfect wife, a remarkable woman named Candida who has a talent for smoothing every path she encounters. One of the paths to which she has turned that talent is that of Marchbanks, a poetic young man who is the grip of all the emotional turmoil delayed adolescence implies. But Marchbanks has fallen in love with Candida, and when he informs her husband of this all hell breaks loose.

Throughout much of the play Morrell and Marchbanks engage in a series of brilliantly written duels over Candida, each of them espousing what Candida means to them and what they can give her, arguing through numerous philosophical issues in the process. But neither gentleman has actually troubled to consult Candida herself; when they eventually lay the issue before her and insist that she decide between them, she responds in a way that not only demonstrates how little they know of her, but how little they know about both women and the world in general.

The climax of the play has been dropping jaws in theatres for well over a hundred years and it seems likely that it will do so for at least a hundred more--and although Shaw presents his play as a comedy, it will be the rare husband who leaves it without a quick glance at his wife and the disturbed thought that like Candida, she may not be entirely what he has always believed her to be. Brilliantly written and reading as well on the page as it plays on the stage, CANDIDA is easily among the great plays of this or any other era; a personal favorite and very strongly recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

G. Bernard Shaw was a great playwright and that is the reason why his plays tend to outshine his novels. Nonetheless, this is a five-star novel and it should not be so hard-to-get.