George Bernard Shaw Books

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.

This is my favorite book. There are touching quotes and hilarious quotes on almost any subject. As I was reading, I was turning the corners of pages with great thoughts or quotes. It quickly became ridiculous, as I was turning down the corner of almost every page. This book makes a great gift.

This book is very useful and interesting. One can learn a lesson from the story as well.

This is an astounding book really outlining Fabian Socialiam as seen in the plays of Henrik Ibsen. It has profound implications even today. It is a very interesting, enlightening, and literate book. One of Shaw's best works.

The book arrived in a timely manner and was exactly what I ordered. I wanted it as a gift for a friend who didn't know it existed.

To paraphrase W. H. Auden, this is exactly the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing - an overview of the musical life of London and provinces in the late 1800's. It's big. It talks about a lot of people and places you've probably never heard of, and could lead a full and complete life without hearing of. It's informative. It's tremendously funny in places.

Shaw was a master of English prose, and he was writing about a subject he knew and loved. If you are interested in music and good writing, this is a must-read, if you have the endurance.

"...I loathe nothing more than the commonplace that the truth always lies between the two extremes (truth being quite the most extreme thing I know of)..." (page 814

Few realize that before he became G.B.S. the successful drama critic, and later a playwright, the young Bernard Shaw first tried his hand at writing novels. An Unsocial Socialist (1883) is perhaps the best of this somewhat unripe harvest, but a thoroughly entertaining satire of British society in its own right. Although laden (like all his works) with Fabian socialist dogma, in it Shaw seems to have at last found his modus operandi, that is, to "take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then say it with the utmost levity." The novel is so richly laced with humor, that one quite forgets one is being preached to. I wrote my thesis in college on Shaw and read just about everything he wrote, and I must say this book has remained a favorite. The image of protagonist Sidney Trefusis using the classical statuary in his study for target practice is pure Shaw!

This is probably the best edition of one of the best plays ever written ! A very interesting play criticizing society, and what is written in this play is timeless ; it applies to every society through the ages ! I really love it ! Just buy it and read to discover the truth hidden in every society.

T. Cook writes: A true "diamond in the rough," Pygmalion is one of the cleverest and underrated plays written. Shaw conveys the faulty class system of Europe through the memorable Henry Higgins and Eliza Doolittle. Eliza, a cockney girl from the poor part of London, has trademark accent and original sounds, like "Ah-ah-ah-ow-ow-ow-oo." Despite her poor living conditions, she is able to retain her honor and good character. She often repeats "I'm a good girl, I am." This shows that she is not willing to sell her own body and sacrifice her integrity in order to get by. Henry Higgins, in comparison, is on the higher end of the class scale. His ability to replicate any sound and to place a man within any part of London demonstrates his expertise in his field. He uses vulgar words, however, like "bloody," "devil," and "damned." He is also oblivious to his faults such as his anger and foul language. The differences in characterization show the problems with the class system; the high moral characters are in the lower class while vulgar characters are found in the high class.
While the general population is not as familiar with Pygmalion as it is with My Fair Lady, Pygmalion is superior to its movie counterpart. First, Eliza's strong accent is more evident in the play due to the strange spelling of words; the confusion of the reader in deciphering these words mirror the Londoners' confusion in listening to Eliza. Second, Rex Harrison does not fully convey the volatile nature of Higgins; Higgins in Pygmalion is capable of going from happy to furious within one line and Harrison's emotions are similar to that of a wall.

I highly recommend Pygmalion because it is a classic that is enjoyable to read and better crafted than its more famous movie adaptation.

I thought that this book was a thoroughly enjoyable read. The book depicts the common belief of the people in early 20th century London that appearance and stature is far more important than education or beliefs. This belief, although not as extreme today, is still held by many. Shaw uses the two extremes of society at that time to tell a truly fascinating story of a young, poor woman, Eliza Doolittle, who is transformed into a lady of high class and style by a professor of phonetics, Henry Higgins. Although it is a play and it is difficult to know the characters' thoughts, Shaw details their actions to the point that allows the reader to feel they know the characters and feel like they were actually a part of the story. Shaw's combination of humor and expression of feeling perfectly offset each other so that the book never bores the reader. This book is a fairly easy read and gives the reader an accurate account of life in early 20th century London.

George Bernard Shaw uses of wit and insight into England's 1800s arrogant class system to show class is not bred, but made, and the highest class of people see no class at all, being humble enough to know we are equals. Shaw's "Pygmalion" was not written just to add to his wallet with its publication, but to influence society, much the same as Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist" and "David Copperfield" have.

As fun as the musical, "My Fair Lady" is, read Shaw's take on this old Greek myth.

From the plot of whether or not a pauper can made a princess to the subplot of love and true romance, the story is intertwined with memorable characters, delightful banter and intriguing thoughts.

Shaw's understanding of English's accents and how these separated the masses (do they still?) causes me in America to wonder if my Chicago-istic pronunciations affect how I am seen. What about African-American accents, or the New England accents? Does a Kentucky girl's accent come across as higher or lower class than her Alabama neighbors? How do I see others? Am I as affected?

Drop down a little cash, sneak this book into a larger order, and read, "Pygmalion." Review Edith Hamilton's book on mythology, discover who Shaw refers to (as in Galatea and Pygmalion, a fascinating story in its own right).

I fully recommend "Pygmalion" by George Bernard Shaw.

Anthony Trendl
editor, HungarianBookstore.com

This is a wonderful play to read. Henry Higgins and Colonel Pickering make a bet that they can take a poor flower girl, Eliza Doolitle, and pass her off as a duchess. The pair teaches her perfect English, manners, and how to dress like a lady. They succeed, but they don't realize Eliza has her own opinions. This play is great because you really get a feel for the early Victorian era and Shaw's feminist views.

Oliver Goldsmith (c. 1730-1774) was born to an English clergyman in Ireland and is often described as an "Anglo-Irish" author. Originally trained in theology, he later studied medicine and worked as an apothecary's assistant. Both then and now, critics regard the vast bulk of his writing as "hackwork"--poorly written material undertaken for the money offered. Even so, Goldsmith was indeed an exceptional and often innovative author when he put his mind to it, and his finest works rank with the best of his age. By most accounts Goldsmith wrote the comedy SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER in 1771; it was first performed in 1773 and has remained a favorite of the English stage ever since.

The play concerns the Hardcastle family, who are country gentry living living outside the common realm of English aristocracy of the day. Mr. Hardcastle dislikes "society" and frequently battles with his silly wife over his refusal to spend a season in London; Mrs. Hardcastle is in turn besotted Tony Lumpkin, her wayward son by a first marriage. Indeed, the only sensible member of the family is daughter Kate--and as the play begins she is told by her father that his choice for her husband, Charles Marlow, will arrive that very night. But things do not go as planned: due to a prank by Tony Lumpkin, Charles and his companion George arrive under the impression that Hardcastle's house is actually a roadside inn. Needless to say, complications abound, and Kate finds herself assuming the role of rural barmaid the better to study her intended and bring all complications to a happy resolution.

SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER is often considered a turning point in English theatre. Earlier comic authors tended to emphasize themes of hypocrisy for comic effect; Goldsmith certainly makes use of this, but instead of giving us cuckolds and strumpets he takes a more kindly point of view. His characters may sometimes be foolish and silly, but they are not so much vicious as playful and although the plot is farcical the situations are never unkind. The result is a charming confection of smiling entertainment. SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER has remained a favorite of the theatre for over two hundred years for a reason: it is as spritely, elegant, and amusing as it was when first produced. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

This play is a wonderful little comedic satire that is as funny now as when it was written in 1773. Mr. Goldsmith's characters are wonderful, and the storyline is funny without being "sappy". His characters are so very human! He does not shy away from exposing human frailities, and he does it in such a way that no one would take offence to it. His characters make common human mistakes based on misunderstandings and practical jokes, but his characters are not tragically changed from these occurences. They, as well as the audience, understand human frailties, and look upon these as things that help us grow. This is a jovial, friendly play that is well worth the time it takes to read it. I find that reading plays is a nice alternate to reading long novels. A little different from short stories. I like the economies of a play. So much is written and so much is implied all in five scenes.

SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER is one of the best plays to be written during the Restoration era. It's full of wit and great one liners, not to mention that it's a comic satire on the dramatic conventions of the day. The play is quite funny and when performed is one of the few "classical" (meaning anything pre-20th century) plays that all audiences seem to enjoy. Unfortunately, Goldsmith's masterpiece is seldom performed nowadays. Most American's have never heard of Oliver Goldsmith (is that the guy who directed PLATOON? is a typical response), let alone SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER. SHE STOOPS TO CONQUER instead tends to be one of those plays that everyone in theatre knows about, but that most people outside of the theatre universe don't even know exists. It's a shame because the play is a masterpiece of wit and comic timing and has so much to offer to modern day audiences.

This play is a rollicking satire on the British caste system of that era, seen through the mischief, mayhem, and mistaken identities of this work. Almost a must-read!

Few English plays dating from the eighteenth century appeal to modern audiences. For much of that period comedies were characterized by an exaggerated sentimentality and intense moralizing. Independently, the playwrights Oliver Goldsmith and Richard Brinsley Sheridan rejected this moralizing mode, returning to the English stage a humorous, mildly satirical form of comedy.

In a short period they created three plays that are still enjoyed today: She Stoops to Conquer (Goldsmith, 1773), The School for Scandal (Sheridan, 1775) and The Rivals (Sheridan, 1777).

In recent months I have read all three play. All are quite good, but I especially liked She Stoops to Conquer and The School for Scandal. While The School for Scandal is widely admired for its witty dialogue, She Stoops to Conquer offers the most hilarious situations.

The basic theme in She Stoops to Conquer is familiar. The guardians, her father Mr. Hardcastle and her aunt Mrs. Hardcastle, have arranged a suitable marriage for young Miss Hardcastle. She, of course, has other plans. Oliver Goldsmith adroitly transformed this overly used situation into delightful comedy. The plot is complicated by a shy suitor, friends with their own plans of elopement, and an unruly prankster, all leading to utter confusion in the rustic Hardcastle household. I quickly became engaged with the ridiculous happenings; I read She Stoops to Conquer in a single sitting. Five stars.

Possible Interest - Another Comedy and Two Moralizing Plays:

John Gay's The Beggar's Opera, first staged in 1728 in London, was another exception to the moralizing trend in the eighteenth century. This delightful, satirical comedy is considered the first modern musical. Five stars.

In the prologue to The Conscious Lovers (1722) Sir Richard Steele states his objective: "To chasten wit, and moralize the stage" and to "Redeem from long contempt the comic name". Steele's objective was to instruct and to ennoble rather than to amuse. Humor is clearly subordinate. Two stars (plus perhaps 1 star for historical interest).

George Lillo's moralizing melodrama, The London Merchant (1731), was a resounding success in the summer of 1731 and was apparently performed 179 times by 1776. Its repetitious moral lessons seemingly resonated with eighteenth century audiences. Three stars.

The Penguin Classics '01 paperback edition is laden with typographic errors. The spacing between individual letters is inconsistent on numerous occasions, which can be rather jarring to the eyes when "it" becomes "i t" whereas the rest of the line is densely packed. The typesetter even got the most brilliant idea by turning "flourish" into "∫tourish". Although I enjoyed reading the play, my experience was marred by these misprints.

I'm pleased with the purchase, I got what I expected and for little money. The delivery was timely and the product was in good shape.

GBS wrote play with "approaching audiences as citizens capable of thought and prompting them to think imaginatively to some purpose" in mind, as Margery Morgan says. And there are plenty for one to think seriously about in Major Barbara.

The most interesting is his conviction that no money is untainted. That's interesting because it means the donations and public fundings the environmentalists take in come from no less than the evil polluters themselves, perhaps feeling, which GBS rightly agreed, as the Salvation Army would that they "...will take money from the Devil himself sooner than abandon the work of Salvation." But GBS also wrote in the preface that while he is okay to accept tainted money, "He must either share the world's guilt or go to another planet." From what I can gather from the preface and play, GBS believed money is the key to solve all the problems we have, hence his mentioning of Samuel Butler and his "constant sense of the importance of money," and his low opinion of Ruskin and Kroptokin, for whom, "law is consequence of the tendency of human beings to oppress fellow humans; it is reinforced by violence." Kropotkin also "provides evidence from the animal kingdom to prove that species which practices mutual aid multiply faster than others. Opposing all State power, he advocates the abolition of states, and of private property, and the transforming of humankind into a federation of mutual aid communities. According to him, capitalism cannot achieve full productivity, for it amis at maximum profits instead of production for human needs. All persons, including intellectuals, should practice manual labor. Goods should be distributed according to individual needs." (Guy de Mallac, The Widsom of Humankind by Leo Tolstoy.)

If GBS wasn't joking, then the following should be one of the most controversial ideas he raised in the preface to the play. I quote: "It would be far more sensible to put up with their vices...until they give more trouble than they are worth, at which point we should, with many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them." Did he really mean that if you are a rapist once, you can be free and "put up with," but if you keep getting drunk (a vice), or slightly more seriously, stealing, you should be beheaded?

"Major Barbara" is a morality tale of a young woman, a Major in the Salvation Army, who finds her work supported by an arms dealer. Surprisingly, the arms dealer in the play, Undershaft, is witty, urbane, generous, industrious, and ruthless. He has some of the same rationalizations for what he does that contemporary arms dealers still use. He does not kill anyone. He does not start wars. He is in business. He creates jobs. If he did not do it, someone else would. Everyone does it, including governments. Poverty is the crime. Industry, including making armaaments, is the cure.

So, not much has changed. The world of the play is a complex web of moral ambiguity, hiding the most murderous of crimes. Or, are they really crimes at all? You be the judge.

This is a play worth reading. But if you are interested in the morals, or lack of them, in gun-running, and don't like reading plays, try "Lord of War," the film with Nicholas Cage.

So says Andrew Undershaft, the extremely wealthy owner of a tremendously successful English armaments business, in George Bernard Shaw's play "Major Barbara." Undershaft, whose self-proclaimed religion is his wealth and his industry, inherited the business from a long line of Andrew Undershafts, each of whom was a foundling adopted by the corresponding previous Andrew Undershaft. This is not to say that the Undershafts don't marry and have families -- the current Andrew Undershaft has married the aristocratic Lady Britomart and has three children by her; he just doesn't let them have anything to do with the family business, preferring to stick to the tradition of bringing in an outsider to perpetuate the Andrew Undershaft dynasty.

Indeed, Undershaft feels that poverty is the primordial crime from which all other crimes -- burglary, murder -- spring, and that it is better to give a poor man a job so he can afford to live rather than spend public money on methods of punishing him should he violate the law in his efforts to afford to live. Undershaft moralizes when he speaks, but in actuality he scoffs at what he considers ordinary Christian morals of the kind professed by his daughter Barbara, who has joined the Salvation Army in her fervid desire to help the poor and has attained the rank of major. She works at a shelter doling out bread and milk to the downtrodden and trying to find work for the unemployed, but her real goal is to bring them to "salvation" by raising them to a higher state of spirituality. When her fiance, a scholar of Greek named Adolphus Cusins, who by a certain twist of logic happens to be his own cousin, reveals himself to be a foundling, Undershaft decides he's found his heir.

Although the play reflects the perspectives that Shaw, as a Socialist, had on the effects of poverty on morality and society, he doesn't seem to take sides with his characters and instead lets them be funny within the context of their respective social classes. His idle rich characters are lovably comical, like the mentally vapid trio of Undershaft's son Stephen (who wouldn't know what to do with his father's armaments business even if he were qualified to inherit it), daughter Sarah, and her fiance Charles Lomax. His impoverished characters -- those who come to the Salvation Army shelter for handouts -- can be honorably industrious like Peter Shirley or pugnacious and troublesome like Bill Walker. If Undershaft, for all his willingness to feed his fortune by manufacturing items that shed the blood of millions, represents the right way to fix poverty and Barbara the wrong way, why is the play named after her? I think it's possibly because her morality is one with which most theatergoers of the day could identify, while Undershaft's is idiosyncratic to say the least.