George Bernard Shaw Books

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.

To prick a thorn out of a lion's foot one will surely gain new friends and old enemies. The story of Androcles, a Christian who is about to be sent to the lions for being a heretic in the Roman Empire. A cynical, humerous, poignant, and hypocritical story of religion versus humanism. The book is intended with the introduction with Shaw's discourse on Jesus and Christianity. Although I found it dryly written, which some wit involved, he makes some good remarks on the problems of Christianity. Mainly is the devout in which they will surely go to the lions before giving up their gods. Hypocritically the Romans could care less who their gods were or whether they believed in them, so long it was not a Christian god. The introduction acts as a set-up to put one in the mind set of Shaw and to understand his point of view which makes the play that much easier to understand and funnier to read. The play itself is a wonderful entry into the classics of the thearter.

Do not be tempted to pass over the essay that begins this book. It is a delightfully thought provoking essay that sets up the story of the play. Shaw writes of his views of organized religon with support for his thesis. It is important to read this before diving into the play itself.

The play is wonderful, but the theater program must be 200 pages long. You need all the 111 pages before the play to get all of the meanings of the play.

Androcles and the Lion is an allegorical work which points out that kindness is not necessarity altruistic - it can be of worth. Shaw's writing is brilliant and well worth the reading.

I first this read this book in Baltimore, MD at the tender age of 7, 1952. I thought that I would never see this book again in my life time. But fate has it that I'm able to read it again. I've used this book in my lectures and motivational speeches. Because I love the message that it portrays and illustrate to children as it did mine. Thanks for letting me share. I'm 57 yo now.

I teach 7th grade learning disabled students world history and I use Androceles and the Lion to teach sequencing skills. After I read the story, I ask the students to number in order in which they occur, several events in the story.

Wagner, it's often said, has had more books written about him than anyone in history with the exceptions of Napoleon and Jesus Christ. This is one of the most fascinating, coming as it does from George Bernard Shaw, a penetrating music critic under the pen-name Corno di Bassetto as well as the familiar dramatist.

This is GBS's take on Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung. It is a predictable mix of Shavian wit, perception and frustratingly obstinate didacticism. There is no doubt about the seriousness with which Shaw takes this massive work. He clearly sees it, still fairly fresh in people's experience as it was when his book was written, as one of the seminal works of his time. He writes to prove how much deeper its philosophy was than the simple charming fairy tale many took it for at the time. That he sees it essentially as a Shavian/Fabian fable is hardly surprising. If the book has a weakness it is, as Deryck Cooke points out in his excellent `I Saw the World End', that the whole argument is too narrow, too one-track to accommodate the many facets and many different interpretations that can all, quite justifiably, be placed on the Ring. This of all operatic works is bigger than any of its commentators. Even Shaw was aware of that.

"Only those of wider consciousness can follow it breathlessly, seeing in it the whole tragedy of human history and the whole horror of the dilemmas from which the world is shrinking today," he wrote.

When he wrote the book, Shaw intended it for the Wagner novice, helping them to a fuller understanding of the work - or, at least, how he saw it. It perhaps shouldn't be recommended for that purpose these days, but it still remains an essential read for anyone who has already started down the road to becoming a Perfect Wagnerite. Chances are you won't agree with some/most/any of it. But it is still a fascinating read for anyone with a serious interest in Wagner's works.

I have read almost all of Shaw's published works which have come within my reach. I see the deterioration in the quality of his work as the aging process set in, and of his defense of such people as Djerjinski and Stalin. When he is profound, he is very profound and when he is off the mark he is way out in zoonieland. This book, fortunately, shows more of his great skill at criticism and assimilation of background data than his equally great skill at polemics. Remember, the compositionof the _Ring_ was an event of the past for him, and he was able to use historical source material. But what caught my attention was that the London newspapers of his own day ran letters trying to reconcile the "Brunhilde problem" in _Gotterdamerung_. All of this was a burning issue to the London intelligentsia. But, to the point: BUY this book because it is HILARIOUS, in the best sense of that word. This is Shaw, maybe not at his level best, but close to it. Learn while you laugh! The ideas propounded in this book have been burned into my memory because I have read them over and over. Read this book if you can appreciate subtle jokes.

If we're going to have a voice worthy of critiquing the great master, it might as well be Shaw. For those who have not read any Shaw, he's a wickedly entertaining writer, though a bit high brow at times. This is a book for the Wagnerite and the layman alike, but expect to get a little insulted if you belong to the latter category. As to the philosophies in this little book, just about everyone who likes the Ring has their own unique opinion about its deep political/spiritual meanings, including Shaw. And although everything he writes seems obvious enough to him, I can't say I'm completely convinced by all his ideas. The book is certainly worth reading, however, just to hear the Shaw's elegant take on the musical masterpiece. (also, at least some of his ideas must be right) Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the book is its attack on Gotterdammerung, the beloved finale of the Ring. Shaw argues it is nearly devoid of underlying meaning and is a superficial conclusion to an otherwise philosophically sound work. As a final note, I appreciate the Mark Twain-like ascerbic criticism of society which seems incorrigibly imprinted in Shaw's style. This book is entertaining, and in certain places, profound. I give it four stars. (maybe 5 if he hadn't criticized Brahms!)

About twenty years ago, the BBC World Service introduced me to readings from G. B. Shaw's musical criticisms. The readings showed me that critique is as much an art as the subject of the critique. This pamphlet is a shining example of Shaw's art of criticism. Shaw presents the story, he gives some musical analysis, but most of all he presents the "Ring" in a philosophical and politcal slant that only Shaw could do. I suspect that the philosophy and politics are more Shaw's than Wagner's. Great for thosw who like Wagner and G.B.Shaw. Good for someone new to Der Ring des Nibelungen.

Great Book! By providing the reader with both plays the reader can draw his own conclusion wether he likes one or the other. THe package arrived on time as promised.

This is an amazing story. It has a great heart and humor, and you love the characters, despite their faults. Eliza and Professor Higgins are both terrific. This is definatly worth reading.

The play, My Fair Lady, was a delightful comedy

It's loverly, loverly, loverly! I couldn't stop reading it. I've seen the movie aout a gazillion times, and I have three recordings of "My Fair Lady" (The Original Broadway Cast and London Cast, both with Julie Andrews, and the movie Soundtrack), and the book is just what I needed. I could often quote the movie, and as my friend Mishi said, I'm "a perfect Eliza!", but the book's just wonderful. It's going to help me do this on stage one day . . .

I had never heard of this book and was expecting something quite different from what was presented...you know black savage being saved and enlightened by her white "betters" what I found was something quite different a black character who is intelligent, thoughtful and able to think for herself, highly recommended

The title piece in this anthology is a parable on the nature of religious belief. When first published in 1932 it caused quite a stir and I wondered whether the intervening 75 years might have rendered it something less of a shocker. I found that, apart from one violation of current political correctness and a few inevitable stylistic issues, the message had lost none of its poignancy and perhaps little of its ability to shock.

The Black Girl in Search of God is not a novel or a novella. It is not really a short story either. I choose to describe it as a parable because others have, but equally it could be classed alongside Plato's symposium as a vehicle for examining a philosophical idea. It's not a discourse, but it could be a meditation, albeit a rather energetic one. The idea in question, of course, is the nature of religious belief.

The Black Girl of the title is only cast as such, I think, to provide Shaw with a literary vehicle to convey his otherwise naïve questions about Christianity. To this end, The Black Girl is presented as a "noble savage", and thus a tabula rasa. It is here - and only here - that Shaw violates current correctness. The character could have been cast as a child, but then she could not have threatened to wield her knobkerrie, her weapon, and nor could she have been portrayed as bringing no tradition of her own. We must accept, therefore, that there remains a functionality about the role of this character. She does not represent anything, except her ability to ask the questions she is required to ask.

The Black Girl has been converted to Christianity by a young British woman who has taken delight in amorously jilting a series of vicars. She then becomes a missionary, despite her clearly thin grasp of the subject matter. She is, perhaps, an allegory of colonial expansion. She goes abroad to teach others despite not having achieved fulfilment or knowledge in her own life. It might be important that the teacher and the taught are both women.

When her convert starts asking questions, fundamental questions that the missionary herself has never heard asked, never mind answered, she reverts to invention, not scholarship. Shaw's intention is clear. She invents myth to mystify myth. And this cloak satisfies the curiosity of the average Christian, but not The Black Girl, who thus goes off in search of God.

And, guided by snakes, she finds Him. And not just once, because there is more than one God in the Bible she carries. There is the God of Wrath, who demands the sacrifice of her child. When she cannot comply, He demands she find her father so he can sacrifice her. A good part of the Bible thus disappears from her new-found faith.

She meets an apparent God of Love, but he laughs at Job for being so naively and blindly devout. More of her book blows away.

She meets prophets who, one by one, deliver their different messages, most of which conflict and communicate individual political positions or bigotry rather than personal revelation.

On the way she belittles Imperial power and male domination. She learns that most "civilised" countries have given up on God and hears a plea that people like her should not be taught things that the mother country no longer believes.

Scientists offer her equally conflicting opinions. They are careful only to describe, never to conclude or interpret. In a way, they are just modern prophets, each with their own interested positions.

There is an amazing episode where a mathematician implores her to consider complex numbers, the square root of minus x, which The Black Girl hears as Myna sex or perhaps its homophone minor sex, and is clearly a reference to feminism. Along with economic power and male dominance, The Black Girl sees guns as the highest achievement of white society. This anticipates the description of colonialism's trinity in Ngugi's Petals of Blood.

Then, in a strange section, an Arab discusses belief with a conjuror. These appear to be a pair of major prophets in thin disguise. But their discussions merely confuse the girl and their words skirt her questions.

And so she meets an Irishman, marries and settles down. She devotes herself to him, their coffee-coloured children and the fruits of their garden. Note that she does not devote herself to herself. She projects out, does not analyse within. And in this utterly humanist universe she finds not only personal happiness, but also fulfilment and, with that, answers to her own metaphysical questions that religion per se could not even address.

And so, as the parable closes, we ponder whether the Irishman she marries is Shaw, and whether The Black Girl is the questioning, non-racist, non-sexist, socialist and humanist vision of the future he has personally espoused.

And as for the Lesser Tales, they are generally lesser. Don Giovanni explaining himself was fun and the Death of an Old Revolutionary Hero was prescient of the role of the Socialist Workers' Party adopted in maintaining Margaret Thatcher in power in the 1980s. A great, historical and fundamentally contemporary read.

The prolific Irish author and playwright George Bernard Shaw lived from 1856 to 1950, and was vegetarian for the last seventy years of his life, living in England.

The recipes in this book are those devised for Shaw by his cook and housekeeper of the last seven years of his life, Mrs. Alice Laden, who worked for him during and after World War II. I was interested to see what sorts of vegetarian dishes were available and eaten at that time, and also to see if I could find some different dishes for use in my own kitchen.

I was not disappointed. Many of the dishes are delicious, and not something one finds in today's vegetarian cookbooks. Shaw ate for main courses potato nut patties, lentil rice roast, or pinto and cornbread pie. I had feared seeing nothing but variations on macaroni and cheese, but here are found lima bean shepherd's pie, cabbage au gratin, and almond-stuffed onions, main courses all. There are also numerous tasty sauces, side dishes, souffles, and desserts.

A caveat or two: If you are a visually oriented cook who likes to see photos of the finished product or steps in the making of a dish, you will not find that here. There are no pictures of the food. There are charming line drawings of a Shaw-looking character in various stages of dining. Another thing to note is that there seems herein a great deal of use of butter and white flour by today's health-conscious standards. I expect, however, that substitutions to olive oil and whole grain flours may be tried successfully if desired.

All in all, an interesting historical artifact in which delightful uncommon and useful recipes can be found.

I first got this book about 18 years ago, when I first became a vegetarian. I was overwhelmed by the modern books that have 20-30 items in a single recipe since vegetarian cooking was so new to me.

This book is fun, sweet, and has absolutely delicious (as wierd as the ingredients sound) recipes! They are also great for anyone on a budget!

The layout is so wonderful and the drawings great! Few recipes have more than 4-5 items in them - easy to follow, fun to make, and delicious to eat!

Connie

GB Shaw is a world class Irish dramatist. If you have not read these plays, add them to your life experience. Each provides reward in immeasurable ways.

Shaw is the Irish playwright who wrote for the British stage. It was a challenge to get used to his ornate style of prose and his large vocabulary. Shaw seems to be rather impressed with his cleverness, which I suppose is forgivable. There are some essays in the book about the plays and the difficult life of being a playwright and critic. Shaw states that it's hard to write something that will sell tickets and yet have a serious message too. He always wanted to get a point across in his plays. One of his quibbles with Shakesphere is that his plays did not have a serious profound message about life or the world, although he praises his language mastery and characterization.

Shaw believed in "awful" things as a Fabian Socialist. He thought that people should be paid a decent living wage for their labor. Expect to read about greedy, miserly, uncompassionate businessmen in his plays. He also liked to target hypocrisy in people, like most playwrights. Most of his characters are prim and proper in action and speech, even when advocating free love and anarchy. Shaw also liked to make fun of his own left wing political compatriots. Shaw seems to have a lighthearted personality intermixed with seriousness. He could also be elitist at times. My favorite epigram of his was: "The conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery."

My favorite play in the book was Mrs. Warren's Profession which deals with a woman who decides to become a high class prostitute and procuress because it beats working in a factory or restaurant for long hours and low wages. Although she pays for her daughter's college education, her daughter coldly rejects her after finding out about her profession.

Shaw has a lot of other standard types of characters you encounter in literature and theatre such as the poetic, effeminate young man who falls for the older married woman. Shaw also creates a rebel who is actually shown in a better light than a pastor. His women characters can be either strong or silly. In Man and Superman, he seems to suggest that the man who is romantic and worships women never marries, but the man who is cynical about them ends up getting the girl. Is he right? I didn't really think so. I thought women liked men who worshipped them.

Two parting questions come to mind regarding Shaw. What would Shaw think of the anarchists and socialists of today? What would he think about Man and Superman inpiring the diehard racist and anti-Semite William Pierce?

In the story "My Fair Lady", George Bernard Shaw tells about how the attitude of people can change just by the language that they speak. He begins by telling about Eliza Doolittle and how all her life she has talked and acted like none of the people around her. She talks incorrectly and acted like a slob. But she meets these two men, Henry Higgins and Colonal Pickering and they take he in and end up changing her into a prim and proper lady who talks and acts correctly. I really enjoy this story because it makes me think about how people in that day and age would actually take someone under their wing and take the time to teach them the correct way to speak and act. This is a really good book and I encourage anyone that has the time to read it.

"My Fair Lady" is one of the few musicals ever written that will be remembered years and years from now and for one very simple reason: every song is a masterpiece! It's not like the musicals of today that may have one or even two songs that stand out from the rest as a true work of art. This book gives you page after page of pure musical genius! For all of you who know and love "My Fair Lady" or for those of you who are just interested in good music, this book is a must-have.

This would be an excellent collection to have for anyone looking for a taste of Shaw's basic philosophies about socialism--and of course, a good way of finding out how his writing suits you.

Some thought provoking social statements are made in all four plays, though some of the prefaces might be more informative about the author than the plays themselves. Great witticisms and depsite the sometimes heavy philosophy, the reading is light and quick. The last play, Man And Superman, perhaps his most significant play in terms of philosophy, pure and simple, would be fun reading but the socialist's handbook given at the end would definitely not be everyone's cup of tea, unless they're philosophy students. This can be skipped without spoiling the play though, which contains some of the most excellent dialogue I've come across in a play with philosophical overtones.

All Oscar Wilde and Chesterton lovers would appreciate the epigrams and the witty one-liners. If for nothing else, Shaw is worth reading for his lovely style of execution, the flowing conversations and some uncanny insight.

This should be required reading just for the "Don Juan in Hell" act of Man and Superman --an excerpt "Your friends 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...."

One of my science teachers recited this famous speech in the lab one day, just to show off, and I started appreciating Shaw. Funny thing is that of all the playwrights, GBS is the best just to read. Except for Pygmalion and maybe Arms and the Man, most of Shaw's plays are too "talky" to stage well, but read like short stories. If you haven't read them, you are in for a treat.

This one-day read was amusing and clever. The witty banter and characterization of Eliza Doolittle the 'guttersnipe' and Henry Higgins the restless Phonetics teacher, sets the tone of the play, and the humour maintains itself. This was my introduction to the work of George Bernard Shaw, and on the back of this one I'm ready to dip right into another of his works. 'Pygmalion' is a quintessential 19th century text, as it deals with the sensibilities of the day, especially Victorian prudery. Henry Higgins has a bet with his friend Colonel Pickering, that he can pass this "squashed cabbage leaf" (Miss Doolittle) off as a duchess in 6 months. Decked out in finery and with her new, deliberate and well-mannered tongue, Eliza debuts at a London reception, rendering everyone awe-struck by her startling beauty and refinement. Higgins laps up the success of his protege, gloating and dismissing the possibility that it was Eliza's quick learning that made him win the bet. Higgin's godlike power over Eliza underlines book's sexist subtext. Eliza is abused and bullied by her professor, remaining the object of his ridicule, irrespective of her new-found station in life. The ending of this book surprised me, and Shaw interrupts the play format to conclude it in prose. I found 'Pygmalion' enjoyable, and would recommend it to those seeking insight into 19th century ways of thinking, or simply those seeking a hearty and amusing read. Note: this is the DEFINITIVE TEXT version of the play.

Published as a play in 1916, 'Pygmalion' is one of Shah's play
not heavy on philosophy. I, personally feel that his plays heavy
on philosophy are his best - 'Man and Superman', 'St.
Joan', 'Androcles and the Lion' et al. Among his plays of 'not
heavy on philosophy' genre, I rate 'Pygmalion' as one of the
best. It is full of fun, gaiety, humor, Shavian wit and is a wee
bit didactic. As Shaw wrote in the preface of 'Man and
Superman', that all good, great writing should be didactic. So,
even in the mildly didactic 'Pygmalion', Shaw had more than one
axe to grind so to say.

The central theme of Pygmalion is the gift of speech in human
beings. Shaw has tried to depict as to how a person speaks
affects their own personality and the people around. As a
corollary to this theme, Shaw hoped to popularize the science of
phonetics. In the short preface of the play, Shaw also makes a
plea for enhancement of the English alphabet (with it's too few
vowels and few consonants) to make English reading pronunciation
rational. Both his wishes of popularizing phonetics and getting
the English alphabet enlarged remain unfulfilled even today,
perhaps a measure of how much ahead of the times he was or still
is!

The locale is London's Covent Garden vegetable market. The time
is late night. It is pouring heavily, everybody is seeking the
shelter of a church's portico. Among the shelter seekers is an
impoverished, bedraggled flower girl Liza with a terrible
cockney accent. Liza is trying to peddle her flowers to the
crowd of shelter seekers. A middle-aged gentleman, professor
Higgins is taking down her speech (in Bells Visible Speech) in
his notebook. Professor Higgins is an eccentric phonetician,
expert on London accents and can place a person by their accent
to the street they originate from. One other shelter seeker is
an ex-military man, Colonel Pickering (also middle aged) with a
deep interest in phonetics. As professor Higgins Colonel
Pickering get talking, Higgins bemoans the terrible accent of
Liza (most depressing and disgusting sounds) and boasts that if
given a chance to teach and train her to speak for three months,
he could pass her off as a duchess on the basis of her fine way
of speaking! It comes about that Colonel Pickering is willing to
bear the expense of teaching Liza to speak by Higgins. The rest
of the play is about Liza 'the live doll' learning to speak like
a Duchess from two confirmed bachelors Higgins and Pickering and
whether they are able to pass her off as a duchess.

The woman protagonist character of the play Liza like all Shaw's
woman protagonist character is strong willed and assertive.
Having to endure during her learning the overbearing ways,
domineering mien, downright bullying from a socially superior
Higgins her teacher, she manages to hold her own. In the latter
stages of the play, she even manages to get the better of him
and Higgins has to tamely acknowledge that he has made a 'woman'
of her after all. (a lame defence) Although there is a romantic
angle, (Liza and Freddy) the relationship between Liza vis-à-vis
Higgins and Pickering are pivotal, focal relationships of the
play. The Liza, Freddy romance is a relegated affair. I feel
only Shaw could do this i.e. make a non-romantic relationship so
interesting over the other. But then Shaw loved debunking
popular notions. All in all a much readable play.