Customer Reviews

Man and Superman (Bernard Shaw Library)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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."

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.

This book was hilarious, and the concept was so true. I could see my friends in some of the characters.

It seems that Shaw just couldn't resist showing us how crazy the human condition really is by his works that always include funny yet absolutely true twists on things, and his twist on the Don Juan tale is one of his best ones yet.
This story was smart and funny. I loved it and wanted more when it was over. I'll have to buy another one of his books. I just love his style.

I can't resist any chance I can get to peek into the mind of a genius, and Shaw was a true genius. This story was delightful and brilliant.

As a woman I have to agree with Shaw's theory to some extent. I've seen a lot of women chase after rogues they've perceived to be strong. The nesting instinct is a strange thing, causing women to desire the men least likely to settle down. Shaw takes this theory and runs with it producing a hilarious and thought provoking masterpiece with engaging characters entangled in the most interesting and entertaining situations.

Shaw is my favorite of the Victorian playwrights. His works were revolutionary in many ways. Use of humor was rare and exceptional for playwrights during that era, but Shaw was not afraid to make audiences laugh. He also tackled serious moral, political, and social issues in his plays at a time when sappy dramas were all the rage. He was truly bold and innovative and greatly contributed to dramatic art. He had an amazing gift, the ability to make people think while simultaneously making them laugh.

Reading Shaw's works are a genuine treat. All of his plays are fabulous. His characters are memorable, and his humor is brilliant.
This is a wonderful book, charming, significant, and insightful. I can't recommend it enough.

I am suprised that nobody so far wrote about the realization as radio drama. Ralph Fiennes is a marvellous Jack Tanner with loads of monologues, Juliet Stevenson a sneaky Ann, all the well chosen speakers (star-studded cast) act so sophisticated that they come alive and you feel yourself amidst the scenery. The text is extremely funny for somebody who likes sarcasm and double meanings, so I felt very much entertained.

I appreciate some of what Shaw writes in his introduction, his propositions about relationships between men and women and the need to strive for a humanity that transcends baser human behavior and elevates the race above the current rabble. However, some classist and more-knowledge-able-than-thou language along with misguided eugenics seem to dilute his arguments. He mentions a handbook of the revolution following the play that will tell more. The free Kindle edition doesn't include the pamphlet, a big disappointment and likely an omission that may have improved my rating had it been included and had it added to what was said in the play.

Earlier reviews mention that the play is hilarious and eye-opening. I didn't find the play funny. It starts out confusing, with two men being proposed as guardians for a grown woman whose father has died--one of the men is equal in age to her. The play consists of shallow elitists and stereotypical characters written so falsely that the message is nearly lost; perhaps I didn't catch the sarcasm. There is an absence of emotion towards each other; all are ruled by selfish desires and sentimentality with Shaw reducing every relationship to logic without emotion or empathy and little evidence of caring, compassion, or grace. I am still somewhat confused as to how Shaw proposes the way relationships with the potential to produce "Supermen" ought to be negotiated, but it seems he believes that subterfuge and pretense are favorable over mutual respect and shared goals. If he is being sarcastic, the sarcasm may be more distracting than illuminative.

The play seems less a manifesto on how to advance humanity than it does an illustration of prejudicial attitudes towards women by fearful men at the pre-suffrage turn of the twentieth century, as well as a palliative for pious humans who strive to live in a way that might advance the species fearing consequences in the afterlife from a vengeful god. Given twenty-first century culture, this play, for me, has little to offer on current relationships between individuals, between classes, or between humans and their gods.

Shaw turns Don Juan on its head in this analysis of the "Don Juanita". We know what attracts men to women, but what attracts women to men, though similar, is far more complex. Shaw has a great sense of irony and a wonderful grip on what makes people tick, and here he uses those gifts to give us a topsy-turvy Don Juan masterwork.
I chuckled all the way though this and just could not put the book down. There's plenty of comedy to be found in romantic attraction and Shaw manages to find all of it. Though it's a very humorous work, there's also a serious message that will leave every reader with something to think about.
George Bernard Shaw created numerous masterpieces over the span of his writing career. He has the distinction of being the only person to ever be awarded both an Oscar and the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was a very humble and conscientious man, a political activist and a vegetarian. His conscientiousness shows in his work by his inability to write meaningless fluff at a time when fluff dominated the stage. His trademark is his classic use of ample humor in dramas with serious subject matter. It takes a special kind of genius to be able to pull that off as flawlessly as he did.

This review is for the 1962 Heritage edition in the brown pebbled slipcase.

Heritage really went to town with their edition of Man and Superman. Bound in half-cloth, and half-marbled paper with a blind-stamped urn emblem and gold print, it is extensively illustrated by Charles Mozely in tones of russet, puce, green, and brown. Fully illustrated pastedowns and prelims. Over 40 incidental illustrations in sanguine and six 5-color full page illustrations.

The introduction is a personal reminiscence by Sir Lewis Casson, apparently written for this edition, who played Octavius Robinson in the original production! Shaw's Epistle Dedicatory is present.

And, most charming: the John Tanner Revolutionist's Handbook is separately printed in cheap-looking bright red (of course) stapled wraps lodged in a special inset cut into the slipcase.

This review is for the 1962 Heritage edition in the brown pebbled slipcase.

Heritage really went to town with their edition of Man and Superman. Bound in half-cloth, and half-marbled paper with a blind-stamped urn emblem and gold print, it is extensively illustrated by Charles Mozely in tones of russet, puce, green, and brown. Fully illustrated pastedowns and prelims. Over 40 incidental illustrations in sanguine and six 5-color full page illustrations.

The introduction is a personal reminiscence by Sir Lewis Casson, apparently written for this edition, who played Octavius Robinson in the original production! Shaw's Epistle Dedicatory is present.

And, most charming: the John Tanner Revolutionist's Handbook is separately printed in cheap-looking bright red (of course) stapled wraps lodged in a special inset cut into the slipcase.