What do you think?
Rate this book
الإنسان والسلاح
Arms and the Man is a comedy written by George Bernard Shaw, and was first produced in 1894 and published in 1898, and has become one of the most popular plays of George Bernard Shaw. Like his other works, Arms and the Man questions conventional values and uses war and love as his satirical targets.
This edition of Arms and the Man is in the form of a paperback book.
This edition of Arms and the Man is in the form of a paperback book.
101 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1898
207 people are currently reading
6,042 people want to read
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
1,877books3,981followersGeorge Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 600 reviews
April 3, 2025
When Shaw first presented his Arms and the Man to British audiences in 1894, he was capping off his pet project of waking up young audiences to the necessities of social reform and a wide-awake, realistic grappling with the jingoistic attitude of the Victorian Old Guard, which now had to be discarded as Europe armed its military to the teeth.
The bloodbath of Trench Warfare was to commence in exactly twenty years� time, and Shaw was playing Casandra to Europe’s sleeping Trojans.
Of course it didn’t work.
But he shouted anyway from the rooftops of Doomed Troy: “sleepers, awake!�
Audiences loved it. But they couldn’t see past the obvious laughs.
And they couldn’t SEE themselves in young Raina, the main character, living a sleepy life of genteel idleness amid a military family and a dashing military fiancé.
But Raina would have told them all in no uncertain terms by the end of the play, that She Did it All for a very Real, Adult Love (ie, she changed her choice of husband-to-be) rather than opt for the empty glory - and resultant death and nothingness - of all that wartime Glitz and Glam inherent in her family’s jingoism.
Shaw hoped that the young ladies for whom he wrote his Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism would discard that illusory militaristic glory in favour of his clear-seeing pacifism.
And so influence the voice of nations in order that tragedy might be averted.
But, as will always be the case, the Trojans were more enchanted by Glitz, Glam and the Free Gift of Awesomely Lifelike Wooden Horses than they were worried about hysterical dames who screamed from their watch tower.
They kept their new Baby but threw out the pessimistic Bathwater.
Just as all the young ladies loved the invincible ARMS of the time that endlessly fortified their glorious country, more than the doomed MAN beneath the glorious uniform.
Do we, as well, prefer glitz and glam to the glory of real love?
And in our turn, in our day - are we so easily swayed by our glamorous electronic diversions that we shut out the only Reality that could, Alas, have taught us real glory:
The ordinary, loving reality of a simple, unplugged, everyday life?
The bloodbath of Trench Warfare was to commence in exactly twenty years� time, and Shaw was playing Casandra to Europe’s sleeping Trojans.
Of course it didn’t work.
But he shouted anyway from the rooftops of Doomed Troy: “sleepers, awake!�
Audiences loved it. But they couldn’t see past the obvious laughs.
And they couldn’t SEE themselves in young Raina, the main character, living a sleepy life of genteel idleness amid a military family and a dashing military fiancé.
But Raina would have told them all in no uncertain terms by the end of the play, that She Did it All for a very Real, Adult Love (ie, she changed her choice of husband-to-be) rather than opt for the empty glory - and resultant death and nothingness - of all that wartime Glitz and Glam inherent in her family’s jingoism.
Shaw hoped that the young ladies for whom he wrote his Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism would discard that illusory militaristic glory in favour of his clear-seeing pacifism.
And so influence the voice of nations in order that tragedy might be averted.
But, as will always be the case, the Trojans were more enchanted by Glitz, Glam and the Free Gift of Awesomely Lifelike Wooden Horses than they were worried about hysterical dames who screamed from their watch tower.
They kept their new Baby but threw out the pessimistic Bathwater.
Just as all the young ladies loved the invincible ARMS of the time that endlessly fortified their glorious country, more than the doomed MAN beneath the glorious uniform.
Do we, as well, prefer glitz and glam to the glory of real love?
And in our turn, in our day - are we so easily swayed by our glamorous electronic diversions that we shut out the only Reality that could, Alas, have taught us real glory:
The ordinary, loving reality of a simple, unplugged, everyday life?
May 2, 2022
Arms and the Man, George Bernard Shaw
The play takes place during the 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War. Its heroine, Raina Petkoff, is a young Bulgarian woman engaged to Sergius Saranoff, one of the heroes of that war, whom she idolizes. On the night after the Battle of Slivnitza, a Swiss mercenary soldier in the Serbian army, Captain Bluntschli, climbs in through her bedroom balcony window and threatens to shoot Raina if she gives the alarm.
When Russian and Bulgarian troops burst in to search the house for him, Raina hides him so that he won't be killed. He asks her to remember that "nine soldiers out of ten are born fools."
In a conversation after the soldiers have left, Bluntschli's pragmatic and cynical attitude towards war and soldiering shocks the idealistic Raina, especially after he admits that he uses his ammunition pouches to carry chocolates rather than cartridges for his pistol. When the search dies down, Raina and her mother Catherine sneak Bluntschli out of the house, disguised in one of Raina's father's old coats.
The war ends, and the Bulgarians and Serbians sign a peace treaty. Raina's father (Major Paul Petkoff) and Sergius both return home. Raina begins to find Sergius both foolhardy and tiresome, but she hides it. Sergius also finds Raina's romantic ideals tiresome, and flirts with Raina's insolent servant girl Louka (a soubrette role), who is engaged to Nicola, the Petkoffs' manservant. Bluntschli unexpectedly returns so that he can give back the old coat, but also so that he can see Raina. Raina and Catherine are shocked, especially when Major Petkoff and Sergius reveal that they have met Bluntschli before and invite him to stay for lunch (and to help them figure out how to send the troops home). ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «سربا� شکلاتی»� «مرد و اسلحه»؛ «نمایشهای� خوشآیند»� «مرد سرنوشت»؛ «اسلحه و انسان»؛ «سلاح و مرد»؛ نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی و یکم ماه ژانویه سال2021میلادی
عنوان: سربا� شکلاتی� نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ مترج�:� سیمین� دانشور� دیباچه: جلال آل احمد؛ تهران، نشر ؟، سال1328؛ ، در116ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نشر روزنه، سال1393؛ شابک9789643344498؛ موضوع نمایشنامه های نویسندگان ایرلند - سده19م
عنوان: مرد و اسلحه؛ نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ مترج�:� علاء الدین پازارگادی؛ تهران، نشر امیرکبیر، سال1380؛ در195ص؛ شابک9640007579؛ عنوان دیگر مرد سرنوشت (جوانی ناپلئون)؛
عنوان: نمایشهای� خوشآیند� نویسنده: برنار� شاو� مترج� محمو� محر� خمامی� تهران، نشرهای افکار، تجربه؛ سال1383؛ در دو جلد؛ جلد یک کاندید، مرد سرنوشت؛ جلد دو نمیشود پیش بینی کرد، اسلحه و انسان؛
مرد و اسلحه، یا «سرباز شکلاتی» نمایشنامه ای� از «جرج برنارد شاو» است؛ روانشاد خانم «سیمین دانشور» این نمایشنامه را با نام «سرباز شکلاتی» به فارسی برگردان کرده اند؛ این ترجمه نخستین بار به کارگردانی «الول ساتن» در اردیبهشت سال1326خورشیدی؛ در تالار «گرین روم تهران» با بازی «بهرام دریابیگی» و «محمدعلی ایثاری» و «صادق چوبک» و «نظام شفا» و «ملوک کریک» و «ایران میکلزاده� و «پری خلیلی» به نمایش درآمد؛
در این نمایشنامه، انسانها� «شاو»، اگر هم، به جنگ رفته اند� پیداست که بر خلاف میل خود، دست به چنان کاری زده اند� پیداست که در مکان مناسب خود نیستند؛ آدمهائ� هستند، که وقتی سلاح به دوش گرفته اند� به صورت مسخره ا� درآمده؛ و از صورت انسانی خود، خارج شده اند� و برای روپوش نهادن، به همین مسخرگی است، که دائما به خودشان، و به یکدیگر تلقین میکنند� که (در این جنگ وظیفه خود را انجام دادیم؛ بهترین کاری را که میتوانستیم� کردیم.)؛ معانی واژه هایی همچون «فداکاری»، «میهنپرستی� و «انجام وظیفه»، که به ویژه در میان ما، صورتها� مبتذلی، به خود گرفته اند� در این نمایشنامه، به شکل «فرار»، «غنیمت پرستی� و «قالب کردن اسبها� مردنی»، درآمده اند؛ آدمهائ� که در آثار «برنارد شاو» میآیند� و میروند� از هر طبقه ا� که باشند، میدانند� چه میخواهند� آدمها� بیگنا� و معصومی نیستند، که گرفتار دست سرنوشت شده باشند ـ اصلاً سرنوشت در کارهای اسشان نقشی ندارد ـ همه، هدفها� خودشان را میشناسند� و با شعور و ادراکی متناسب، با وضع خودشان، در صدد بدست آوردن آن هستند
مترجم روانشاد «سیمین دانشور» چند واژه در باره ی این کتاب مینویسند: (این نمایشنامه در متن انگلیسی اش «سلاح و مرد» نام دارد؛ خود نویسنده درباره ی اسم گذاری، علت و طرز انتشار آن مینویسد: ـ من که تا آن وقت جز نمایشنامه های ناشاد چیز دیگری در دست نداشتم، به عجله نخستین نمایشنامه شاد خود را کامل کردم و آن را ـ سلاح و مرد ـ نامیدم؛ و این اسم را از نخستین سطر «ویرژیل» ـ اثر ـ «درایدن» ـ گرفته ام؛ ولی در ترجمه ی آن لازم بود برای نشان دادن روح اصلی نمایشنامه، به خواننده فارسی زبان، نام «سرباز شکلاتی» برگزیده شود؛ گرچه شاید اگر این ترجمه با همین اسم روی صحنه نیامده بود، لازم بود اسم اصلی آن را به رویش گذاشت؛ اصل نمایشنامه در سال1894میلادی نوشته شده و بار اول از روز بیست و یکم ماه آوریل تا روز هفتم ماه ژوئیه همان سال در «لندن» روی صحنه آمده است؛ نیز باید تذکر داد که این نمایشنامه اولین اثر «برنارد شاو» است که در «امریکا» نمایش داده شد
...
اکنون به خود نمایشنامه بپردازم؛ شخصیتهای آن آدمهای پیچیده و پر از اسراری نیستند که برای روی صحنه آوردنشان دچار اشکالی بتوان شد؛ آدمهائی هستند خونسرد، شوخ و حسابدان و در کار خود استاد؛ «بلانچی» قبل از اینکه یک افسر داوطلب «سوئیسی» در قشون «صربستان» باشد، پیداست که یک انگلیسی خونسرد و کارکشته است؛ یک «برناردشاو» است؛ هر کدامشان حسابگرند؛ و اسراری را که از دیگران میدانند به آسانی از دست نمیدهند؛ شاید در نظر شما خنده دار بیاید، که بشنوید یک افسر ادعا میکند در جنگ، شکلات بیش از فشنگ، برایش ارزش دارد؛ ولی باید به جای «بلانچلی» بود، تا مفهوم این ادعا را درک کرد؛ چهل و هشت ساعت بیخوابی، فرار، گرسنگی و همه عواقب دیگری که در انتظار او است، علل اساسی این ادعای صادقانه هستند؛ بیهوده است اگر در صدد جستجوی جنگی برآئیم، که «شاو»، در این نمایشنامه از آن بحث میکند؛ چون در حدود سال1894میلادی که این نمایشنامه درآمده، در چنان ممالکی چنین جنگی نمیتوان سراغ داد؛ ولی پیداست که «برناردشاو» میخواسته صحنه جنگ خود را در میان مردمی بگذارد، که میدانند «اگر خارجیها نبودند اصلاً جنگی در کار نبود»؛ «برناردشاو» که میداند در تقسیم سرمایه هرج و مرجی حکمفرما است، و عقیده دارد تنها راه ممکن برای بنای یک اجتماع، ایجاد هماهنگی در این زمینه است؛ و «به عنون یک انسان از شدت و آدمکشی چه در جنگ، چه در ورزش و چه در پیشه قصابی متنفر است»؛ پیداست که در اصل مخالف هر جنگی است؛ مخالف هر آدمکشی، و اعمال قدرتی است؛ شاید جنگهای سال1870میلادی تا سال18871میلادی و شاید جنگهای دیگری که پیش و پس از این تاریخ در «کریمه» و در «بالکان» اتفاق افتاده است، محرک او برای نوشتن این نمایشنامه بوده؛ میدانیم که «برناردشاو» از همان اوان جوانی اش، از خوردن گوشت و استعمال الکل و دخانیات خودداری میکرده اند
صحنه های نمایشنامه دقیق و مفصل و با نظری پر از کنایه و انتقاد وصف شده؛ اشخاصی که وارد صحنه میشوند نیز قبلاً وصف شده اند، و گرچه این شرح و توصیفها وقتی که نمایشنامه روی صحنه بیاید زیادی اند، ولی در انتخاب بازی کننده کمک بزرگی هستند)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 12/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 11/02/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The play takes place during the 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War. Its heroine, Raina Petkoff, is a young Bulgarian woman engaged to Sergius Saranoff, one of the heroes of that war, whom she idolizes. On the night after the Battle of Slivnitza, a Swiss mercenary soldier in the Serbian army, Captain Bluntschli, climbs in through her bedroom balcony window and threatens to shoot Raina if she gives the alarm.
When Russian and Bulgarian troops burst in to search the house for him, Raina hides him so that he won't be killed. He asks her to remember that "nine soldiers out of ten are born fools."
In a conversation after the soldiers have left, Bluntschli's pragmatic and cynical attitude towards war and soldiering shocks the idealistic Raina, especially after he admits that he uses his ammunition pouches to carry chocolates rather than cartridges for his pistol. When the search dies down, Raina and her mother Catherine sneak Bluntschli out of the house, disguised in one of Raina's father's old coats.
The war ends, and the Bulgarians and Serbians sign a peace treaty. Raina's father (Major Paul Petkoff) and Sergius both return home. Raina begins to find Sergius both foolhardy and tiresome, but she hides it. Sergius also finds Raina's romantic ideals tiresome, and flirts with Raina's insolent servant girl Louka (a soubrette role), who is engaged to Nicola, the Petkoffs' manservant. Bluntschli unexpectedly returns so that he can give back the old coat, but also so that he can see Raina. Raina and Catherine are shocked, especially when Major Petkoff and Sergius reveal that they have met Bluntschli before and invite him to stay for lunch (and to help them figure out how to send the troops home). ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «سربا� شکلاتی»� «مرد و اسلحه»؛ «نمایشهای� خوشآیند»� «مرد سرنوشت»؛ «اسلحه و انسان»؛ «سلاح و مرد»؛ نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی و یکم ماه ژانویه سال2021میلادی
عنوان: سربا� شکلاتی� نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ مترج�:� سیمین� دانشور� دیباچه: جلال آل احمد؛ تهران، نشر ؟، سال1328؛ ، در116ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نشر روزنه، سال1393؛ شابک9789643344498؛ موضوع نمایشنامه های نویسندگان ایرلند - سده19م
عنوان: مرد و اسلحه؛ نویسنده: جرج برنارد شاو؛ مترج�:� علاء الدین پازارگادی؛ تهران، نشر امیرکبیر، سال1380؛ در195ص؛ شابک9640007579؛ عنوان دیگر مرد سرنوشت (جوانی ناپلئون)؛
عنوان: نمایشهای� خوشآیند� نویسنده: برنار� شاو� مترج� محمو� محر� خمامی� تهران، نشرهای افکار، تجربه؛ سال1383؛ در دو جلد؛ جلد یک کاندید، مرد سرنوشت؛ جلد دو نمیشود پیش بینی کرد، اسلحه و انسان؛
مرد و اسلحه، یا «سرباز شکلاتی» نمایشنامه ای� از «جرج برنارد شاو» است؛ روانشاد خانم «سیمین دانشور» این نمایشنامه را با نام «سرباز شکلاتی» به فارسی برگردان کرده اند؛ این ترجمه نخستین بار به کارگردانی «الول ساتن» در اردیبهشت سال1326خورشیدی؛ در تالار «گرین روم تهران» با بازی «بهرام دریابیگی» و «محمدعلی ایثاری» و «صادق چوبک» و «نظام شفا» و «ملوک کریک» و «ایران میکلزاده� و «پری خلیلی» به نمایش درآمد؛
در این نمایشنامه، انسانها� «شاو»، اگر هم، به جنگ رفته اند� پیداست که بر خلاف میل خود، دست به چنان کاری زده اند� پیداست که در مکان مناسب خود نیستند؛ آدمهائ� هستند، که وقتی سلاح به دوش گرفته اند� به صورت مسخره ا� درآمده؛ و از صورت انسانی خود، خارج شده اند� و برای روپوش نهادن، به همین مسخرگی است، که دائما به خودشان، و به یکدیگر تلقین میکنند� که (در این جنگ وظیفه خود را انجام دادیم؛ بهترین کاری را که میتوانستیم� کردیم.)؛ معانی واژه هایی همچون «فداکاری»، «میهنپرستی� و «انجام وظیفه»، که به ویژه در میان ما، صورتها� مبتذلی، به خود گرفته اند� در این نمایشنامه، به شکل «فرار»، «غنیمت پرستی� و «قالب کردن اسبها� مردنی»، درآمده اند؛ آدمهائ� که در آثار «برنارد شاو» میآیند� و میروند� از هر طبقه ا� که باشند، میدانند� چه میخواهند� آدمها� بیگنا� و معصومی نیستند، که گرفتار دست سرنوشت شده باشند ـ اصلاً سرنوشت در کارهای اسشان نقشی ندارد ـ همه، هدفها� خودشان را میشناسند� و با شعور و ادراکی متناسب، با وضع خودشان، در صدد بدست آوردن آن هستند
مترجم روانشاد «سیمین دانشور» چند واژه در باره ی این کتاب مینویسند: (این نمایشنامه در متن انگلیسی اش «سلاح و مرد» نام دارد؛ خود نویسنده درباره ی اسم گذاری، علت و طرز انتشار آن مینویسد: ـ من که تا آن وقت جز نمایشنامه های ناشاد چیز دیگری در دست نداشتم، به عجله نخستین نمایشنامه شاد خود را کامل کردم و آن را ـ سلاح و مرد ـ نامیدم؛ و این اسم را از نخستین سطر «ویرژیل» ـ اثر ـ «درایدن» ـ گرفته ام؛ ولی در ترجمه ی آن لازم بود برای نشان دادن روح اصلی نمایشنامه، به خواننده فارسی زبان، نام «سرباز شکلاتی» برگزیده شود؛ گرچه شاید اگر این ترجمه با همین اسم روی صحنه نیامده بود، لازم بود اسم اصلی آن را به رویش گذاشت؛ اصل نمایشنامه در سال1894میلادی نوشته شده و بار اول از روز بیست و یکم ماه آوریل تا روز هفتم ماه ژوئیه همان سال در «لندن» روی صحنه آمده است؛ نیز باید تذکر داد که این نمایشنامه اولین اثر «برنارد شاو» است که در «امریکا» نمایش داده شد
...
اکنون به خود نمایشنامه بپردازم؛ شخصیتهای آن آدمهای پیچیده و پر از اسراری نیستند که برای روی صحنه آوردنشان دچار اشکالی بتوان شد؛ آدمهائی هستند خونسرد، شوخ و حسابدان و در کار خود استاد؛ «بلانچی» قبل از اینکه یک افسر داوطلب «سوئیسی» در قشون «صربستان» باشد، پیداست که یک انگلیسی خونسرد و کارکشته است؛ یک «برناردشاو» است؛ هر کدامشان حسابگرند؛ و اسراری را که از دیگران میدانند به آسانی از دست نمیدهند؛ شاید در نظر شما خنده دار بیاید، که بشنوید یک افسر ادعا میکند در جنگ، شکلات بیش از فشنگ، برایش ارزش دارد؛ ولی باید به جای «بلانچلی» بود، تا مفهوم این ادعا را درک کرد؛ چهل و هشت ساعت بیخوابی، فرار، گرسنگی و همه عواقب دیگری که در انتظار او است، علل اساسی این ادعای صادقانه هستند؛ بیهوده است اگر در صدد جستجوی جنگی برآئیم، که «شاو»، در این نمایشنامه از آن بحث میکند؛ چون در حدود سال1894میلادی که این نمایشنامه درآمده، در چنان ممالکی چنین جنگی نمیتوان سراغ داد؛ ولی پیداست که «برناردشاو» میخواسته صحنه جنگ خود را در میان مردمی بگذارد، که میدانند «اگر خارجیها نبودند اصلاً جنگی در کار نبود»؛ «برناردشاو» که میداند در تقسیم سرمایه هرج و مرجی حکمفرما است، و عقیده دارد تنها راه ممکن برای بنای یک اجتماع، ایجاد هماهنگی در این زمینه است؛ و «به عنون یک انسان از شدت و آدمکشی چه در جنگ، چه در ورزش و چه در پیشه قصابی متنفر است»؛ پیداست که در اصل مخالف هر جنگی است؛ مخالف هر آدمکشی، و اعمال قدرتی است؛ شاید جنگهای سال1870میلادی تا سال18871میلادی و شاید جنگهای دیگری که پیش و پس از این تاریخ در «کریمه» و در «بالکان» اتفاق افتاده است، محرک او برای نوشتن این نمایشنامه بوده؛ میدانیم که «برناردشاو» از همان اوان جوانی اش، از خوردن گوشت و استعمال الکل و دخانیات خودداری میکرده اند
صحنه های نمایشنامه دقیق و مفصل و با نظری پر از کنایه و انتقاد وصف شده؛ اشخاصی که وارد صحنه میشوند نیز قبلاً وصف شده اند، و گرچه این شرح و توصیفها وقتی که نمایشنامه روی صحنه بیاید زیادی اند، ولی در انتخاب بازی کننده کمک بزرگی هستند)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 12/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 11/02/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
May 23, 2023
- "الإنسان والسلاح" هي مسرحية نشرت عام 1898 ، تدور احداثها في نهاية الحرب البلغارية - الصربية القصيرة.
- المسرحية تتجاذب بين الرومانسية والواقعية بإسلوب برنارد شو الكوميدي الساخر في تعرية المفاهيم (الحب، الحرب، الطبقية..) وقلبها رأساً على عقب في بعض الأحيان.
- تقوم "رايينا" بحماية احد الجنود المرتزقة السويسريين الهارب من ملاحقة كتيبة الفرسان البلغارية والمرهق من الحرب والذي يفاجئها بإعترافه بالخوف من الموت وتفضيل الشوكولا على السلاح (الذخيرة)، مما يجعلها تبني مقابلة متناقضة في رأسها بينه وبين خطيبها "المقدام" او المتهور.
- يخلق برناردشو شخصيات متعددة: شخصيات خائنة (رايينا وخطيبها)، شخصيات مادية (كاترين وبيتكوف)، شخصيات حالمة (لوكا) وشخصيات خانعة (نيكولا). لكنه يقوم بتغيير المشهد عدة مرات ليبرز آراء كل الشخصيات ويخلص الى نتيجة رومنسية ومسلية في النهاية.
- على الصعيد الإيديولوجي، يتابع برناردشو نقده للمادية والارستقراطية والسطحية، والمسحات الإشتراكية تتواجد في هذه المسرحية على غرار غيرها، لكنها لم تكن بالواجهة بل كانت مختبئة في الخلف وربما هذا ما يفسر نجاح هذه المسرحية بعد إخفاقه في مسرحياته السابقة.
- مسرحية ممتعة، سلسة ومضحكة انصح الجميع بقرأتها.
- المسرحية تتجاذب بين الرومانسية والواقعية بإسلوب برنارد شو الكوميدي الساخر في تعرية المفاهيم (الحب، الحرب، الطبقية..) وقلبها رأساً على عقب في بعض الأحيان.
- تقوم "رايينا" بحماية احد الجنود المرتزقة السويسريين الهارب من ملاحقة كتيبة الفرسان البلغارية والمرهق من الحرب والذي يفاجئها بإعترافه بالخوف من الموت وتفضيل الشوكولا على السلاح (الذخيرة)، مما يجعلها تبني مقابلة متناقضة في رأسها بينه وبين خطيبها "المقدام" او المتهور.
- يخلق برناردشو شخصيات متعددة: شخصيات خائنة (رايينا وخطيبها)، شخصيات مادية (كاترين وبيتكوف)، شخصيات حالمة (لوكا) وشخصيات خانعة (نيكولا). لكنه يقوم بتغيير المشهد عدة مرات ليبرز آراء كل الشخصيات ويخلص الى نتيجة رومنسية ومسلية في النهاية.
- على الصعيد الإيديولوجي، يتابع برناردشو نقده للمادية والارستقراطية والسطحية، والمسحات الإشتراكية تتواجد في هذه المسرحية على غرار غيرها، لكنها لم تكن بالواجهة بل كانت مختبئة في الخلف وربما هذا ما يفسر نجاح هذه المسرحية بعد إخفاقه في مسرحياته السابقة.
- مسرحية ممتعة، سلسة ومضحكة انصح الجميع بقرأتها.
October 5, 2024
Arms and the Man is Bernard Shaw’s first great play. It is filled with witty and amusing dialogue, a diverting and well-constructed plot, and charming, well differentiated characters. A perfect light comedy designed to amuse the most jaded audience, it is also a deadly serious play that launches a fierce attack on one of the most destructive beliefs of Shaw’s (and any other) time: that war is heroic and magnificent, and that the gallant soldier is the supreme icon of manhood, something to be esteemed and admired.
The play, set during the Serbian-Bulgarian War of 1885, is the story of the encounter between Raina, a Bulgarian maiden engaged to the young officer Sergius, and the veteran Captain Buntschli, a Swiss mercenary in the pay of the Serbians, who escapes capture after a battle by hiding out in Raina’s bedroom. Frightened at first, Raina soon views the captain with contempt, compared to her brave fiancee, for he seems fearful and not at all professional: for example, he carries chocolate in his ammunition bag. (“You can always tell an old soldier by the inside of his holsters and cartridge boxes.� Buntschli says. “The young ones carry pistols and cartridges ; the old ones, grub.�) Soon the Swiss captain rejoins his regiment, Sergius returns from the war, and then—following Captain Buntschli’s unexpected return—Raina begins to realize that perhaps her “chocolate soldier� (as she fondly calls him) may be the best man after all.
I’ll end with two passages from the first act. In the first, Raina’s mother Catherine describes Sergius� heroic charge of the enemy battery. In the second, Captain Buntschli describes the same event from the enemy point of view.
CATHARINE:”Sergius is the hero of the hour, the idol of the regiment...You cant guess how splendid it is. A cavalry charge ! think of that ! He defied our Russian commanders, acted without orders, led a charge on his own responsibility headed it himself, was the first man to sweep through their guns. Cant you see it, Raina : our gallant splendid Bulgarians with their swords and eyes flashing, thundering down like an avalanche and scattering the wretched Servians and their dandified Austrian officers like chaff...Oh, if you have a drop of Bulgarian blood in your veins, you will worship him when he comes back.�
CAPTAIN BUNTSCHLI: “He did it like an operatic tenor, a regular handsome fellow, with flashing eyes and lovely moustache, shouting his war-cry and charging like Don Quixote at the windmills. We nearly burst with laughter at him; but when the sergeant ran up as white as a sheet, and told us theyd sent us the wrong cartridges, and that we couldn’t fire a shot for the next ten minutes, we laughed at the other side of our mouths. I never felt so sick in my life; though Ive been in one or two very tight places. And I hadnt even a revolver cartridge, nothing but chocolate. We'd no bayonets, nothing. Of course, they just cut us to bits. And there was Don Quixote flourishing like a drum major, thinking he'd done the cleverest thing ever known, whereas he ought to be courtmartialled for it. Of all the fools ever let loose on a field of battle, that man must be the very maddest. He and his regiment simply committed suicide only the pistol missed fire: that’s all.�
August 22, 2018
Oh yes... & NOW the Nobel Prize seems more than adequate for Shaw.
It is awesome to see how Shaw has honed his skill considerably (both "Widower's Houses" and "Mrs. Warren's Profession", written a few years before this one, are slightly more pedantic and the characters are less likeable, albeit, antiromantic/real). "Arms and the Man" is finally where we see the full roundedness of all the immoral characters--though this one finally has a man who is less interested in war than surviving it--who is dashing and brave... unconventional. There is a slight inclination for the romantic--the lovers quarrel and "make love" while the central issue is played out. Also--finally--comedy! Now we can understand why Shaw is Wilde's earnest contemporary.
This "mock epic" (it's title is derived from the opening in "The Aenid") takes the reader from romance to realism, and somehow back again. It is complex--in both plot and character. The attack on idealism, which is what Shaw was truly all about, is ever present here. The story is colorful and very entertaining. This is obviously nearing "Pygmalion" territory...
A very good play.
It is awesome to see how Shaw has honed his skill considerably (both "Widower's Houses" and "Mrs. Warren's Profession", written a few years before this one, are slightly more pedantic and the characters are less likeable, albeit, antiromantic/real). "Arms and the Man" is finally where we see the full roundedness of all the immoral characters--though this one finally has a man who is less interested in war than surviving it--who is dashing and brave... unconventional. There is a slight inclination for the romantic--the lovers quarrel and "make love" while the central issue is played out. Also--finally--comedy! Now we can understand why Shaw is Wilde's earnest contemporary.
This "mock epic" (it's title is derived from the opening in "The Aenid") takes the reader from romance to realism, and somehow back again. It is complex--in both plot and character. The attack on idealism, which is what Shaw was truly all about, is ever present here. The story is colorful and very entertaining. This is obviously nearing "Pygmalion" territory...
A very good play.
April 18, 2022
Arms and the Man (1894) by drama great George Bernard Shaw is a little lighter than his usual comedy written during the height of his powers. It may be his first great play. He’s known for having great dialogue, with at least one or two combatively provocative characters, but this one if lighter and funnier than most. It’s an anti-war comedy that takes place during the Bulagrian-Serbin War of 1885, involving a Bulgarian woman, Raina, whose fiance, Sergius, is a soldier, though one night she finds a fugitive Serbian (thus, enemy) soldier, Bluntschli, in her room, holding a gun, insisting she hide him. As things turn out, in spite of the gun, he’s more interested in being in the arms of a woman than holding arms (weapons).
Bluntschli prefers chocolate to bullets, and claims that most soldiers would prefer peace to war and are “fools,� innocent tools of the military brass. The derogatory term “chocolate soldier� comes from this play, wherein some (military) people insist weak or less than courageous soldiers are romantic wimps. But this is an anti-war play making it clear that war is not some romantic dream, as much literature and film often seems to indicate, luring men to acts of valor. And a romance, where the right people end up with each other. It’s a witty play with sharp dialogue. I like it a lot.
Bluntschli prefers chocolate to bullets, and claims that most soldiers would prefer peace to war and are “fools,� innocent tools of the military brass. The derogatory term “chocolate soldier� comes from this play, wherein some (military) people insist weak or less than courageous soldiers are romantic wimps. But this is an anti-war play making it clear that war is not some romantic dream, as much literature and film often seems to indicate, luring men to acts of valor. And a romance, where the right people end up with each other. It’s a witty play with sharp dialogue. I like it a lot.
June 29, 2024
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
~~
Another entry in my Shaw reading project.
One of the most charming, witty romantic comedies ever written with an irreverent twist.
Stuck in a backwater town, Raina Petkoff craves more out of life. Having read every book in the library, including all the romance novels, she’s sure there is more in store for her ~~ she wants adventure, she wants love, she wants to get out of town. So, when a charming Swiss soldier on the hop from the battlefield clambers into her bedroom, what’s a clever, practical-minded girl to do? Offer him sanctuary, feed him chocolate and fall in love. It’s only natural.
The problem is, she’s already engaged. To the most eligible man in town. Raina needs to decide if she stays true to her gallant fiancé, or if she elopes with this dashing, mysterious stranger.
In true Shavian style, this is more than your average love triangle. Keeping plenty of room for irony, comedy, parental concern and a saucy sub-plot, is also a playful, piercing satire on vanity and false heroism.
So, does the battlefield hero conquer her heart, or will he with the most chocolate win?
~~
Another entry in my Shaw reading project.
One of the most charming, witty romantic comedies ever written with an irreverent twist.
Stuck in a backwater town, Raina Petkoff craves more out of life. Having read every book in the library, including all the romance novels, she’s sure there is more in store for her ~~ she wants adventure, she wants love, she wants to get out of town. So, when a charming Swiss soldier on the hop from the battlefield clambers into her bedroom, what’s a clever, practical-minded girl to do? Offer him sanctuary, feed him chocolate and fall in love. It’s only natural.
The problem is, she’s already engaged. To the most eligible man in town. Raina needs to decide if she stays true to her gallant fiancé, or if she elopes with this dashing, mysterious stranger.
In true Shavian style, this is more than your average love triangle. Keeping plenty of room for irony, comedy, parental concern and a saucy sub-plot, is also a playful, piercing satire on vanity and false heroism.
So, does the battlefield hero conquer her heart, or will he with the most chocolate win?
November 11, 2024
Направих си труда да прочета текста на пиесата, изтекъл онлайн в pdf формат � виж линка:
Нищо кой знае какво шокиращо и/или българофобско не съзрях сред тия 150 страници. Факт, имаше леко преекспониране на "варварщината" ни, но пък за ония времена не е било много далеч от истината, защото определено сме им вземали страха по окопите; инак, сама по себе си историята е семпла, романтична с тънък комедиен заряд.
А ето ги и думите на българския офицер, които взривиха целокупната общественост:
ПЕТКОВ (с кафе и цигара в ръка):
Не са на добре тези нови обичаи. Всичкото това миене не може да е добре за здравето: не е нормално. Имаше един англичани във Филипополис, който се миеше със студена вода всяка сутрин, след като стане. Отвратително! Всичко това идва от англичаните � климатът им ги мърси толкова много, че постоянно се мият. Виж баща ми! Цял живот не се е къпал и доживя до 98 � най-здравият човек в България. Не ми е дерт да се умия веднъж седмично за пред хората, но всеки ден си е направо смешно.
Сега прилагам кратък откъс от „Ба� Ганьо в банята� на Алеко Константинов:
� А бе я попитай има ли сапун � казва ми бай Ганьо, след като поизстина малко патриотическият му възторг, � я виж нозете ми на какво ся заприличали�
И наистина, нозете му не представляваха най-подходящ модел за Аполона Белведерски. Шарките на чорапите му бяха се отпечатали на кожата � и без това нечиста и обрасла. Впрочем с нечистотата не можем зачуди българите: не можем накара и най-разпалената фантазия да си представи нещо по-нечисто от туй, което може да ти представи самата действителност�
И откъс от „Възвишение� на Милен Русков:
След вечеря ни донесоха и тасове с вода, за ръкоомивание, как правят чинните хора. Някои са зели напоследък даже и преди ядене да правят ръкоомивание, но туй е вече прекалено. Те от толкоз миене ще си ръчната кожа протъркат. Туй, кай, също било алафранга. Ти у Българско като имаш някоя налудна мисъл, само речи, че туй е европейска работа, че у Европа тъй ся прави, и сички ш’т� повярват и ще земат и те тъй да правят. Брате! Ако им кажеш, че да ся сере на улицата е алафранга, ще почнат сите да серат на улицата. Тъй и с ръкоомиванието преди ядене. Защо ся мийш бе, аланкоолу, нали тепърва ще пипаш месата, едно-друго?! Аче после пак ще ся мийш, тъй ли? � Хубаво, като си нямаш работа�
За финал пускам линк с разказа „Вестово� Димо� на Георги П. Стаматов, в който българската армия, респективно офицерството ни, са представени с доста по-уродливо лице:
Присъди няма да издавам. В реалностите на "451 градуса по Фаренхайт" не желая да влизам. Аз съм просто обикновен читател и оценявам пиесата с 3,4/5.
Нищо кой знае какво шокиращо и/или българофобско не съзрях сред тия 150 страници. Факт, имаше леко преекспониране на "варварщината" ни, но пък за ония времена не е било много далеч от истината, защото определено сме им вземали страха по окопите; инак, сама по себе си историята е семпла, романтична с тънък комедиен заряд.
А ето ги и думите на българския офицер, които взривиха целокупната общественост:
ПЕТКОВ (с кафе и цигара в ръка):
Не са на добре тези нови обичаи. Всичкото това миене не може да е добре за здравето: не е нормално. Имаше един англичани във Филипополис, който се миеше със студена вода всяка сутрин, след като стане. Отвратително! Всичко това идва от англичаните � климатът им ги мърси толкова много, че постоянно се мият. Виж баща ми! Цял живот не се е къпал и доживя до 98 � най-здравият човек в България. Не ми е дерт да се умия веднъж седмично за пред хората, но всеки ден си е направо смешно.
Сега прилагам кратък откъс от „Ба� Ганьо в банята� на Алеко Константинов:
� А бе я попитай има ли сапун � казва ми бай Ганьо, след като поизстина малко патриотическият му възторг, � я виж нозете ми на какво ся заприличали�
И наистина, нозете му не представляваха най-подходящ модел за Аполона Белведерски. Шарките на чорапите му бяха се отпечатали на кожата � и без това нечиста и обрасла. Впрочем с нечистотата не можем зачуди българите: не можем накара и най-разпалената фантазия да си представи нещо по-нечисто от туй, което може да ти представи самата действителност�
И откъс от „Възвишение� на Милен Русков:
След вечеря ни донесоха и тасове с вода, за ръкоомивание, как правят чинните хора. Някои са зели напоследък даже и преди ядене да правят ръкоомивание, но туй е вече прекалено. Те от толкоз миене ще си ръчната кожа протъркат. Туй, кай, също било алафранга. Ти у Българско като имаш някоя налудна мисъл, само речи, че туй е европейска работа, че у Европа тъй ся прави, и сички ш’т� повярват и ще земат и те тъй да правят. Брате! Ако им кажеш, че да ся сере на улицата е алафранга, ще почнат сите да серат на улицата. Тъй и с ръкоомиванието преди ядене. Защо ся мийш бе, аланкоолу, нали тепърва ще пипаш месата, едно-друго?! Аче после пак ще ся мийш, тъй ли? � Хубаво, като си нямаш работа�
За финал пускам линк с разказа „Вестово� Димо� на Георги П. Стаматов, в който българската армия, респективно офицерството ни, са представени с доста по-уродливо лице:
Присъди няма да издавам. В реалностите на "451 градуса по Фаренхайт" не желая да влизам. Аз съм просто обикновен читател и оценявам пиесата с 3,4/5.
November 10, 2024
Изключително много ми допадна „Оръжията и човекът�! Книгата се оказа доста симпатична комедия, а швейцарецът Блънтчли - страхотен образ. Бърнард Шоу е вложил в нея отлично чувство за хумор. Пиесата представлява чудесно съчетание на романтична и антивоенна история, изпълнена със забавни ситуации и смислени послания...
„Харесва ли ви показването на благодарност? На мен не. Ако състраданието е роднина на любовта, то благодарността е роднина на обратното.�
„Н� Ви питах за причината да иcкaтe дa се дуелирате с мен и няма да Ви питам за причината да се откажете. Аз съм професионален войник: бия се, когато трябва, и съм особено радостен, когато не трябва.�
„Моя� ранг е най-високият в Швейцария: свободен гражданин.�
„Харесва ли ви показването на благодарност? На мен не. Ако състраданието е роднина на любовта, то благодарността е роднина на обратното.�
„Н� Ви питах за причината да иcкaтe дa се дуелирате с мен и няма да Ви питам за причината да се откажете. Аз съм професионален войник: бия се, когато трябва, и съм особено радостен, когато не трябва.�
„Моя� ранг е най-високият в Швейцария: свободен гражданин.�
October 23, 2019
Wow! Pure pleasure. 5 golden stars!😁😁
I rarely delve into plays. But this one was suggested to me by my friend. So thank you Ananya for recommending as well as lending me this book. I absolutely loved it.
At its heart this is a fantastic love story. But it also portrays how pointless and futile wars are. It's a really hilarious read, each dialogue is fascinating and equally witty, especially those between Raina and Bluntschi. The character of Bluntschi is very interesting and overwhelming. Oh my dear "chocolate cream soldier"😂😂. I'm sure you will break the heart of all female readers.
I have one regret though. I wanted to know the first name of Bluntschi🙃. Really disappointed, Mr.Shaw! Apart from that I don't have words to explain how happy and excited I am! Highly recommended.
I rarely delve into plays. But this one was suggested to me by my friend. So thank you Ananya for recommending as well as lending me this book. I absolutely loved it.
At its heart this is a fantastic love story. But it also portrays how pointless and futile wars are. It's a really hilarious read, each dialogue is fascinating and equally witty, especially those between Raina and Bluntschi. The character of Bluntschi is very interesting and overwhelming. Oh my dear "chocolate cream soldier"😂😂. I'm sure you will break the heart of all female readers.
I have one regret though. I wanted to know the first name of Bluntschi🙃. Really disappointed, Mr.Shaw! Apart from that I don't have words to explain how happy and excited I am! Highly recommended.
March 1, 2025
۱۱ اسفند ۱۴۰۳
گرچه هنوز تا پایان سال، ۱۹ روز دیگه فرصت هست اما میخوام یک جمعبند� کلی از امسال داشته باشم. دو کتاب نمایشنامه از جرج برنارد شاو به نامها� دون ژوان در جهنم و سرباز شکلاتی خریدم و همین امسال هم هر دو رو خوندم. تجربه جالبی بود که دوست دارم در سال جدید هم ادامها� بدم. البته که اگر بتونم تئاتر هم ببینم خوبه (امیدوارم شرایط مالی اجازه بده!)
درکل از امسال به نسبت سال ۱۴۰۲، راضیتر� و امیدوارم ۱۴۰۴ برای همه پربارتر از ۱۴۰۳� باشه:)
و اما درمورد سرباز شکلاتی؛ پیش از شروع، حتما مقدمه مترجم و نویسنده را بخوانید. به درک بهتر نمایشنامه کمک میکن�. نمایشنامه سرباز شکلاتی با نام اصلی the arms and the man، در دسته نمایشنامهها� شاد برنارد شاو قرار میگیره که علاوه بر تمسخر جنگ، نشون داد که شخصیتها� داستان هیچ کدوم اونجور که میگن نیستند. نه شجاع هستند نه دلسوز و بیشتر از همه مغرور و خودخواهان�.
خلاصه بین این دو نمایشنامه از برنارد شاو، من با سرباز شکلاتی ارتباط بیشتری گرفتم. در ابتدای شروع هر پرده، دکوپاژ صحنه تاحدودی جزئیت� بیان شده بود که کمک بسزایی در تصویرسازی نمایش میکر�. البته که امیدوارم فرصت داشته باشم و تئاترها� اجرا شده قدیمی از این نمایشنامهه� رو هم ببینم.
همچنین خوشحال میشم چند نمایشنامه دیگه هم بهم پیشنهاد کنید تا سال آینده در فهرست کتابها� قرار بدم:)
گرچه هنوز تا پایان سال، ۱۹ روز دیگه فرصت هست اما میخوام یک جمعبند� کلی از امسال داشته باشم. دو کتاب نمایشنامه از جرج برنارد شاو به نامها� دون ژوان در جهنم و سرباز شکلاتی خریدم و همین امسال هم هر دو رو خوندم. تجربه جالبی بود که دوست دارم در سال جدید هم ادامها� بدم. البته که اگر بتونم تئاتر هم ببینم خوبه (امیدوارم شرایط مالی اجازه بده!)
درکل از امسال به نسبت سال ۱۴۰۲، راضیتر� و امیدوارم ۱۴۰۴ برای همه پربارتر از ۱۴۰۳� باشه:)
و اما درمورد سرباز شکلاتی؛ پیش از شروع، حتما مقدمه مترجم و نویسنده را بخوانید. به درک بهتر نمایشنامه کمک میکن�. نمایشنامه سرباز شکلاتی با نام اصلی the arms and the man، در دسته نمایشنامهها� شاد برنارد شاو قرار میگیره که علاوه بر تمسخر جنگ، نشون داد که شخصیتها� داستان هیچ کدوم اونجور که میگن نیستند. نه شجاع هستند نه دلسوز و بیشتر از همه مغرور و خودخواهان�.
خلاصه بین این دو نمایشنامه از برنارد شاو، من با سرباز شکلاتی ارتباط بیشتری گرفتم. در ابتدای شروع هر پرده، دکوپاژ صحنه تاحدودی جزئیت� بیان شده بود که کمک بسزایی در تصویرسازی نمایش میکر�. البته که امیدوارم فرصت داشته باشم و تئاترها� اجرا شده قدیمی از این نمایشنامهه� رو هم ببینم.
همچنین خوشحال میشم چند نمایشنامه دیگه هم بهم پیشنهاد کنید تا سال آینده در فهرست کتابها� قرار بدم:)
December 6, 2015
Reinventing the War Hero
6 December 2015
If we don't count the National Theatre version of that I watched in the cinema this would be the first Shavian play that I have seen performed (though I would add the word live considering the National Theatre version was videoed and then distributed around the world, which I have to say is really cool because it means that I get to see some awesome productions that I would not normally get to see � though I did end up missing out on the Benedict Cumberbach version of simply because it was sold out when I decided to book some tickets). It is a bit of a shame that Shaw isn't performed all that much any more, especially since he was the second most popular playwrights of the early Twentieth Century (with only Shakespeare, not surprisingly, eclipsing him). Mind you, I don't go out of my way to see any modern productions, probably more because I'm a bit of a theatre snob.
Arms and the Man was Shaw's first commercial success, namely because his first play was a flop (he was being way too political, and theatre goers tend to prefer a lot more subtly � namely by having it go over their head) and the next two were censored because, well, this was Victorian England and things were censored at a drop of a hat. So it seems that after three failures, Shaw learnt his lesson, and while the play does espouse his socialist views, they did to sit in the background as opposed to being front and centre.
Basically Shaw turns the idea of the noble soldier on it's head. In fact the story was quiet forward looking considering it was written in the 1890s and the horrors of World War I (where people signed up in droves to become heroes) where yet to fully manifest themselves. However we still see glimpses of this dichotomy, with the main character being a soldier who believes that staying alive is much more advantageous than it is to kill as many people as possible. In fact he believes that the most important thing that a soldier should carry is food as opposed to a loaded gun, and he has no qualms in running away if it means that he gets to fight again.
Bluntschli is in fact the antithesis of what one would consider to be a great soldier, but unlike other soldiers, who had been cut down on the field, he is still alive. Sure, he takes the name 'the Chocolate Cream Soldier', which is actually a derision within the military (it means that they are soft and no good for the battlefield) but the heroine, Rania, still loves him. To her the Chocolate Cream Soldier is much more romantic than Sergius, her philandering fiance, who happened to lead a successful cavalry charge against a machine-gun bunker. Well, it was successful only because the machine-gunners were given the wrong ammunition, but then again they didn't need to know that, and nobody else really cares anyway � they won and that is all that counts.
It is interesting to see this dichotomy within the military. Everybody wants to lead the cavalry charge because that is the glorious and honourable position, however nobody actually wants to be first because that means that they are alone amongst the enemy without any backup. In fact it appears that the most effective part of the cavalry charge is the charge itself, which is not surprising considering we are talking about a bunch of horses all pounding towards the enemy. However, as Shaw points out, it's like flinging peas at a window � as the peas fly towards the window they have momentum, however when they strike that window they all splatter. The other thing he points out is that once the horses reach the enemy they have to stop, but the horse wants to continue running through � most of the injuries, Shaw suggests, comes from riders pulling their horses back so that they might engage the enemy.
Anyway, I think I'll leave it there because, as I have mentioned, I saw this play performed earlier this year and have already .
6 December 2015
If we don't count the National Theatre version of that I watched in the cinema this would be the first Shavian play that I have seen performed (though I would add the word live considering the National Theatre version was videoed and then distributed around the world, which I have to say is really cool because it means that I get to see some awesome productions that I would not normally get to see � though I did end up missing out on the Benedict Cumberbach version of simply because it was sold out when I decided to book some tickets). It is a bit of a shame that Shaw isn't performed all that much any more, especially since he was the second most popular playwrights of the early Twentieth Century (with only Shakespeare, not surprisingly, eclipsing him). Mind you, I don't go out of my way to see any modern productions, probably more because I'm a bit of a theatre snob.
Arms and the Man was Shaw's first commercial success, namely because his first play was a flop (he was being way too political, and theatre goers tend to prefer a lot more subtly � namely by having it go over their head) and the next two were censored because, well, this was Victorian England and things were censored at a drop of a hat. So it seems that after three failures, Shaw learnt his lesson, and while the play does espouse his socialist views, they did to sit in the background as opposed to being front and centre.
Basically Shaw turns the idea of the noble soldier on it's head. In fact the story was quiet forward looking considering it was written in the 1890s and the horrors of World War I (where people signed up in droves to become heroes) where yet to fully manifest themselves. However we still see glimpses of this dichotomy, with the main character being a soldier who believes that staying alive is much more advantageous than it is to kill as many people as possible. In fact he believes that the most important thing that a soldier should carry is food as opposed to a loaded gun, and he has no qualms in running away if it means that he gets to fight again.
Bluntschli is in fact the antithesis of what one would consider to be a great soldier, but unlike other soldiers, who had been cut down on the field, he is still alive. Sure, he takes the name 'the Chocolate Cream Soldier', which is actually a derision within the military (it means that they are soft and no good for the battlefield) but the heroine, Rania, still loves him. To her the Chocolate Cream Soldier is much more romantic than Sergius, her philandering fiance, who happened to lead a successful cavalry charge against a machine-gun bunker. Well, it was successful only because the machine-gunners were given the wrong ammunition, but then again they didn't need to know that, and nobody else really cares anyway � they won and that is all that counts.
It is interesting to see this dichotomy within the military. Everybody wants to lead the cavalry charge because that is the glorious and honourable position, however nobody actually wants to be first because that means that they are alone amongst the enemy without any backup. In fact it appears that the most effective part of the cavalry charge is the charge itself, which is not surprising considering we are talking about a bunch of horses all pounding towards the enemy. However, as Shaw points out, it's like flinging peas at a window � as the peas fly towards the window they have momentum, however when they strike that window they all splatter. The other thing he points out is that once the horses reach the enemy they have to stop, but the horse wants to continue running through � most of the injuries, Shaw suggests, comes from riders pulling their horses back so that they might engage the enemy.
Anyway, I think I'll leave it there because, as I have mentioned, I saw this play performed earlier this year and have already .
November 8, 2024
„Give me the man who will defy to the death any power on earth or in heaven that sets itself up against his own will and conscience: he alone is the brave man.�
(Да, прочетох това само заради протестите, но пък и Factorio ми изгори мозъка, затова не бях способен да прочета друг текст без мотивацията да разбера какво по дяволите се случва на улиците ни.)
Пиесата на Бърнард Шоу, въпреки че по-скоро е пиесоподобен кратък разказ, в ядрото си е сблъсък между романтизма и реализма, но не е някаква деконструкция на романтизма, а напротив � точно обратното: конструкция на истината, че само и единствено в реалността може да съществува романтиката, а лъжливите романтични идеи всъщност не са никак романтични. Сергей и Райна мислят, че живеят романтични животи, мислят си, че са идеалисти, но именно идеалистите и романтици, живеещи в реалността � Лука и Блунтшли, им отварят очите и им позволяват не само да говорят за своите идеали, а да ги живеят.
"LOUKA. I would marry the man I loved, which no other queen in Europe has the courage to do. If I loved you, though you would be as far beneath me as I am beneath you, I would dare to be the equal of my inferior. Would you dare as much if you loved me? No: if you felt the beginnings of love for me you would not let it grow. You dare not: you would marry a rich man's daughter because you would be afraid of what other people would say of you."
Стига толкова по същността на пиесата, сега малко и по актуалната тема. Пиесата на Бърнард Шоу не е антибългарска � тя едва е българска поначало. Сръбско-българската война е просто един бекдроп на история, която можеше да се случи във всеки друг конфликт, от Троянската война до Корейската, за чието начало Шоу също е бил жив. Няма нищо специфично българско в пиесата; Шоу не си е „написа� домашното� достатъчно, че да го вложи. Тогава защо поради някаква причина се тръби как тази пиеса е „антибългарска�?
Ще си противореча малко � пиесата не е специфично българска, но пък е много българска по случайност или може би по неизбежна универсална истина. Шоу можеше да избере всеки друг конфликт, но избирайки Сръбско-българската война, уцелва в десятката границата между романтизма и реализма в нашата история. Почти нищо добро не следва за България след тази победа, главно защото българинът вярва и говори за своите романтични идеали за национално обединение, без да ги живее. Това, разбира се, не е казано с неуважение към героите от войните за национално обединение, но няма как да се отрече, че „българинът� е Сергей, който се жени за „националнот� обединение� в лицето на Райна, вместо да живее в реалността и да се ожени за любовта си � Лука. Каква би била тази любов в нашия свят? Не знам, знам само, че Райна не е правилният избор.
Разбирайки това, става пределно ясно защо някои малоумни членове на една и без това малоумна прослойка от обществото ни са толкова обидени от пиесата, без да са я чели или гледали (двата цитата, които се разпространяват като антибългарски, са изречени от българи в пиесата, не от „лошия� швейцарец). „Оръжията и човекът� ги обижда, защото ги разобличава; тези хора са в нещастен брак с Р(усия)айна, тези хора говорят за романтични идеали и завръщане към величието на България със същия глас, с който „протестират� против една абсолютно безобидна, та и доста добра, пиеса, защото някой друг така им е казал, че ще помогнат на клета майка България.
Не е нужно да си императорът на Русия, за да живееш идеалите си; не е нужно да биеш хора пред Народния театър, за да помогнеш на страната си, но затова реализмът е смъртта на фалшивия романтизъм. Нужно е само да си с най-висшия ранг в страната ни. Тук ще преправя Блунтшли: „My rank is the highest known in Bulgaria: I'm a free citizen.� Родният „патреот� (нарочно изписано така) не иска да е свободен гражданин, иска да е руски император, затова ще си остане винаги в нещастния си брак.
П.С. Попаднах на недвузначно доказателство на моето предположение, че Шоу не пише пиесата с България наум. В писмо до Анна Каменова той обяснява как цялата пиеса е написана с празни места за имената на героите и локациите, всички обяснения, че е "поръчкова" за България буквално са невъзможна лъжа и всякакво даване на заден ход в стил "ми не е хубаво да се цензурира, но пък пиесата си има анти-български елементи" са вредни.
(Да, прочетох това само заради протестите, но пък и Factorio ми изгори мозъка, затова не бях способен да прочета друг текст без мотивацията да разбера какво по дяволите се случва на улиците ни.)
Пиесата на Бърнард Шоу, въпреки че по-скоро е пиесоподобен кратък разказ, в ядрото си е сблъсък между романтизма и реализма, но не е някаква деконструкция на романтизма, а напротив � точно обратното: конструкция на истината, че само и единствено в реалността може да съществува романтиката, а лъжливите романтични идеи всъщност не са никак романтични. Сергей и Райна мислят, че живеят романтични животи, мислят си, че са идеалисти, но именно идеалистите и романтици, живеещи в реалността � Лука и Блунтшли, им отварят очите и им позволяват не само да говорят за своите идеали, а да ги живеят.
"LOUKA. I would marry the man I loved, which no other queen in Europe has the courage to do. If I loved you, though you would be as far beneath me as I am beneath you, I would dare to be the equal of my inferior. Would you dare as much if you loved me? No: if you felt the beginnings of love for me you would not let it grow. You dare not: you would marry a rich man's daughter because you would be afraid of what other people would say of you."
Стига толкова по същността на пиесата, сега малко и по актуалната тема. Пиесата на Бърнард Шоу не е антибългарска � тя едва е българска поначало. Сръбско-българската война е просто един бекдроп на история, която можеше да се случи във всеки друг конфликт, от Троянската война до Корейската, за чието начало Шоу също е бил жив. Няма нищо специфично българско в пиесата; Шоу не си е „написа� домашното� достатъчно, че да го вложи. Тогава защо поради някаква причина се тръби как тази пиеса е „антибългарска�?
Ще си противореча малко � пиесата не е специфично българска, но пък е много българска по случайност или може би по неизбежна универсална истина. Шоу можеше да избере всеки друг конфликт, но избирайки Сръбско-българската война, уцелва в десятката границата между романтизма и реализма в нашата история. Почти нищо добро не следва за България след тази победа, главно защото българинът вярва и говори за своите романтични идеали за национално обединение, без да ги живее. Това, разбира се, не е казано с неуважение към героите от войните за национално обединение, но няма как да се отрече, че „българинът� е Сергей, който се жени за „националнот� обединение� в лицето на Райна, вместо да живее в реалността и да се ожени за любовта си � Лука. Каква би била тази любов в нашия свят? Не знам, знам само, че Райна не е правилният избор.
Разбирайки това, става пределно ясно защо някои малоумни членове на една и без това малоумна прослойка от обществото ни са толкова обидени от пиесата, без да са я чели или гледали (двата цитата, които се разпространяват като антибългарски, са изречени от българи в пиесата, не от „лошия� швейцарец). „Оръжията и човекът� ги обижда, защото ги разобличава; тези хора са в нещастен брак с Р(усия)айна, тези хора говорят за романтични идеали и завръщане към величието на България със същия глас, с който „протестират� против една абсолютно безобидна, та и доста добра, пиеса, защото някой друг така им е казал, че ще помогнат на клета майка България.
Не е нужно да си императорът на Русия, за да живееш идеалите си; не е нужно да биеш хора пред Народния театър, за да помогнеш на страната си, но затова реализмът е смъртта на фалшивия романтизъм. Нужно е само да си с най-висшия ранг в страната ни. Тук ще преправя Блунтшли: „My rank is the highest known in Bulgaria: I'm a free citizen.� Родният „патреот� (нарочно изписано така) не иска да е свободен гражданин, иска да е руски император, затова ще си остане винаги в нещастния си брак.
П.С. Попаднах на недвузначно доказателство на моето предположение, че Шоу не пише пиесата с България наум. В писмо до Анна Каменова той обяснява как цялата пиеса е написана с празни места за имената на героите и локациите, всички обяснения, че е "поръчкова" за България буквално са невъзможна лъжа и всякакво даване на заден ход в стил "ми не е хубаво да се цензурира, но пък пиесата си има анти-български елементи" са вредни.
August 31, 2016
Having loved , I wanted to try something else from Shaw.
Arms and the Man seems at first just a charming comedy full of humour, but under the guise of entertaining us this is really a witty satire deconstructing the romantic concepts of military heroism and love.
The play, which was produced in 1894 and published in 1898, takes place at the end of a short Bulgarian-Serbian war. A lady shelters a war-weary Swiss mercenary who surprises her with his admission to fearing death and to preferring chocolate to cartridges, in sharp contrast to her reckless fiancé, who she idealises both as a soldier and lover.
The usual farcical entanglements and misunderstandings take place to great humour while heroic ideals are contrasted with realistic depiction of war, and Victorian Love is shown for its ridicule.
Shaw creates a colourful cast, with philandering fiancés, insolent maids, feisty heroines, but it is the "chocolate-cream soldier" who steals the show. Captain Bluntschli is really a brilliant character, endearing in his practical view of life.
A whimsical play, both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'll definitely be reading more of Shaw!
Arms and the Man seems at first just a charming comedy full of humour, but under the guise of entertaining us this is really a witty satire deconstructing the romantic concepts of military heroism and love.
The play, which was produced in 1894 and published in 1898, takes place at the end of a short Bulgarian-Serbian war. A lady shelters a war-weary Swiss mercenary who surprises her with his admission to fearing death and to preferring chocolate to cartridges, in sharp contrast to her reckless fiancé, who she idealises both as a soldier and lover.
The usual farcical entanglements and misunderstandings take place to great humour while heroic ideals are contrasted with realistic depiction of war, and Victorian Love is shown for its ridicule.
Shaw creates a colourful cast, with philandering fiancés, insolent maids, feisty heroines, but it is the "chocolate-cream soldier" who steals the show. Captain Bluntschli is really a brilliant character, endearing in his practical view of life.
A whimsical play, both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'll definitely be reading more of Shaw!
January 15, 2025
نمایشنامه ای در سه پرده
پرده اول و دوم داستان خوب پیش رفت ولی پرده سوم به نظرم دیگه خیلی آبکی بود
پرده اول و دوم داستان خوب پیش رفت ولی پرده سوم به نظرم دیگه خیلی آبکی بود
June 11, 2020
يا ألهي لقد كنت فعلاً بحاجة إلى هذه الجرعة من الضحك.
لقد بدأ هذا العقد ببداية مبشرة مع موجة الحرب العالمية الثالثة وكل الضجة التي صاحبت هذه الموجة. رغم أن هذا الأمر –المثي� للسخرية من أصله- قد انتهى, ألا أنه قد كشف عن ميلاد نوع جديد من الرومانسية العسكرية أو الرومانسية للحرب في صفوف جيلنا الفتي. فجيلنا الذي تربى على أفلام هوليوود وجون ويك وغيرها يتشوق لهذه الفرصة, فرصة لبس الملابس العسكرية والدرع وحمل السلاح اللامع وقتل إرهابي أو مجرم متعصب يحاول أن يدمر نمط حياتنا الرائع فقط لأنه شرير. لكن المشكلة أن جيلنا بصورة عامة لا يعلم شيء عن الحياة الحقيقية لا يعلم أن هذا الإرهابي هو أب وأبن وأخ وله عائلة وهو لم يخرج ألا لكي يدافع عن أرضه أو هذا ما يعتقده على الأقل, فهو شخص من لحم ودم أيضاً.
Some soldiers, I know, are afraid of death.
MAN (with grim goodhumor). All of them, dear lady, all of them, believe me. It is our
duty to live as long as we can, and kill as many of the enemy as we can.
وتأتي هذه المسرحية في والوقت المناسب لكي تخاطب موضوعين مهمين ينتشرون في مجتمعنا بصورة سيئة وهما الحرب والزواج. فالغالب ينظر إلى الحرب إلى أنها شيء بطولي وعظيم وأقرب إلى المغامرة وخصوصاً ضد خصم أقوى منا ولكنها في الحقيقة في الكثير من الأحيان عبارة عن حماقة لكي يستطيع بعض الحمقى في برجهم العاجي المحصن أن يدعوا الشجاعة وأنهم قد فازوا الحرب.
MAN. I’ve no ammunition. What use are cartridges in battle? I always carry chocolate
instead
يتناول برنارد شو مفهومي الحرب والزواج والقيم الرومانسية التي تضفى عليهما ويحاول تفكيكها وإضفاء الفكاهة على ذلك. فبرنارد شو لديه القدرة على أسر القارئ في كل العصور والبلدان, فنعم القصة تتناول دولة بلغاريا وحربها مع الصرب لكن ثيماتها هي ثيمات خالدة صالحة لكل زمان ومكان
PETKOFF (with childish awe). Are you Emperor of Switzerland?
BLUNTSCHLI. My rank is the highest known in Switzerland: I’m a free citizen
تتناول القصة باختصار:
عائلة ضابط بلغاري رفيع المستوى, حيث أن أبنته رينا مخطوبة إلى ضابط أخر –سيرج�- وهي تتخيله ضابط مقدام وشجاع. تسمع رينا عن نبئ قيام سرجي بقيادة فيلق الخيالة واقتحام خطوط العدو فيترسخ أيمانها بشجاعة خطيبها ونبله. وفي أثناء ذلك يدخل غرفتها جندي هارب من الجيش الصربي ويهددها فتساعده على الاختباء. وفيما بعد يتبين أنه جندي طيب وأنه لا يملك أي رصاص في حوزته أصلاً فهو لا يحمل شيء غير الشوكولاتا, فهي حسب تعبيره مفيدة أكثر من الرصاص. بعد ذلك يخبرها هذا الجندي كيف أن قائداً غبياً انتحارياً قام بالهجوم عليهم بقيادة الخيالة والسبب الوحيد الذي أستطاع بسببه النجاح هو أنهم عندما وجهوا رشاشاتهم نحوه اكتشفوا أنهم قد جلبوا الذخيرة الخطأ. بعد ذلك يهرب الجندي ويعود عندما يحل السلم كصديق لوالدها وتبدأ سلسلة من الأحداث المضحكة وخصوصاً أن لا أحد يعلم بأنها قامت بتهريبه عندما كان هارباً. عن طريق الكثير من المواقف الطريفة يقوم شو بتدمير وجهة النظر الرومانسية للحرب وتصورها كشيء شاعري وجميل ويبدلها بأنها شيء واقعي ومتعب وغير سار أبداً. ونفس الشيء بالنسبة للزواج فشو ينقد النظام الطبقي باختيار الأزواج بناءا على مرتبتهم الاجتماعية ويدعوا أن يكون على أسس عقلية وبناء على رغبة الطرفين.
LOUKA. I would marry the man I loved, which no other queen in Europe has the courage to do.
CATHERINE. Such news. There has been a battle!
RAINA (her eyes dilating). Ah!
You’ll never put the soul of a servant into me.
October 19, 2024
আমার পড়া শ্রেষ্� রোম্যান্টি� কমেডির কথ� যদ� আম� বলতে চা� তব� সবার প্রথমে আসবে সাহিত্যে নোবেলজয়ী নাট্যকার জর্জ বার্নার্� � এর 'আর্ম� অ্যান্� দ্যা ম্যা�' এর কথা। প্রে�, ভালোবাসা, সাহস, যুদ্ধে� অসারতা আর মানব মনের লুকোনো ভন্ডাম� সবকিছুকে� তিনি নিখুঁতভাবে ফুটিয়� তুলেছে� তা� এই নাটকটিতে�
নাটকের প্রধান চরিত্র রাইন� পেটকফ। যুদ্� আর প্রেমে� রোমান্টিকতায� যিনি সদ� মশগুল। তা� বাগদত্তা সারজিয়া� সারানফ যুদ্ধক্ষেত্র� আশ্চর্যরকম বোকামি কর� ফেলেছে� কিন্তু তা� এই বোকামিটা� সার্বো-বুলগেরিয়া� যুদ্ধে� মোড় ঘুরিয়� দিয়� বুলগেরিয়ানদের যুদ্ধে জিতিয়� দিয়েছে। তা� সে এখ� দেশে� হিরো! ঠি� � যুদ্ধে� সময় রাইনার ঘর� লুকিয়� ঢুকে পড়ে� এক সুইস সোলজার ক্যাপ্টে� ব্লান্টসলি� দারু� নাটকীয়তা� আলাপ� মেতে ওঠ� দুজন এক� অপরে� সাথে� শুরু হয� দারু� এক অ্যাডভেঞ্চার� হ্যা�, এট� প্রেমে� অ্যাডভেঞ্চার�
শঙ্ক� হয�, দুজন� কি পড়ে যাবে দুজনের প্রেমে? রাইন� কি বাস্তব দুনিয়াত� ল্যান্ডি� করতে পারব�? যুদ্� পরবর্তী সময়� রাইনার মা ক্যাথরিন, পিতা পল, ফিয়ন্সি সারজিয়া�, পরিচারিক� লুকা সবাইকে নিয়� জমজমাট এক ত্রিভু� প্রেমে� কমেড� লেখক এক� ফেলেছিলে� সে� ১৫� বছ� আগে। যা এখনও পাঠককে শিহরিত করে। তা� পাঠক, ভালোবাসা আর সাহস কে আরেকবা� নতুন কর� আবিষ্কার করতে চাইল� পড়ত� ভুলবেন না '�' এর এই মাস্টারপিসটাকে�
নাটকের প্রধান চরিত্র রাইন� পেটকফ। যুদ্� আর প্রেমে� রোমান্টিকতায� যিনি সদ� মশগুল। তা� বাগদত্তা সারজিয়া� সারানফ যুদ্ধক্ষেত্র� আশ্চর্যরকম বোকামি কর� ফেলেছে� কিন্তু তা� এই বোকামিটা� সার্বো-বুলগেরিয়া� যুদ্ধে� মোড় ঘুরিয়� দিয়� বুলগেরিয়ানদের যুদ্ধে জিতিয়� দিয়েছে। তা� সে এখ� দেশে� হিরো! ঠি� � যুদ্ধে� সময় রাইনার ঘর� লুকিয়� ঢুকে পড়ে� এক সুইস সোলজার ক্যাপ্টে� ব্লান্টসলি� দারু� নাটকীয়তা� আলাপ� মেতে ওঠ� দুজন এক� অপরে� সাথে� শুরু হয� দারু� এক অ্যাডভেঞ্চার� হ্যা�, এট� প্রেমে� অ্যাডভেঞ্চার�
শঙ্ক� হয�, দুজন� কি পড়ে যাবে দুজনের প্রেমে? রাইন� কি বাস্তব দুনিয়াত� ল্যান্ডি� করতে পারব�? যুদ্� পরবর্তী সময়� রাইনার মা ক্যাথরিন, পিতা পল, ফিয়ন্সি সারজিয়া�, পরিচারিক� লুকা সবাইকে নিয়� জমজমাট এক ত্রিভু� প্রেমে� কমেড� লেখক এক� ফেলেছিলে� সে� ১৫� বছ� আগে। যা এখনও পাঠককে শিহরিত করে। তা� পাঠক, ভালোবাসা আর সাহস কে আরেকবা� নতুন কর� আবিষ্কার করতে চাইল� পড়ত� ভুলবেন না '�' এর এই মাস্টারপিসটাকে�
October 5, 2020
One of my favorite read-alouds from one of my theater literature classes in college. It was nearly impossible to read without cracking up, which we had to do, as it was supposed to be good training for dealing with stage nonsense.
It was certainly more fun than "Woyzeck." Who expects 18 year old kids to understand "Woyzeck?"
It was certainly more fun than "Woyzeck." Who expects 18 year old kids to understand "Woyzeck?"
November 22, 2015
Teaching Bernard Shaw
Paper presented at Kerala University, Trivandrum
March 1999
Teaching the plays of George Bernard Shaw to the undergraduate students of
Kerala state, India is not an easy task. Taking into consideration the poor
exposure to English literature that the students have got during the twelve
years of their schooling, any piece of literature poses a serious challenge
before the teacher.
The undergraduate students of Kerala are not very well exposed to English
literature. In the high schools classes of Kerala, English classes are not
always handled by graduates in literature. According to the whims and fancies of
the headmaster, teachers of biology or chemistry are very often sent to teach
English to students of the eighth, the ninth and the tenth standards. These
‘guest-teachers� are quite incapable of explaining a piece of literature with
reference to the author and his or her background. They simply resort to reading
the lessons and giving the word-meanings in simple vernacular.
At the higher-secondary level, the classes are handled by post-graduate hands.
But at this level, there is no emphasis in having a detailed study of English
literature. The teachers just resort to prepare the students to get a pass
minimum in the General English examinations. The students very often ignore
English classes and pay more attention to their optional subjects—science,
history or commerce according to which stream whey have joined.
Most of the Indian universities prescribe the plays of George Bernard Shaw as an
ingredient of General English ("Part-I English") for undergraduate courses in
science, commerce and humanities. I have been teaching George Bernard Shaw for
the last ten years (from1988 to 1998) to the first year B.Sc. students of Sir
Syed College, Taliparamba which is affiliated to the University of Cannanore.
The students weren’t backward as such; They had completed their higher-secondary
courses and they came out in flying colours. They were the best in the campus as
the students of Physics and Chemistry were generally considered the most
intelligent ones in the whole group.
The problem begins in the very first class when the teacher starts giving them a
general introduction to English drama. They had certainly heard of William
Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw, but nothing more than that. They haven’t
read a single play of Bernard Shaw or Shakespeare for that matter. They haven’t
even come across the Charles Lamb version of Shakespeare.
A serious writer like George Bernard Shaw demands a lot of sincerity from the
teacher’s part. The teacher has to explain in detail the age of Bernard Shaw and
the historical, cultural and social peculiarities of that age. The teacher
should continuously remind himself that these science students are simple
novices in the field of literature. The teacher shouldn’t take anything for
granted. Even the simplest kind of reference should be explained with lucidity.
The preface to the Plays Pleasant is a hard thing for the non-literature
student. The teacher should take a lot of pains to guide the student through the
maze of philosophical suggestions and innovative ideas contained in the preface.
Expressions of George Bernard Shaw like "the obvious conflicts of unmistakable
good with unmistakable evil can only supply the crude drama of villain and hero
in which some absolute point of view is taken�.In such wares I do not deal",
sounds Latin to the poor science students of Kerala. At every stage the teacher
has to take into account the standard and level of the students from various
perspectives. He has to remind himself again and again the undergraduate status
of the students and the little exposure they have got to this kind of prose
during their twelve years of schooling.
After finishing the preface you enter the real text� the play Arms and the Man.
Things are much easier now, at least comparatively. You feel like a train
emerging
Paper presented at Kerala University, Trivandrum
March 1999
Teaching the plays of George Bernard Shaw to the undergraduate students of
Kerala state, India is not an easy task. Taking into consideration the poor
exposure to English literature that the students have got during the twelve
years of their schooling, any piece of literature poses a serious challenge
before the teacher.
The undergraduate students of Kerala are not very well exposed to English
literature. In the high schools classes of Kerala, English classes are not
always handled by graduates in literature. According to the whims and fancies of
the headmaster, teachers of biology or chemistry are very often sent to teach
English to students of the eighth, the ninth and the tenth standards. These
‘guest-teachers� are quite incapable of explaining a piece of literature with
reference to the author and his or her background. They simply resort to reading
the lessons and giving the word-meanings in simple vernacular.
At the higher-secondary level, the classes are handled by post-graduate hands.
But at this level, there is no emphasis in having a detailed study of English
literature. The teachers just resort to prepare the students to get a pass
minimum in the General English examinations. The students very often ignore
English classes and pay more attention to their optional subjects—science,
history or commerce according to which stream whey have joined.
Most of the Indian universities prescribe the plays of George Bernard Shaw as an
ingredient of General English ("Part-I English") for undergraduate courses in
science, commerce and humanities. I have been teaching George Bernard Shaw for
the last ten years (from1988 to 1998) to the first year B.Sc. students of Sir
Syed College, Taliparamba which is affiliated to the University of Cannanore.
The students weren’t backward as such; They had completed their higher-secondary
courses and they came out in flying colours. They were the best in the campus as
the students of Physics and Chemistry were generally considered the most
intelligent ones in the whole group.
The problem begins in the very first class when the teacher starts giving them a
general introduction to English drama. They had certainly heard of William
Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw, but nothing more than that. They haven’t
read a single play of Bernard Shaw or Shakespeare for that matter. They haven’t
even come across the Charles Lamb version of Shakespeare.
A serious writer like George Bernard Shaw demands a lot of sincerity from the
teacher’s part. The teacher has to explain in detail the age of Bernard Shaw and
the historical, cultural and social peculiarities of that age. The teacher
should continuously remind himself that these science students are simple
novices in the field of literature. The teacher shouldn’t take anything for
granted. Even the simplest kind of reference should be explained with lucidity.
The preface to the Plays Pleasant is a hard thing for the non-literature
student. The teacher should take a lot of pains to guide the student through the
maze of philosophical suggestions and innovative ideas contained in the preface.
Expressions of George Bernard Shaw like "the obvious conflicts of unmistakable
good with unmistakable evil can only supply the crude drama of villain and hero
in which some absolute point of view is taken�.In such wares I do not deal",
sounds Latin to the poor science students of Kerala. At every stage the teacher
has to take into account the standard and level of the students from various
perspectives. He has to remind himself again and again the undergraduate status
of the students and the little exposure they have got to this kind of prose
during their twelve years of schooling.
After finishing the preface you enter the real text� the play Arms and the Man.
Things are much easier now, at least comparatively. You feel like a train
emerging
November 10, 2024
След прочита на тази пиеса едно от нещата, което си мисля е, че и най-голямата антиреклама всъщност си е много силна реклама! Как всички се втурнаха да търсят и да прочетат нещо, за което до вчера дори не бяха чували само защото едни хора патриоти крещяха НЕ, а други хора � на изкуството, казаха твърдо ДА!? Но истината винаги е някъде по средата и за да се стигне до нея пиесата трябва да се прочете и изгради собствено мнение, а не да се крещи едното или другото само защото по принцип трябва да се вземе страна или някой така е казал.
Е, прочетох я много внимателно, при все че не обичам пиесите като жанр, още по-малко сатиричните произведения (от всякакви жанрове). За мен си беше посредствена пиеса, която не блести с нищо кой знае какво, но и не обижда с нищо кой знае какво (от чисто литературна и театрална гледна точка). Все пак ролята на комедийната литература (а още повече на комедийния театър) е да хиперболизира определени черти и постъпки, за да стане смешно. Много по-лесно е да се разплаче една публика отколкото да я накараш да се смее и затова комедията е много по-трудно да се създава.
Ето защо според мен Шоу се е спрял на българските хигиенни навици (като сигурна съм, че изцяло европейските по онова време не са били по-назад, но може би е имало вече наченки на чистотност), защото от това би се получило добра комедия. Но тъй като ние сме българи се обиждаме без да се замислим, че в случая човекът е прав. Ако той си беше избрал който и да било друг народ обаче и ние щяхме да се смеем купом както и всички останали. Няма да се спирам на конкретни примери от пиесата, защото те са плъзнали навсякъде в интернет пространството, наред с примери от родното творчество, които са дори и по-нелицеприятни по отношение на миенето и цялостната хигиена. Но ще кажа, че през цялото време докато четях си мислех за Клавел и неговия Шогун, където англичаните са представени много по-зле по отношение на хигиената, направо като прасета. Е, може англичаните и да са обидени на Клавел, но това не пречи на Шогун да бъде шедьовър в литературата. Толкова за хигиената и обидчивостта на един народ, който продължава да се къпе избирателно.
Другият проблем с осмиването на родната армия � еми честно не видях такова! Това, че е е избрана конкретна война (при това печеливша за нас) и в първо действие е описано как българите са разгромили сърбите в конкретната битка и онези бягат панически с какво ни обижда?!? (Дори в следващите действия войната вече е свършила и за нея не се говори с конкретика!!!) Да, героите са малко глуповати, но симпатични и войната изобщо не е на преден план. Тя е използвана като повод, при който един беглец ще се запознае с една българска девойка, която ще го спаси, ще го подслони, а по-късно ще се влюбят. Беглецът при това е швейцарец и авторът казва в прав текст, че швейцарците са най-глупавите хора на света (дали и те се обиждат). А той швейцарецът (наемник биещ се за сърбите) вместо патрони носи шоколад, никога няма патрони в себе си и като цяло сърбите били толкова зле на бойното поле, че затова българите спечелили. Да, иронизира и българските бойни действия, но всички твърдят, че това е антивоенна комедия и трябва да има и ирония и пародия и абсурдни моменти. Аз лично не знам дали е антивоенна, но видях как едно семейство в крайна сметка се полакоми от богатствата на новия обект на желание на дъщеря им и много бързо се съгласиха да се замени със стария годеник, който също бе избран преди това, защото е от видно семейство и има богатство. Стигна се до там, че двамата да си изброяват кой има повече коне, но и покривки, чаршафи или посуда - пълни абсурдизми. А това да се избира богатството пред личните качества си е световна черта и начин да се уреждат браковете преди сто години (а и днес).
Като цяло пиесата се чете бързо и е приятна за четене, но както казах посредствена. Не обичам този тип хумор, който показва простащината и хиперболизира лошите черти, за да е смешно. Затова и на мен не ми хареса. Но и в съвременната българска литература е пълно с подобни осмиващи произведения и хората масово казват, че си умират от смях. Пълно е и с произведения, които осмиват други народи и българинът отново си умира от смях. Просто не ми харесва двойния аршин и това, че нещо свързано с култура и изкуство се политизира и се търси под вола теле и това, че се взима страна в един спор, който поначало не трябва да съществува!
П.С. Предговорът в началото ми беше много по-интересен от самата пиеса!
Е, прочетох я много внимателно, при все че не обичам пиесите като жанр, още по-малко сатиричните произведения (от всякакви жанрове). За мен си беше посредствена пиеса, която не блести с нищо кой знае какво, но и не обижда с нищо кой знае какво (от чисто литературна и театрална гледна точка). Все пак ролята на комедийната литература (а още повече на комедийния театър) е да хиперболизира определени черти и постъпки, за да стане смешно. Много по-лесно е да се разплаче една публика отколкото да я накараш да се смее и затова комедията е много по-трудно да се създава.
Ето защо според мен Шоу се е спрял на българските хигиенни навици (като сигурна съм, че изцяло европейските по онова време не са били по-назад, но може би е имало вече наченки на чистотност), защото от това би се получило добра комедия. Но тъй като ние сме българи се обиждаме без да се замислим, че в случая човекът е прав. Ако той си беше избрал който и да било друг народ обаче и ние щяхме да се смеем купом както и всички останали. Няма да се спирам на конкретни примери от пиесата, защото те са плъзнали навсякъде в интернет пространството, наред с примери от родното творчество, които са дори и по-нелицеприятни по отношение на миенето и цялостната хигиена. Но ще кажа, че през цялото време докато четях си мислех за Клавел и неговия Шогун, където англичаните са представени много по-зле по отношение на хигиената, направо като прасета. Е, може англичаните и да са обидени на Клавел, но това не пречи на Шогун да бъде шедьовър в литературата. Толкова за хигиената и обидчивостта на един народ, който продължава да се къпе избирателно.
Другият проблем с осмиването на родната армия � еми честно не видях такова! Това, че е е избрана конкретна война (при това печеливша за нас) и в първо действие е описано как българите са разгромили сърбите в конкретната битка и онези бягат панически с какво ни обижда?!? (Дори в следващите действия войната вече е свършила и за нея не се говори с конкретика!!!) Да, героите са малко глуповати, но симпатични и войната изобщо не е на преден план. Тя е използвана като повод, при който един беглец ще се запознае с една българска девойка, която ще го спаси, ще го подслони, а по-късно ще се влюбят. Беглецът при това е швейцарец и авторът казва в прав текст, че швейцарците са най-глупавите хора на света (дали и те се обиждат). А той швейцарецът (наемник биещ се за сърбите) вместо патрони носи шоколад, никога няма патрони в себе си и като цяло сърбите били толкова зле на бойното поле, че затова българите спечелили. Да, иронизира и българските бойни действия, но всички твърдят, че това е антивоенна комедия и трябва да има и ирония и пародия и абсурдни моменти. Аз лично не знам дали е антивоенна, но видях как едно семейство в крайна сметка се полакоми от богатствата на новия обект на желание на дъщеря им и много бързо се съгласиха да се замени със стария годеник, който също бе избран преди това, защото е от видно семейство и има богатство. Стигна се до там, че двамата да си изброяват кой има повече коне, но и покривки, чаршафи или посуда - пълни абсурдизми. А това да се избира богатството пред личните качества си е световна черта и начин да се уреждат браковете преди сто години (а и днес).
Като цяло пиесата се чете бързо и е приятна за четене, но както казах посредствена. Не обичам този тип хумор, който показва простащината и хиперболизира лошите черти, за да е смешно. Затова и на мен не ми хареса. Но и в съвременната българска литература е пълно с подобни осмиващи произведения и хората масово казват, че си умират от смях. Пълно е и с произведения, които осмиват други народи и българинът отново си умира от смях. Просто не ми харесва двойния аршин и това, че нещо свързано с култура и изкуство се политизира и се търси под вола теле и това, че се взима страна в един спор, който поначало не трябва да съществува!
П.С. Предговорът в началото ми беше много по-интересен от самата пиеса!
July 8, 2016
على خطى توليستوي في (الحرب و السلام) ، بيسير برنارد شو هنا في مسرحيته (الإنسان و السلاح) ، على طريق تعرية أخلاق الحرب و البطولة الزائفة و الإصطناع، في مقابل الإنتصار للرومانسية الواقعية !
المسرحية بتدور أحداثها في بلغاريا سنة 1885 وقت نشوب الحرب الصربية-البلغارية
بلونتشلي : ... تذكري أنني ضابط . برأيك ما هما الشيئان اللذان يحدثان لجندي دون أن يهتم بهما ؟ ، الشئ الأول هو أن يسمع الناس يقولون الأكاذيب ، و الثاني أن تنقذ حياته بأي طريقة ممكنة و من قبل أي واحد من الناس ..
رايينا : .. بهذا يصبح مخلوقا غير مؤهل للثقة و العرفان بالجميل .
المسرحية بتدور أحداثها في بلغاريا سنة 1885 وقت نشوب الحرب الصربية-البلغارية
بلونتشلي : ... تذكري أنني ضابط . برأيك ما هما الشيئان اللذان يحدثان لجندي دون أن يهتم بهما ؟ ، الشئ الأول هو أن يسمع الناس يقولون الأكاذيب ، و الثاني أن تنقذ حياته بأي طريقة ممكنة و من قبل أي واحد من الناس ..
رايينا : .. بهذا يصبح مخلوقا غير مؤهل للثقة و العرفان بالجميل .
February 19, 2011
In the opening scene of Arms and the Man, which establishes the play’s embattled Balkan setting, young Raina learns of her suitor’s heroic exploits in combat. She rhapsodizes that it is “a glorious world for women who can see its glory and men who can act its romance!� Soon, however, such romantic falsifications of love and warfare are brilliantly and at times hilariously unmasked in a comedy that reveals George Bernard Shaw at his best as an acute social observer and witty provocateur.
� From the back of the Dover Thrift Edition
_________________________________________________
I honestly had no desire to read this book. I was going to read it for school, but I most definitely wasn’t excited about it. I’d read the back about three times but could never remember what it was about and didn’t really care to. But I am so, SO glad I read this book. It was witty, adventurous, and “romantic�. Shaw’s intention was to make fun of romance, in a way, but I still thought the romance was adorable. Because I’m cheesy like that.
Favorite character: Sergius, despite his idiocy. He was hilarious, because of his idiocy. He’s a gentleman in high society and a rogue at heart. Raina comes in as a close second and so does the Swiss.
Favorite aspect: The Swiss’s affect on the story. “Chocolate cream soldier�!
One word to sum it up: Two-timing. Trust me, this is a good thing! You’d have to read it to understand what I mean.
And do I want you to read it?
Answer: YES!
� From the back of the Dover Thrift Edition
_________________________________________________
I honestly had no desire to read this book. I was going to read it for school, but I most definitely wasn’t excited about it. I’d read the back about three times but could never remember what it was about and didn’t really care to. But I am so, SO glad I read this book. It was witty, adventurous, and “romantic�. Shaw’s intention was to make fun of romance, in a way, but I still thought the romance was adorable. Because I’m cheesy like that.
Favorite character: Sergius, despite his idiocy. He was hilarious, because of his idiocy. He’s a gentleman in high society and a rogue at heart. Raina comes in as a close second and so does the Swiss.
Favorite aspect: The Swiss’s affect on the story. “Chocolate cream soldier�!
One word to sum it up: Two-timing. Trust me, this is a good thing! You’d have to read it to understand what I mean.
And do I want you to read it?
Answer: YES!
February 21, 2013
للمسرحية فكرتين رئيسيتين : الحرب و الزواج
August 25, 2021
I remember back to 1991 when the United States began bombing Iraq in what was then called the Persian Gulf War. (Is it now the first Iraq War?) I could not bear to watch it on television, so I sat on my living-room floor and sobbed and sobbed. I was pregnant with my second daughter, Laura, at the time, and I knew that pregnant mothers like me were suffering in a war that neither of us had any control over. I remember the jingoism and the puffed-up patriotism that allowed people to romanticize war, even in the end of the 20th century. Not long later, hundreds of misguided young men � including NFL football player Pat Tillman � joined the military in droves in a fit of patriotic fervor only to discover that war is always a tragedy and that young men die in old men’s wars.
If that foolish romanticization could happen in the 21st century, how much more was that true in the 19th? Years before Erich Maria Remarque’s , Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw was sending up the war enthusiasts with this 1894 gem. Silly Raina Petkoff, daughter in the richest, best-connected family, romanticizes war and imagines that her fiancé, Captain Sergius Saranoff, will be a victorious hero, straight out of a Victorian melodrama. However, Raina hears a very different account of the nature of war from an escaping Swiss mercenary on the run from the Bulgarian-Russian forces. Shaw’s take on the real nature of courage will blow you away.
If that foolish romanticization could happen in the 21st century, how much more was that true in the 19th? Years before Erich Maria Remarque’s , Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw was sending up the war enthusiasts with this 1894 gem. Silly Raina Petkoff, daughter in the richest, best-connected family, romanticizes war and imagines that her fiancé, Captain Sergius Saranoff, will be a victorious hero, straight out of a Victorian melodrama. However, Raina hears a very different account of the nature of war from an escaping Swiss mercenary on the run from the Bulgarian-Russian forces. Shaw’s take on the real nature of courage will blow you away.
January 31, 2010
I have yet to read anything by Shaw that I didn't like and this play was no exception. There were several parts of this play that had me laughing out loud. One of my favourites is when Raina is trying to show Bluntschli that she is not an ignorant country girl, but a civilized person:
Raina: You shewed great ignorance in thinking that it was necessary to climb up the balcony...There is a flight of stairs inside to get up and down by.
The Man (Bluntschli): Stairs! How grand! You live in great luxury indeed, dear young lady.
Her claims to civility only emphasize her own ignorance, especially in light of the nature of the man she is explaining them to. This is what I love most about Shaw; his characters remain likeable even when they are arrogant, ridiculous, or in many other ways flawed.
Raina: You shewed great ignorance in thinking that it was necessary to climb up the balcony...There is a flight of stairs inside to get up and down by.
The Man (Bluntschli): Stairs! How grand! You live in great luxury indeed, dear young lady.
Her claims to civility only emphasize her own ignorance, especially in light of the nature of the man she is explaining them to. This is what I love most about Shaw; his characters remain likeable even when they are arrogant, ridiculous, or in many other ways flawed.
June 23, 2020
مرد (بلانچی): شما به عمرتان جنگ سوارهنظا� ندیدهاید�
زن (رنا): چطور میتوانست� ببینم؟
مرد (بلانچی): البته نمیتوانستهای�. خلاصه منظرۀ مضحکی است. مثل پرتابکرد� یک مشت نخودچی به طرف شیشهها� پنجره است. اول یکی میآید� بعد دو یا سه تا نزدیک هم و آخر سر تمامشان با هم.
زن (رنا): (دیدگانش با تعجب گشوده میشو� و دستهای� را به طرز شاعرانها� بهه� وصل میکن�) آری اول کسی میآی� که از همه شجاعت� است.
مرد (بلانچی): (با خشکیِ خاصی میگوی�) از همه! احمق بیچاره! اسبش را به سختی نگه میدار� ...
زن (رنا): چرا به سختی نگه میدارد�
مرد (بلانچی): (از این سؤال احمقانه کاسۀ صبرش لبریز میشو�) اگر اسبش را نگه ندارد، اسب او را برمیدار�. شما فکر میکنی� او دلش میخواه� قبل از همه کشته شود؟ بعد تمام آنه� میآین�. جوانه� را از حرارت و رجزخوانی و شمشیرزنیشا� میتوا� شناخت. پیرها در یک دسته باهم حرکت میکنن� و از یک سردسته اطاعت میکنن�. آنه� میدانن� که آلت اجرای نقشۀ کس دیگری هستند و جنگکرد� روی همرفت� کار بیفایدها� است. زخمیه� غالباً از زانوها و پاهای شکسته خود مینالن� و معمولاً این صدمه را از جست و خیز نامرتب اسبه� و لگد آنه� میبینن�.
زن (رنا): چطور میتوانست� ببینم؟
مرد (بلانچی): البته نمیتوانستهای�. خلاصه منظرۀ مضحکی است. مثل پرتابکرد� یک مشت نخودچی به طرف شیشهها� پنجره است. اول یکی میآید� بعد دو یا سه تا نزدیک هم و آخر سر تمامشان با هم.
زن (رنا): (دیدگانش با تعجب گشوده میشو� و دستهای� را به طرز شاعرانها� بهه� وصل میکن�) آری اول کسی میآی� که از همه شجاعت� است.
مرد (بلانچی): (با خشکیِ خاصی میگوی�) از همه! احمق بیچاره! اسبش را به سختی نگه میدار� ...
زن (رنا): چرا به سختی نگه میدارد�
مرد (بلانچی): (از این سؤال احمقانه کاسۀ صبرش لبریز میشو�) اگر اسبش را نگه ندارد، اسب او را برمیدار�. شما فکر میکنی� او دلش میخواه� قبل از همه کشته شود؟ بعد تمام آنه� میآین�. جوانه� را از حرارت و رجزخوانی و شمشیرزنیشا� میتوا� شناخت. پیرها در یک دسته باهم حرکت میکنن� و از یک سردسته اطاعت میکنن�. آنه� میدانن� که آلت اجرای نقشۀ کس دیگری هستند و جنگکرد� روی همرفت� کار بیفایدها� است. زخمیه� غالباً از زانوها و پاهای شکسته خود مینالن� و معمولاً این صدمه را از جست و خیز نامرتب اسبه� و لگد آنه� میبینن�.
September 18, 2022
Yummy, yummy satire.
Delicious from beginning to end, from its Chocolate-Cream Soldier to its Soubrette, from its military buffoonery to its homefront worshipfulness, George Bernard Shaw baked a perfect souffle of anti-war, anti-romance, anti-establishment.
It should be staged today, tomorrow and forever.
Delicious from beginning to end, from its Chocolate-Cream Soldier to its Soubrette, from its military buffoonery to its homefront worshipfulness, George Bernard Shaw baked a perfect souffle of anti-war, anti-romance, anti-establishment.
It should be staged today, tomorrow and forever.
May 8, 2021
I'll be honest, I only decided to read because of the Bulgarian setting and characters. Very rarely do you read about Bulgaria in western literature, and when I discovered that one of the most famous playwrights in the world had written a play set in Bulgaria? I immediately knew I had to read it.
I really liked it. I could relate a lot to Raina, the main character. There were also some funny moments, which I enjoyed.
The only reason I've given it 4 stars instead of 5 is because... there were some ignorant portrayals of the Bulgarian lifestyle. I later learned that Shaw had never actually been to Bulgaria, so I really wish he could have done that, and presented us slightly better than he did.
I really liked it. I could relate a lot to Raina, the main character. There were also some funny moments, which I enjoyed.
The only reason I've given it 4 stars instead of 5 is because... there were some ignorant portrayals of the Bulgarian lifestyle. I later learned that Shaw had never actually been to Bulgaria, so I really wish he could have done that, and presented us slightly better than he did.
August 21, 2020
If I had reviewed and rated this 45 years ago it would have received a much higher rating. Rereading it now, I am amused and also somewhat chagrined. Shaw is clever and the comedy is sweet, but not nearly so great as I remembered it.
This is a spoof on the military, upper class mannerisms, and romance. It seems to be an attempt to compete with but does not succeed, in my humble opinion. is much better.
This is a spoof on the military, upper class mannerisms, and romance. It seems to be an attempt to compete with but does not succeed, in my humble opinion. is much better.
June 26, 2019
چقدر خوب بود این!!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 600 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.