欧宝娱乐

Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

丿賵賳 跇賵丕賳 丿乇 丨賴賳賲

Rate this book
Shaw began writing Man and Superman in 1901 and determined to write a play that would encapsulate the new century's intellectual inheritance. Shaw drew not only on Byron's verse satire, but also on Shakespeare, the Victorian comedy fashionable in his early life, and from authors from Conan Doyle to Kipling. In this powerful drama of ideas, Shaw explores the role of the artist, the function of women in society, and his theory of Creative Evolution. As Stanley Weintraub says in his new introduction, this is "the first great twentieth-century English play" and remains a classic expos茅 of the eternal struggle between the sexes.

This edition:
Man and Superman was the first drama to be broadcast on the BBC's Third Program on October 1, 1946. To celebrate Radio 3's 50th anniversary, the play was directed by Sir Peter Hall, and preserved for all time in this lush audio dramatization.

"A comedy and a philosophy", Man and Superman is based on the Don Juan theme, and using all the elements from Mozart's Don Giovanni, Shaw reordered them so that Don Juan becomes the quarry instead of the huntsman.

Boasting an outstanding cast including Ralph Fiennes, Juliet Stevenson, Dame Judi Dench, John Wood, Nicholas Le Prevost, and Paul Merton, this release includes an exclusive interview with director Sir Peter Hall.

86 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1903

327 people are currently reading
7,385 people want to read

About the author

George Bernard Shaw

2,327books3,990followers
George 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.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1,354 (29%)
4 stars
1,710 (37%)
3 stars
1,125 (24%)
2 stars
310 (6%)
1 star
97 (2%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews
Profile Image for 賴丿賶 賷丨賷賶.
Author听12 books17.6k followers
May 6, 2018
鈥�
丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕賱爻賵亘乇賲丕賳 賴賷 孬丕賳賷 兀賮囟賱 賲丕 賯乇兀鬲 賱卮賵 亘毓丿 亘噩賲丕賱賷賵賳
賮丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘乇睾賲 胤賵賱賴丕 丕賱賲賮乇胤 廿賱丕 兀賳賴丕 賵噩亘丞 毓賯賱賷丞 賲賲鬲毓丞鈥�
賵賮賷賴丕 賷爻鬲睾賱 卮賵 爻禺乇賷鬲賴 丕賱賱丕匕毓丞 賵兀爻賱賵亘賴 丕賱噩匕丕亘
賮賷 丕亘鬲丿丕毓 賳賵毓 賲鬲賲賷夭 賲賳 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲
兀賱丕 賵賴賵 賲爻乇丨 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇

:::::::::::::::
賲丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿賱丕 丨亘賱 賲賳氐賵亘 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳 賵丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲鬲賮賵賯
賮賴賵 丕賱丨亘賱 丕賱賲卮丿賵丿 賮賵賯 丕賱賴丕賵賷丞
廿賳 賮賷 丕賱毓亘賵乇 賱賱噩賴丞 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱丞 賲禺丕胤乇丞
賵賮賷 丕賱亘賯丕亍 賵爻胤 丕賱胤乇賷賯 禺胤乇丕賸
賵賮賷 丕賱廿賱鬲賮丕鬲 廿賱賶 丕賱賵乇丕亍
賵賮賷 賰賱 鬲乇丿丿 賵賮賷 賰賱 鬲賵賯賮 禺胤乇 賮賷 禺胤乇..
鈥�

賳賷鬲卮賴- 賴賰匕丕 鬲賰賱賲 夭丕乇丕丿卮鬲
--------------------
賱賯丿 賵乇丿 賱賮馗 丕賱爻賵亘乇賲丕賳 賯亘賱丕 毓賱賶 賱爻丕賳 賱賵爻賷丕賳鈥�
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷 丕賱爻丕禺乇 鈥�
孬賲 睾賵鬲賴 賮賷 賮丕賵爻鬲 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞鈥�

賵賱賰賳賴 亘賲賮賴賵賲賴 毓賳丿 賳賷鬲卮賴 丕賰鬲爻亘 亘毓丿丕 賲禺鬲賱賮丕
賮賴賵 賷乇丕賴 鬲胤賵乇丕 丨鬲賲賷丕 賱兀卮賰丕賱 兀毓賱賶 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞鈥�
賵賱賰賳賴 兀賷囟丕 賷乇丕賴
鈥�"兀亘毓丿 賲丕 賷賰賵賳 毓賳 丕賱丨鬲賲賷丞
賮賴賵 鬲丨丿賺 丿丕卅賲 賱賱乇賵丨 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賯丿 賱丕 賷鬲丨賯賯 兀亘丿丕"鈥�

賵毓賱賷賳丕 賰賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲 亘卮乇賷丞 兀賳 賳賰丕賮丨
賱賳氐賱 廿賱賶 賴匕丕 鈥徹з勝嗁呝堌柏� 丕賱兀賲孬賱 賱賱賰賲丕賱

:::::::::::::::

鬲賰賳賷賰 卮賵 賮賷 賲爻乇丨賷鬲賴 賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱鬲賵賯賮 毓賳丿賴 胤賵賷賱丕
賮賴賵 賱丕 賷亘賳賷 賲爻乇丨丕 丿丕禺賱 賲爻乇丨 賮賯胤鈥�
賮賴賳丕賰 鬲丿丕禺賱 賲丕 亘賷賳 丨亘賰丞 丕賱賮賵丿賮賷賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞
賵亘賷賳 賳賯丕卮丕鬲 賮賱爻賮賷丞 賲賳 丕賱胤乇丕夭 丕賱乇賮賷毓鈥�
賵賴賷 鬲毓鬲賲丿 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丿丕禺賱 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱丨賱賲 賵丕賱賵丕賯毓

賵賴賳丕 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賴賷 丕賱亘胤賱 丕賱兀賵丨丿鈥�
丕賱丨丿孬 賷亘丿賵 孬丕賳賵賷丕 亘乇睾賲 鬲卮丕亘賰賴 賵鬲毓賯丿賴鈥�
賵丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 鬲亘丿賵 賲乇爻賵賲丞 賮賯胤 賰賷 鬲毓賱賷 賲賳 賯賷賲丞 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲鈥�
賵鬲丨賯賯 賱卮賵 乇睾亘鬲賴 賮賷 廿孬乇丕亍 兀賮賰丕乇賴 鬲賱賰鈥�
賵賲賳丕賯卮鬲賴丕 亘賰賱 丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱賲賲賰賳丞
賵賵噩賴丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞

:::::::::::::::

禺賱丕賱 丕賱爻賳賵丕鬲 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 鈥�
賰丕賳鬲 賴賳丕賰 賮賵乇丞 亘賷賳 賲毓丕氐乇賷賴 亘爻亘亘 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 鈥�
賵丕賱噩丿丕賱 丕賱兀亘丿賷 毓賳 賲丕賴賷丞 乇賵丨 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 鬲丨鬲 賵胤兀丞 賰賱 賴匕賴 鈥徹з勜з冐簇з佖ж� 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞
賵氐乇丕毓丕鬲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱賲亘丕丿卅

鈥� 廿賳賴丕 鬲毓賰爻 丕賱賴賲賵賲 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲卮睾賱 毓賯賵賱 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 鈥�
賵丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘賯囟賷丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳

:::::::::::::::

鬲丿賵乇 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 丨賵賱 賮鬲丕丞 卮丕亘丞 鬲丿毓賷 丌賳鈥�
鬲噩丿 賳賮爻賴丕 亘毓丿 賵賮丕丞 兀亘賷賴丕
鬲丨鬲 賵氐丕賷丞 乇噩賱賷賳
丕賱兀賵賱 賴賵 乇丕賲爻丿賳 賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 毓噩賵夭
鈥� 賷賳鬲賲賷 丕賱賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賮賷賰鬲賵乇賷

鈥� 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 鬲丕賳乇 賵賴賵 賰丕鬲亘 孬賵乇賷 鈥�
鈥� 兀賱賮 賰鬲丕亘丕 兀爻賲丕賴 :丕賱孬賵乇賷 丕賱賰丕賲賱

丕賱乇噩賱丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮丕賳 鬲賲丕賲 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮鈥�
鈥� 乇丕賲爻丿賳 賷賳鬲賲賷 丕賱賶 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賳賴囟賵賷 丕賱賲丨丕賮馗鈥�
亘賷賳賲丕 賷賳鬲賲賷 鬲丕賳乇 廿賱賶 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞鈥�
賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賵 賲夭賷噩丕 賲賳 鬲胤賵乇 丿丕乇賵賷賳 賵丕賳爻丕賳 賳賷鬲卮賴 丕賱兀爻賲賶鈥�
鈥� 鈥�
賮鬲丕賳乇 賲卮睾賵賱 亘賮賰乇丞 丕賱爻賵亘乇賲丕賳
賵賷亘丨孬 賮賷 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲兀賲賷賳 丕賱卮乇賵胤 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 賱賵賱丕丿鬲賴
賵賳卮兀鬲赖

賵賱丿賷賴 兀賮賰丕乇 鬲亘丿賵 睾乇賷亘丞 賵爻禺賷賮丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 廿賱賶 乇丕賲爻丿賳 丕賱賲丨丕賮馗鈥�
賮賴賵 賷乇賶 賲孬賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賴賷 丕賱賲爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱乇噩賱鈥�
丨鬲賶 丨賷賳 賷毓鬲賯丿 丕賱乇噩賱 兀賳賴 賴賵 丕賱賲爻賷胤乇
賵毓賱賶 匕賱賰 賱賳 賷鬲夭賵噩 賲賳 丌賳 丨鬲賶 賵廿賳 賰丕賳鬲 鬲乇賷丿 匕賱賰
賮丕賱夭賵丕噩 爻賷丨賷賱賴 丕賱賶 賰丕卅賳 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 亘丨鬲 鈥�
賵爻賷囟毓 丨丿丕 賱賳卮丕胤丕鬲賴 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞
賮賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 賴賵 賵馗賷賮丞 丕賱賲乇兀丞
賵丕賱賲乇兀丞 賮賯胤

:::::::::::::::

賵亘毓丿 丿禺賵賱 卮禺氐賷丕鬲 噩丿賷丿丞 賵鬲卮丕亘賰 賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬
鬲兀鬲賷 匕乇賵丞 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賮賷 丕賱丨賱賲 丕賱匕賷 賷丨賱賲賴 鬲丕賳乇
賮賳乇賶 兀賵亘乇丕 丿賵賳 噩賷賵賮丕賳賷 亘卮賰賱 賲禺鬲賱賮
亘賲賱丕賲丨 卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞
賵鬲丿賵乇 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲賲鬲毓丞 亘賷賳賴賲 賮賷 兀賲賵乇 毓丿丞鈥�
亘賷賳賲丕 賷賯賮 丕賱卮賷胤丕賳 毓賱賶 毓鬲亘丞 噩賴賳賲 賲爻乇鬲爻賱丕 賮賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賲毓賴賲 鈥徹呝娯关�

:::::::::::::::

亘乇睾賲 丕禺鬲賱丕賮賷 賲毓 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賮賰丕乇 丕賱賵丕乇丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞
廿賱丕 兀賳賴丕 賱丕賯鬲 廿毓噩丕亘丕 賰亘賷乇丕 賮賷 賳賮爻賷
賰孬乇丞 賲丕 兀賱賴亘鬲 毓賯賱賷 亘兀賮賰丕乇賴丕
賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱兀爻賱賵亘 卮賵 丕賱丕匕毓 丕賱爻禺乇賷丞
賵丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賲賳丕賮爻 賱賴

丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賳爻禺丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞



廿賳 丕賱胤丕毓賵賳 賵 丕賱賲噩丕毓丕鬲 賵丕賱夭賱丕夭賱 賵丕賱毓賵丕氐賮 賰丕賳鬲 賰賱賴丕 毓乇囟賷丞鈥�
鈥� 廿賳 卮賷卅丕 兀賰孬乇 孬亘丕鬲丕 賵 兀賰孬乇 賯爻賵丞 賵 兀賰孬乇 鬲丿賲賷乇丕 賰丕賳 賲胤賱賵亘丕
鈥� 賵 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賷亍 賴賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳鈥�
賮賴賵 丕賱匕賷 丕禺鬲乇毓 丕賾賱丕鬲 丕賱賯鬲賱 賵 丕賱鬲毓匕賷亘 賲賳 丕賱爻賷賮 賵丕賱亘賳丿賯賷丞 賵 丕賱睾丕夭 鈥徹з勜池з� 賵 丕賱賰乇爻賷 丕賱賰賴乇亘丕卅賷
賵 賮賵賯 賰賱 賴匕丕 丕禺鬲乇毓 丕賱毓丿賱 賵 丕賱賵丕噩亘 賵 丕賱賵胤賳賷丞 賵 賲丕 卮丕亘賴賴丕 賲賳 鈥徹з勜Y呝堌� 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳 賴賲 兀賰孬乇 鬲賵丨卮丕 賷氐賷乇賵賳 兀賰孬乇 廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 鈥徹Y� 賷馗賱賵丕 賴賲 丕賱兀賰孬乇 鬲丿賲賷乇丕賸 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丿賲乇賷賳

*-*-*-*-*-*-*

賮賶 丕賱兀丿亘賷丕鬲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 鬲賯乇兀 毓賳 夭賱丕夭賱 賵 兀賵亘卅丞
賵 賯賷賱 賱賳丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 賷馗賴乇 鈥徺傎堌� 賵 毓馗賲丞 丕賱賱賴 賵 囟丕賾賱丞 卮兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳鈥�
兀賲丕 丨丕賱賷丕, 賮丕賱兀丿亘賷丕鬲 鬲氐賮 丕賱賲毓丕乇賰 丕賱丨乇亘賷丞
賮賶 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞 賷胤賱賯 鈥徺呚呝堌关з� 賲賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 丕賱賳丕乇 亘毓囟賴賲 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 賲爻鬲禺丿賲賷賳 丕賱胤賱賯丕鬲 賵 鈥徹з勝呚佖必ж� 廿賱賶 兀賳 賷賴乇亘 兀丨丿 丕賱賮乇賷賯賷賳 賲賳 兀乇囟 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞
賵 賷胤丕乇丿賴 鈥徹з勝佖辟娰� 丕賱丕賾禺乇 毓賱賶 馗賴賵乇 丕賱噩賷丕丿 賱賷賲夭賯賴 賳賴丕卅賷丕
賵 鬲賯乇乇 丕賱兀丿亘賷丕鬲 兀賳 鈥徺囏柏� 賷馗賴乇 毓馗賲丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丕鬲 賵 囟毓賮 丕賱賲睾賱賵亘

*-*-*-*-*-*-*

亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 廿賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲毓丕乇賰 賷噩乇賶 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賶 丕賱卮賵丕乇毓 賷氐乇禺賵賳 賮乇丨丕 賵 鈥徺娯池堎� 丨賰賵賲鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 廿賳賮丕賯 賲卅丕鬲 丕賱賲賱丕賷賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賯鬲賱 亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 鈥徹Y� 兀賯賵賶 丕賱賵夭乇丕亍 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 廿賳賮丕賯 亘賳爻 夭賷丕丿丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賯乇丕亍 兀賵 毓賱賶 鈥徹з勜Y堌ㄘω┾€�

鈥� *-*-*-*-*-*-*

丨賷賳 兀囟毓 丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕 賱賰賽 賰賲丕 鬲賯賵賱賷賳 鈥�
賲毓賳丕賴 兀賳 鬲丨賱 廿乇丕丿鬲賰 賲丨賱 廿乇丕丿鬲賷
鈥� 賮賰賷賮 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 廿乇丕丿丞 兀爻賵兀 賲賳 廿乇丕丿鬲賷鈥�

鈥� *-*-*-*-*-*-*

兀爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 兀毓胤賷賰 賲卅丕鬲 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賵 賱賰賳賴丕 噩賲賷毓丕 鬲兀鬲賶 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱爻賷丕賯: 鈥徹ベ� 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賰賲 丕賱兀乇囟 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 賯賵丞 丕賱丨賷丕丞
賵 廿賳賲丕 賯賵丞 丕賱賲賵鬲
賵丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀賲丿鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 亘丕賱賯賵丞
賱鬲賳馗賲 賳賮爻賴丕 賮賷 氐賵乇丞 鈥徹з勜ㄘ簇�
賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 丕賱丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 丨賷丕丞 兀毓賱賶 賵 兀爻賲賶 鈥�
賵廿賳賲丕 丕賱賶 丕賾賱丞 兀賰孬乇 賰賮丕亍丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲丿賲賷乇 賵 丕賱賯鬲賱
鈥�

Profile Image for BookHunter M  購H  賻M  賻D.
1,654 reviews4,342 followers
January 12, 2023

賲賳匕 賳丨賵 賯乇賳 賲賳 丕賱夭賲丕賳 賷亘丿賵 兀賳 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷 賱賲 賷賰賳 賱丿賷賴 賯乇賳丕賳 賮賷 乇兀爻賴 兀賵 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 賱賲 鬲賰賳 馗丕賴乇丞 亘丕乇夭丞 賰賲丕 賴賵 賲毓乇賵賮 毓賳賴 丕賱兀賳. 賮丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 鬲亘丿兀 亘丕賱賮鬲丕丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲兀鬲賷 兀賴賱賴丕 丨丕賲賱 亘胤賮賱 鬲乇賮囟 兀賳 鬲禺亘乇賴賲 賲賳 兀亘丕賴 賵 賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱噩賲毓 賱亘毓囟 賲賳 賷卮賮賯 毓賱賷賴丕 賵 亘毓囟 賲賳 賷爻賱賯賴丕 亘兀賱爻賳丞 丨丿丕丿 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賵囟毓 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱賲 賷噩乇 賲噩乇丕 卮乇賯賷丕 亘賱 丕賳鬲氐乇鬲 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞 賵 賯乇乇 丕賱噩賲賷毓 兀賳 賱賴丕 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 兀賳 鬲賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲乇賷丿.
丨鬲賶 丕賱兀賳 鬲賲乇 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賮賱爻賮賷丞 禺賮賷賮丞 賮賷 廿賷賯丕毓 亘胤賷亍 賵 賱賰賳 亘賱丕 賲賱賱 丨鬲賶 賷亘丿兀 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱鬲丕賱賷.
賷賳鬲賯賱 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賱賱鬲噩賴賷夭 賱乇丨賱丞 丕賱爻賮乇 賵 丕賱鬲乇賮賷賴 賵 賴賵 兀賰孬乇 丕賱賮氐賵賱 賲賱賱丕 賵 丕賳 賰賳丕 賱丕 夭賱賳丕 賳乇鬲亘胤 亘賳賮爻 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賵 賳丿賵乇 賮賷 廿胤丕乇賴 丨鬲賶 賷兀鬲賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬.
廿賳賳賷 丕爻鬲胤賷毓 毓乇囟 丌賱丕賮 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 毓賱賷賰賲 賵 賰賱賴丕 鬲氐賱 廿賱賶 賳鬲賷噩丞 賵丕丨丿丞. 賴賷 兀賳 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賰賲 丕賱兀乇囟 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 賯賵丞 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賵 賱賰賳賴丕 賯賵丞 丕賱賲賵鬲. 賵 亘兀賳 丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀鬲丕丨鬲 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賴丿 丕賱匕賷 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 亘賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 鬲胤賵賷乇 賳賮爻賴丕 廿賱賶 兀賳 馗賴乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 丕賱丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱乇丕賯賷丞 賵 賱賰賳賴丕 丕賱丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 賵爻丕卅賱 丕賱鬲丿賲賷乇. 廿賳 丕賱胤丕毓賵賳 賵 丕賱賲噩丕毓丞 賵 丕賱夭賱丕夭賱 賵 丕賱毓賵丕氐賮 賱賲 賷乇鬲亘胤 丨丿賵孬賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟 亘毓丕賲賱 丕賱氐丿賮丞 兀賵 睾賷乇賴 .. 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳賲乇 兀賵 丕賱鬲賲爻丕丨 賷亘賱睾丕賳 賲賳 亘卮丕毓丞 丕賱賲賳馗乇 丨丿丕 賰亘賷乇丕. 賵 賲毓 匕賱賰 賮賴賲丕 賱賷爻丕 毓賱賶 丿乇噩丞 賰亘賷乇丞 賲賳 丕賱賵丨卮賷丞 . 賱賰兀賳 丕賱丨丕噩丞 賰丕賳鬲 鬲丿毓賵 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 兀賰孬乇 孬亘丕鬲丕 .. 兀賰孬乇 賴丿賵亍丕. 兀賰孬乇 睾亘丕亍 賮賷 丕賱鬲丿賲賷乇. 賮賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱賲丿賲乇 賴賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳.
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賳賳賮氐賱 鬲賲丕賲丕 毓賳 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賵 賰兀賳賳丕 丿禺賱賳丕 賲爻乇丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 孬賲 賳賳賮氐賱 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丕賳賮氐丕賱 亘丕賳賮氐丕賱 兀禺乇 賵 賳爻鬲睾乇賯 賮賷 丨賱賲 兀丨丿賴賲 賵 賮賷 賰賱丕 丕賱丕賳賮氐丕賱賷賳 丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賮賱爻賮賷丞 爻丕禺乇丞 毓賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 賵 丕賱丿賷賳 賵 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵 賴賷 丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賲賲鬲毓丞 賵 丕賳 賰賳丕 賳鬲爻丕亍賱 胤賵賱 丕賱賵賯鬲 毓賳 毓賱丕賯丞 賰賱 匕賱賰 亘賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞.
賲丕 兀乇丿鬲 爻丐丕賱賰 毓賳賴 賷丕 噩賵丕賳 賴賵: 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲乇賴賯 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賳賮爻賴丕 亘丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱責 賱賲丕匕丕 賱丕 鬲賯賳毓 亘廿爻毓丕丿 賳賮爻賴丕 賮丨爻亘責
賱兀賳賴 亘丿賵賳 丕賱毓賯賱 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 鬲爻毓丿 賳賮爻賰. 賵 賱賰賳 丿賵賳 兀賳 鬲丿乇賰 兀賳賰 賮毓賱丕 爻毓賷丿. 賵 賲賳 孬賲 鬲賮賯丿 賰賱 廿丨爻丕爻 亘丕賱爻毓丕丿丞.
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賳毓賵丿 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賱賲賵囟賵毓賳丕 毓賱賶 丕爻鬲丨賷丕亍 賵 鬲賳鬲賴賷 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 賳賴丕賷丞 爻毓賷丿丞 賱賱噩賲賷毓
賱賵 兀賳 毓賯賱賷 賰丕賳 毓賯賱 賰賱亘 賮賱賳 賷禺丿賲 廿賱丕 兀賴丿丕賮 丕賱賰賱丕亘. 賱賰賳 丕賱賵丕賯毓 兀賳 毓賯賱賷 賲卮睾賵賱 亘賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賱丕 賷禺丿賲賳賷 兀賳丕 卮禺氐賷丕. 亘賱 賷噩毓賱 噩爻賲賷 毓亘卅丕 孬賯賷賱丕 毓賱賶 卮禺氐賷 ... 賵 廿匕丕 賱賲 兀鬲匕乇毓 亘賴丿賮 兀毓鬲賳賯賴 賵 兀爻毓賶 賱鬲丨賯賷賯賴 賮丕賱兀賮囟賱 賱賷 兀賱丕 兀賰賵賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮丕. 亘賱 毓丕賲賱丕 毓賱賶 賲丨乇丕孬 賮賷 丨賯賱.
Profile Image for Lisa.
1,101 reviews3,299 followers
September 10, 2017
It's Nobel Revisit Month (it is a very small one-woman festival, so don't worry if you have never heard of it!), and "Man And Superman" is on the schedule, because I need to laugh a bit.

I must have been laughing when I took notes on the treatise/reflection/play or whatever else it is, because I can hardly read my handwriting. Well, some people would now claim that it is never possible to read it, and that I should finally give up my cursive, but usually I myself know what I mean.

Luckily, Shaw explains what HE means with this strange little book in the beginning, otherwise it would be easy to get lost somewhere in the beginning, middle or end:

"Fortunately for us [he means all of us lovely goodreaders!], whose minds have been so overwhelmingly sophisticated by literature, what produces all these treatises, and poems and scriptures of one sort or another is the struggle of life to become divinely conscious of itself instead of blindly stumbling hither and thither in the line of least resistance [he is NOT talking about my handwriting!]."

So that is the mission on which he sets out, - to make the struggle of life divinely conscious - and he handles it with quite a lot of elegance, while lashing out at his preferred enemies at the same time, holding up a mirror for people to see the uncomfortable truth of the illogical behaviour we are all mastering.

I was drawn back to this book because of its reflections on heaven and hell, and namely Dante and Milton. As I have a predilection for authors discussing other authors, I found Shaw's ideas on these giants of literature hilarious. Act three in the play/treatise is mostly concerned with the illogical beliefs connected with heaven and hell, and features an unforgettable dialogue where the devil justifies himself, referring to the bad publicity he has received:

"Hell is a place far above their comprehension: they derive their notion of it from two of the greatest fools that ever lived, an Italian and an Englishman. The Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire, and venomous serpents: all torture. This ass, when he was not lying about me, was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton believes that the whole of his silly story is in the Bible. What else he says I do not know; for it is all in a long poem which neither I nor anyone else ever succeeded in wading through."

I just love his irreverent comment about Milton. Shaw, I am quite sure, had read him more than once, as his devil is a great reincarnation of Milton's furious individualist shouting:

"Better reign in Hell than serve in Heaven!"

And as for Dante himself, he didn't manage to depict Heaven as an appealing place either, and Shaw offers the explanation in this brilliantly funny dialogue:

"ANA. Can anybody鈥攃an I go to Heaven if I want to?
THE DEVIL. [rather contemptuously] Certainly, if your taste lies that way.
ANA. But why doesn't everybody go to Heaven, then?
THE STATUE. [chuckling] I can tell you that, my dear. It's because heaven is the most angelically dull place in all creation: that's why."

It takes a "divinely conscious" author of Shaw's intellect to make fun of those two giants of literature while showing his deeply rooted respect for them. And he would be a lovely example in the essay I am not going to write about authors quoting Dante's .

I do think that I still like best of Shaw's oeuvre so far, but it is hardly possible to find a reflection on human brilliance and folly that is equally light-hearted and deep, witty and serious. Shaw deserved his Nobel Prize!

And the curtain of his play falls to the stage direction:

"Universal Laughter."
Profile Image for Paul Bryant.
2,367 reviews11.8k followers
November 12, 2022
This play is really very learned
It was written by this guy Bernard
And really I think the title is a bit of a lie
Because this Superman doesn鈥檛 wear a cape or fly
Or catch bad guys like Lex Luther or Braniac
It seems to be all about an idea invented by that maniac
With a name nobody can spell, Friedrich Nietzche
About whom GB Shaw is keen to teach ya
As for the rest, a smorgasbord of intellectual dumplings
Enlivened by the characters鈥� neverending grumblings
There鈥檚 a hypocritical romantic
Whose psychology tends to the frantic
And another guy who wants a revolution
Whose ideas were borderline offensive where they weren鈥檛 lilliputian
There鈥檚 a hoity-toity mademoiselle
And a long debate that takes place in Hell
Outrageous opinions are bandied around
Shaw鈥檚 firecracker paradoxes often astound
But it鈥檚 okay, nobody in this play gets hurt
And the revolutionary ends up (spoiler alert)
Profile Image for Dave Schaafsma.
Author听6 books32k followers
April 22, 2022
I think this is my first reading of George Bernard Shaw鈥檚 Man and Superman, an unwieldy play that I heard produced by Sir Peter Hall, featuring Dame Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes. I had a huge Collected Plays of Shaw to keep me on track, as the production is more than four hours long, and Hall insisted on producing the whole thing, though that almost never happens. The play draws on Shaw鈥檚 reading of Nietzsche鈥檚 Superman concept AND Byron鈥檚 Don Juan (?!) and features one act with Juan in Hell. That鈥檚 the act most companies skip altogether.

I am reading or re-reading, with the help of taped radio productions, many of the Shaw classics, but by my fifth play I am growing a little tired of the central figure in many of his plays, a pontificating blowhard male sharing his views of society. Hall says this is what he doesn鈥檛 like about Shaw, that some of his leading characters are just the mouthpieces for his social views (or the opposite of them). But Hall justifies producing Shaw鈥檚 plays because the dialogue is often clever and provocative, and since this one is almost entirely dialogue--not much action--perfect for radio.

According to Nietzsche, a Superman is a person beyond Christian morals (and guilt). Beyond good and evil. Dostoevsky鈥檚 Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment tested the theory, as did the teens Leopold and Loeb in Chicago. And then Shaw, whose Superman, John Tanner, is an anti- romantic anti-hero, is actually bested by a woman, Ann, who enacts the role of Dona Juana, essentially, becoming her own woman, moving out of The Doll鈥檚 House. Like Henry Higgins from Pygmalion, Tanner is a confirmed bachelor (we鈥檒l see about that!). That鈥檚 the central joke, though you have to wait more than four hours for the punchline. It鈥檚 billed as a light comedy of manners, but with all this baggage? I wouldn鈥檛 recommend it to anyone but Shaw fans (or philosophy majors, maybe).
Profile Image for Pavle.
479 reviews178 followers
December 3, 2020
drugo 膷itanje:

Kad sam pro拧le godine zavr拧io sa ovom knjigom, otpriike u sli膷no doba godine, automatski sam dobio novoprido拧licu omiljenim knjigama. Po拧to ne volim da 膷itam o autoru ne拧to posebno pre nego 拧to pro膷itam za mene prvo njegovo delo, kako bi mi utisak knji啪evnosti ostao na knji啪evnosti, o 艩ou sam 膷itao tek nakon zavr拧etka drame. I sva拧ta ne拧to ima da se pro膷ita... Diskutabilan 膷ika, sve u svemu, iako na osnovu neke stru膷nije literature mogu da zaklju膷im da je bio ne拧to razumniji nego kakvim ga Vikipedija opisuje (a i to mi govori zdrav razum), no opet, diskutabilan 膷ika.
I tako odlu膷ih da ga pro膷itam opet, sad tako uprljan 艩oovom sopstvenom istorijom. I utisak mi se ama uop拧te nije promenio.

艩oovo superiorno vladanje engleskim jezikom je neverovatno za posmatrati, njegovo odbijanje apostrofa i presme拧an odnos prema fonetici dijalekata (izvinjavam se svim lingvistima na 膷ere膷enju izraza koje ne razumem u potpunosti), na膷in na koji daje svojim likovima beskompromisne solilokvije, zaista je divno u啪ivanje 膷itati njegovo pisanje. Filozofija prisutna u knjizi je za膷udjuju膰e dvojaka 鈥� iako je 艩o gajio veoma pozitivan odnos prema didakti膷koj umetnosti, ovde postoji veoma ravnopravno vi拧eglasje; ako nas ne膷emu 鈥渦膷i鈥�, to je (ekstravagantnoj) diskusiji. I 膷ak gde se mogu nazreti njegove malo... kontroverznije ideje, to je uvek u slu啪bi likova (koji neretko svojim delanjem ih potpuno pogaze).

Dakle, sve u svemu, i dalje jedno od najsme拧nijih i najrazboritijih dela koje sam imao u啪itak da pro膷itam i retka knjiga koja ostaje toliko zabavna i pri ponovnom 膷itanju.


----
prvo 膷itanje:

Elem: ne se膰am se ta膷no kako sam do拧ao na ideju da 膷itam 艩oa. Znam samo da sam gledao njegovu diskografiju, a Pigmalion mi be拧e suvi拧e mejnstrim, te here we are. Sedim tako u Japanu (skromnohval), u tom trenutku jedno mesec i po zasigurno, bez kindla, te primoran da gomilam knjige koje ne znam kako 膰u vratiti nazad u rodni mi Govnograd. I dodje meni kona膷no 艩o jednog lepog, letnje-ki拧nog dana (ne se膰am se kakav je dan bio, no da ne bude ba拧 samo anoniman). Otvorim knjigu, vidim da ima uvodno pismo od tries拧es stranica, zatvorim, uzmem Horovica i u momentu na 艩oa zaboravim.


Spadoh tako posle nekog vremena na poslednje dve knjige (u ovom trenutku, od mu膷enog Foleta sam ve膰 odustao) - 艩o i Kristian Novak, ali kako se ne osetih u datom trenutku posebno suicidalno, raspolo啪enje koje cenim da je neophodno za 膶ernu mati, vratih se na 艩oa. Uvodno pismo bi dosta te拧ko za 膷itanje, iako krcato zanimljivim razmi拧ljanjima o tome za拧to je ta膷no 艩o odabrao da napi拧e dramu analog Don 沤uanu, sve do dela kada, parafraziram, ka啪e 'of course, all wise men read the foreword only after reading the actual work', na 拧ta se ja osetih prozvanim, pa se kona膷no dadoh u 膷itanju drame, ostavljaju膰i pismo za neka bolja vremena.


膶ovek i nat膷ovek je (拧to bi pretpostavljam bio prevod na zerbski) drama, koja je po mom mi拧ljenju pre roman jer prosto ne vidim na膷in na koji ne拧to ovako, hm, obojeno, mo啪e da bude na adekvatan na膷in predstavljeno na drvenim daskama. Sve u svemu, 拧tivo, kako god ga nazvali - roman, drama, svetopismo - koje je duboko pametno, mudro, URNEBESNO (a ovo dolazi od nekoga ko je za svaku knjigu nazvanu urnebesnom (izuzev ser Terija) jedva jednom do dvaput izdahnuo kroz nos sa silinom ne膷eg 拧to jedva mo啪e da se nazove smehom), sa multiplicitetom uzvi膷nika i ALL CAPS replika (艩o je za膷etnik instant mesend啪er komunikacije), napisano perfidnom lako膰om i nikad boljim vladanjem engleskog jezika (ali zaista, u 艩oovim rukama engleski poprima nekakav nadrealan kvalitet kakav ja do sad nisam sreo, te je neophodno 膷itati u originalu). Knjiga koja je su拧tinski o evoluciji, ali i svemu ostalom, kako to ve膰 najbolje knjige jesu. Ima tu pasa啪a o religiji, o umetnosti, o revoluciji, ma milina je 膷itati n+1 solilokvij koji sebi dozvoljavaju 艩oovi junaci (ne zezam, neretko monolozi traju i po dve stranice, i vrlo je samosvestan toga 艩o, te ubacuje pojedine running gag-ove). Morao bih da napomenem da je takodje mo啪da malo pristupa膷nija mu拧kom rodu, tzv 'knjiga za de膷ake', na isti na膷in na koji i Hemingvej neretko odzvanja tim nekim nazovimoga mu拧kim iskustvom. Ne bih re膷 promenio ovde, knjiga za sva vremena, u toj meri da mi dodje da je po膷nem nanovo.


I SAD MOGU DA PRO膶ITAM UVODNIK


5+
Profile Image for David Sarkies.
1,908 reviews360 followers
July 23, 2015
Shaw's first attempt to explore the concept of evolution
23 June 2012

We admit that when the divinity we worshipped made itself visible and comprehensible, we crucified it.


This phrase above, which appears in the epilogue, pretty much sums up the theme of the entire play, and that is that it is impossible for man to evolve simply because we do not want to evolve, and everytime somebody comes along to show us how to evolve we either kill them, or completely corrupt their teachings so as to bring us back to the position that we were in prior to this person coming along. I will discuss examples of this later on in this commentary (which will actually be quite long because there is quite a lot in this play) and I will also how Shaw's philosophy, as I see it, applies to the teachings of the Bible.

One of the things that I really like about Shaw's plays is that he begins a lot of them with a commentary on the play, thus (unlike many other authors) he will actually tells us what he intends to demonstrate in the play in these commentaries. In some cases he also has a epilogue at the end (as he does in this one) which ties up all of the ideas that he has explored and outlines his conclusions. Now, this is one of Shaw's earlier plays so we see more immature thought and insight into his philosophy here, and in fact the play, while playing an important role in his philosophy, is only a part of the bigger picture, which only comes out at the end.

His opening (or dare I call is a prologue) is a letter to a fellow named Arthur Walkely (I am unsure if this person existed or not, but I will assume that he does, and the main reason I say this is because his conclusion is a 'handbook' written by the play's protagonist) and he appears to be about writing a Don Juan play. Now, we have probably all heard of Don Juan and how he attacked windmills (actually I think that is Don Quioxte), but that is not the purpose of the play or the character. Shaw indicates that Don Juan was originally conceived by a monk who wanted to write a story about the futility of putting off one's salvation. The idea was that Don Juan rejected the church, wanting instead to live a wild life, and then become Christian later on in life when he is no longer old enough to have fun. However he does not get to live to an old age as he dies young, and in sin. While the story was supposed to be a warning, it had the opposite effect in that the story was not received as a warning but as the romaticised idea of a rebellious hero, one that everybody wanted to be, but did not have the courage to do so for fear of going to hell.

Much of the letter involves sexuality and sexual coupling and one may wonder what this has to do with evolution, but this will be explained later as we move through the play. He discusses how the modern theatre of his day explored sexual attraction, but only to a certain point. Victorian England saw itself as civilised and above these base ideas of sexual pleasure. It was not a concept of lust but a concept of romantic love, and unfortunately sex does not play a part in Victorian romantic love (it is too disgusting). He explores the impossibility of writing such a play in this era as ideas have changed, but in many cases nothing has actually changed. He points out that in Shakespeare pretty much all of the lovers are naturally lovers and no pushing needs to occur to bring them together, however it is still done so as to add depth to the play. The only play in which a character goes out to win a wife is in The Taming of the Shrew, in which Petrucchio pursues Katerina, however there is no love involved in this, rather it is purely a commercial choice, and if it was not for the fact that Katerina had money, then Petruchio would not have been interested.

Unrequited love, as he explored in Shakespeare, is dangerous and leads to madness, as he points out in Hamlet. It is natural for Ophelia and Hamlet to come together and couple, there is that natural attraction there, however, ignoring the intrusion by Polonius, Hamlet rebuff's Ophelia's advances, and continues to do so with tragic consequences (namely her suicide). We must remember that at this stage Hamlet was feigning madness to learn if Claudius really is a murderer, and while he may have loved Ophelia, he did not trust her, and as such did not bring her into his plans. Thus Ophelia sees a man whom she loves descending into madness, and in turn she herself also descends into madness. This unrequited love ends very badly as the action moves pretty much straight from the funeral to the throne room, which results in a fencing match in which everybody dies.

Now, remembering that this is a play about the philosophy of evolution, I will continue exploring Shaw's ideas as I encountered them in this book. As we know England at this time was undergoing a period of great change. The industrial revolution was behind them and through pressure many reforms to the social network had been made including universal education and the universal male voting franchise. However Shaw is concerned as to whether this would actually raise the working class and the poor into the bourgeoisie. He says that it does not and in fact it dilutes the voting power by giving it to people that have no understanding of the nature of government and governing a country. In fact he does not seem to believe that it is possible to raise such a person out of their class, not due to the lack of mobility, but rather due to a lack of willpower to actually want to move out of that class. I disagree as John Wesley had proven otherwise in that when he established his church he went out among the poor and the dispossessed and preached to them, and built a church from them. Within at least one generation it was discovered that the poor were no longer poor and had entered the middle class. Mind you, during this time the theatre was still portrayed the wealthy as the upper class elite as the main characters while the poor were portrayed as comical and ignorant. This has always been the case, and in many ways, still is the case today.

As a side note, Shaw also discusses what he considers a good writer and what he doesn't. Dickens and Shakespeare, as far as he is concerned, are not good writers as they have no overarching philosophy which they explore, while others, such as Shelly, Goethe, Nietzsche, Blake, Bunyan, and Tolstoy, do, and he would prefer to be influenced by somebody who has a philosophy rather than somebody who does not. I agree with him to an extent on this, but I feel that because we know so little about Shakespeare as a person, as opposed to Shakespeare the legend, I feel that it is not possible to comment on his philosophy or not.

Now, I should get onto the play, and as he indicates at the opening to the play, it is a philosophy and a comedy. The first part of the play is very difficult to follow, but once we get to act three, everything begins to come to light. In a way this is a romantic comedy, but he indicates at the beginning is that it is not the man who initiates the romantic relationship, but the woman. While it is traditional for the man to approach the woman, it is the woman who has the power to say yes or no. One quote of his, in relation to polygamy, is that a woman would rather have a tenth of a first rate man than a whole of a third rate man. We see this in the play with Ann because at the beginning of the play it is implied that her relationship will form with Octavian, however we suddenly discover at the end that this was never her intention, and it was Tanner that she wanted, and while he resists, she continues to push and persist until he capitulates.

Shaw uses the concept of a play within a play in Man and Superman, in a sense because by moving the main philosophy out of the immediate play, he takes it out of his mouth and puts in into the mouth of the protagonist, Tanner. He does the same at the end where the handbook is written not by himself but by Tanner, and he even uses the idea of a socialist meeting to push through the idea of Tanner's revolutionary nature. The play within a play could be termed as 'The Devil and Don Juan' or 'Don Juan in Hell'. The characters in the main play also take roles in this play, and we see a continual movement in action from the home to Spain, to the play within a play, and out again.

Shaw's concept of hell, as outlined in the play, is that while it is a place for those who reject God, it is not necessarily bad. Don Juan, who never wanted to go to hell in the first play, suffers, however Ann, who had resigned herself to being a denizen of hell, does not. They ask about the gulf, and Shaw (as taken up by Lewis later) indicates that the idea of the gulf is a parable, and that the gulf exists not in reality but in our mind. While it is possible to move between heaven and hell, and to connect with the denizens of hell, it is the mindset of the denizens that create the gap. He uses the example of the philosophy class and the bull ring, or the concert hall and the race track. People who go to one, do not go to the other, and if they do, they dislike it intensely and want to escape. Therefore, in their mind, they create a gulf, and to be trapped in the place where their mind is not set creates for them a hell.

While people have written about hell, Shaw indicates the impossibility of actually truly understanding its nature, as he writes 'the Italian described it as a place of mud, frost, filth, fire 鈥� this ass, when he was not lying about me (the devil is speaking) was maundering about some woman whom he saw once in the street. The Englishman described me as being expelled from Heaven by cannons and gunpowder; and to this day every Briton thinks this jolly story is in the Bible'.

Now, I have written quite a lot so far and I still have not got to the main theme of evolution. Now, when we speak of evolution we are not talking about a physical process that moves us from an ape (if we believe that) to our current form. Nietzsche was not talking about that either, and Hitler's idea that the German people were more highly evolved was taking Nietzsche completely out of context. The problem with Nietzsche though was that he was insane. It seemed that the idea of the superman, and the fact that he could never attain that ideal was too much for him. Fortunately Shaw is very compus mentus, and unlike Nietzsche, is easy to read. The idea is that we do not evolve physically but rather socially and spiritually. Unfortunately we do not want to evolve that way, we want to become like the X-men, namely superheroes. However this is not the Shaw's (and Nietzsche's) idea of evolution.

It appears that Shaw's idea is that the first step towards us becoming further evolved, is to shed these ridiculous ideas of civilisation. The fact that we have telephones, motor cars, planes, televisions (and the list goes on) does not necessarily mean that we have become evolved, in fact it is quite the opposite. As Shaw says, the gentleman relies on his servants more than the servants rely upon the gentleman. Our pursuit of wealth and luxury has not made us more evolved, but rather more dependant on our current lifestyle (as is evidenced by 'Lifestyle Packages' offered by insurance companies, so that wealthy people can maintain their lifestyle in the event of a tragedy). It is much easier to go from being poor to being rich than the other way around (and just look at the number of suicides that occur whenever there is a massive economic downturn).

As I indicated at the beginning, the reason we are not evolving is because we do not want to evolve. Take the idea of coupling again and how Shaw indicates that it is not the man's choice but the woman's. The man puts himself out to stud and the woman says either yes or no. However, you have probably heard the saying 'nice guys finish last' and that women would prefer a jerk than a decent guy. Look, I am not saying that it is true (there are a lot of nice married guys out there), but if the case is that bad men get the girls while the good men miss out, then is it not the case that the decent, evolved, people are dying out to pretty much be replaced by jerks.

Let us also consider what happens whenever somebody comes along to try to move us towards evolving. Basically it is human nature to silence anybody who preaches a message of evolution that does not involve us becoming powerful beings, but rather evolving by becoming more socially orientated and ethical beings. The classic case is Jesus Christ: he was crucified (though biblically that was always going to happen, and while he died, he rose again from the dead). Other examples include Martin Luther King, who was heavily involved in the civil rights movement, but the idea of treating people as equals was repugnant. Let us also consider a movement towards socialism. It is rejected and attacked at every turn, and not just in the United States. Take Russia for example. Russia was supposed to be turned into a 'worker's democracy' however the pure ideal never even had the option to bud before the seed was destroyed by Stalin. This is the same with the church, for Christ's moving humanity to evolve was first viciously attacked by the Roman State, and when that failed, the church was infiltrated and taken back full circle to where it begun.

I suspect this idea is biblical, and remember Shaw nowhere in this play attacks the teachings of Christ or the Bible, but rather the way humanity teaches from the Bible. The concept of the Bible is that human">ity was created perfect, but something happened that caused us to degenerate. Thus the entire Bible (or at least the first part) demonstrates the downward spiral of degeneration (spiritual and social) that we have been afflicted with. The second part is not only a biography of Jesus Christ, but also an indication of how we can cease that degeneration, and then move back onto the path of evolution, however we cannot do it on our own, we need God's help (and that is where Christ came in, and why he died) to cease degenerating and to return to the path of evolution.

I recently saw a production of this play by the National Theatre and have written some further thoughts on the play .
Profile Image for J.G. Keely.
546 reviews12k followers
February 18, 2010
Shaw has two distinct classes of follower: there are those who enjoy his vivid characters and humor, and those who idolize him as a revolutionary spiritual force. Each appreciates a different side of Shaw's character, and each of his plays presents a struggle between his creative instinct and his revolutionary ambitions.

His need to play the iconoclast was not limited to his socialism, his vegetarianism, and his contempt for medicine. Shaw was never afraid to adopt unpopular ideas, especially when they were novel and contentious. Yet, for as hard as he fought for new ideas, he often undermined them with slights and satire.

Those who believe in Shaw the prophet tend to ignore these subversions, or to chalk them up to playful sardonicism, but Shaw's constant doubts are not so easy to ignore, if one strains a bit to listen over the vehement philosophical outbursts which surround them.

Man and Superman represents perhaps the finest balance between his two extremes, neither overpowering the other. In this achievement he comes his closest to the style of Shakespeare, whom he idolized and often compared himself to in predictably favorable terms.

He once rewrote the third act of 'Cymbeline', which has been attributed partially to Shakespeare, excepting the messy third act, which was likely finished by an unknown playwright. In his preface, Shaw states with confidence that his childhood love of Shakespeare allowed him to recreate the Bard's voice and style perfectly; an assertion only Shaw's apostles fail to smirk at.

Like most authors, Shaw is not at his best when confirming his own superiority, which is one reason 'Man and Superman' retains its appeal. He finds many opportunities to place his pet ideas in the mouth of his author surrogate, but doesn't make the character either infallible or sympathetic.

His long diatribes, though impassioned, are rarely successful, and usually end in confusion or self-deprecation. Shakespeare always allows us to try on this or that idea, without coming out overwhelmingly for one side or the other. Shaw usually misses this trick, growing too one-sided or losing his argument altogether between the busyness of his various allegories, symbols, satires, jokes, romantic cliches, and existential realism. 'Man and Superman' is still very complex, relying on lengthy debates, idiomatically overwrought scene descriptions, coincidences that encourage disbelief, and an extended allegorical dream sequence (which is usually left out, reducing both production costs and pretension); but for once, Shaw is mostly able to maintain the elaborate balance between elements.

His author surrogate will be familiar to any Shaw reader, as are his other characters. Drawn from his familiar pool, we have the impassioned young political philosopher, the hypocritical romantic, the woman defined purely by her 'strength', the woman who knowingly takes advantage of the relationship between sex and money, the always 'bullet headed' capitalist, the conservative and blustery father, the clever mother who fails to control her daughter, and the rebellious servant.

He also reuses the same double marriage plot that tends to undermine his oft-asserted loathing of Romanticism. Between the repetition of character archetypes, ideas, and plot, Shaw's society plays can feel more like drafts than distinct visions. They differ chiefly in who wins which arguments, and whether or not the marriages are ultimately engaged.

In structure and satire, 'Mrs. Warren's Profession' is a in terms of character, but 'Man and Superman' takes the prize for ideas explored, in both number and depth. 'Candida' presents a of the conflict between the philosopher and the hypocrite, but shares with 'Man and Superman' a rushed and unsure climax. Both rely on a debate of competing philosophies to move the plot along ('Candida' being starker in that regard), and both are ultimately content to leave the clash of ideas behind, instead resolving with the spiritual sentimentalism of a pretentious romance.

Another author might have used such an ending to show that in the end, thought must give way to action, and rarely gracefully. Instead, Shaw takes a common and disappointing stance: when his numerous ideas and faculty for reason eventually run out of steam, he personifies his ignorance in a grandiose phrase ('Life Force'), closes his eyes reverently, and declares profundity achieved.

It is the unremarkable endgame of every self-declared prophet, and is a good enough trick to impress those who are as desperate to feel important as they are to avoid the work necessary to become so. Again, Shaw makes the one mistake which will always separate him from Shakespeare: overcommitment.

Though he maintains balance and subtlety through much of the narrative, he loses his control at the moment of conclusion, undermining all the hard work that led up to it, and proves once again that he is peerless in at least one regard: he has no enemy as great as himself.
Profile Image for Bruce.
444 reviews81 followers
September 23, 2011
If only this play were done as a comic book... it would still really, really, really suck (but then, you never know about the quality of the artwork).

This book was so bad that I stopped reading it halfway through Act III, near about line 360. In fact, right after this passage, which I pick up toward the end of a one and one-half page-long ramble that some sad sack actor will be expected to recite from memory:
THE DEVIL. I could give you a thousand instances; but they all come to the same thing: the power that governs the earth is not the power of Life but of Death; and the inner need that has nerved Life to the effort of organising itself into the human being is not the need for higher life but for a more efficient engine of destruction. The plague, the famine, the earthquake, the tempest were too spasmodic in their action; the tiger and crocodile were too easily satiated and not cruel enough: something more constantly, more ruthlessly, more ingeniously destructive was needed; and that something was Man, the inventor of the rack, the stake, the gallows, the electric chair; of sword and gun and poison gas: above all, of justice, duty, patriotism, and all the other isms by which even those who are clever enough to be humanely disposed are persuaded to become the most destructive of all the destroyers.

DON JUAN. Pshaw! all this is old. Your weak side, my diabolic friend, is that you have always been a gull: you take Man at his own valuation. Nothing would flatter him more than your opinion of him. He loves to think of himself as bold and bad. He is neither one nor the other: he is only a coward. Call him tyrant, murderer, pirate, bully; and he will adore you, and swagger about with the consciousness of having the blood of the old sea kings in his veins. Call him liar and thief; and he will only take an action against you for libel. But call him coward; and he will go mad with rage: he will face death to outface that stinging truth. Man gives every reason for his conduct save one, every excuse for his crimes save one, every plea for his safety save one; and that one is his cowardice. Yet all his civilization is founded on his cowardice, on his abject tameness, which he calls his respectability. There are limits to what a mule or an ass will stand; but Man will suffer himself to be degraded until his vileness becomes so loathsome to his oppressors that they themselves are forced to reform it.

THE DEVIL. Precisely. And these are the creatures in whom you discover what you call a Life Force!

DON JUAN. Yes... you can make any of these cowards brave by simply putting an idea into his head.

THE STATUE. Stuff! As an old soldier I admit the cowardice: it鈥檚 as universal as sea sickness, and matters just as little. But that about putting an idea into a man鈥檚 head is stuff and nonsense. In a battle all you need to make you fight is a little hot blood and the knowledge that it鈥檚 more dangerous to lose than to win.

Blah, blah, blah... and Shaw's starting point for this drivel was to differentiate and mock Dante's and Milton's respective visions of Heaven and Hell. Why I could not tell you... it has seemingly little to do with Shaw's explicitly stated purpose of writing a story around a Nietzchean ubermensch (as defined by Shaw, that's anyone -- but usually a man -- whose sociopathic amorality makes it possible to achieve greatness)... and I should add that Shaw's "Don Juan" here does not really seem to fit those qualities nor to really behave consistently or intelligently.

One last complaint -- Shaw seems less to have written this for performance than for an imagined literary posterity. (Apparently successfully, alas.) The play is bracketed by a lengthy explanation/apologia and an equally rambling socialist manifesto ostensibly penned by one of the play's characters (and thus hyped by the play's stage action), which might suggest that the author was at least somewhat aware that his work could not stand on its own merits. Add to that ludicrous stage directions/commentary like this which opens Act III:
We may therefore contemplate the tramps of the Sierra without prejudice, admitting cheerfully that our objects鈥攂riefly, to be gentlemen of fortune鈥攁re much the same as theirs, and the difference in our position and methods merely accidental. One or two of them, perhaps, it would be wiser to kill without malice in a friendly and frank manner; for there are bipeds, just as there are quadrupeds, who are too dangerous to be left unchained and unmuzzled; and these cannot fairly expect to have other men鈥檚 lives wasted in the work of watching them. But as society has not the courage to kill them, and, when it catches them, simply wreaks on them some superstitious expiatory rites of torture and degradation, and then lets them loose with heightened qualifications for mischief, it is just as well that they are at large in the Sierra, and in the hands of a chief who looks as if he might possibly, on provocation, order them to be shot.
Just you try being the director staging that nonsense.

Sure, you could parse this book for "ideas," and find in it morsels to fuel various sides of various social or religious debates. Of course, you could accomplish as much by randomly pulling paragraphs off the internet. The profundity to which your source material is put is not a guaranteed reflection on the quality of the source material. So by all means, spare yourself now.
Profile Image for Czarny Pies.
2,741 reviews1 follower
May 30, 2021
Words cannot describe how horrible this play is. Acts 1, 2 and 4 constitute a banal Victorian love comedy in the style of Oscar Wilde which is seldom as funny as the genre requires. Act 3 which runs2 hours on its own is a bombastic reflexion on Heaven, Hell and Nietzsche's concept of life force. If all four acts are performed, the play runs to 6.5 hours which is well beyond the limits of any normal theatre-goer. The last time the Shaw Festival of Niagara-on-the-Lake performed the complete work, the critic of the Toronto Star claimed that she started to suffer from indigestion mid-way through.
While "Man and Superman" has the occasional good moment, I found it difficulty to forgive it for its many dreadful passages. What particularly indisposed me towards it was the fact that Shaw repeatedly compared it to Mozart's sublime "Don Giovanni".
Profile Image for Sasha.
Author听9 books4,885 followers
January 2, 2015
Look, there are three awesome acts in this and then there's that whole thing in the middle where Don Juan argues with the devil. Is the rest of the play just an excuse for Act III? Is it, like, the bread around a Don Juan / Satan sandwich? I preferred the bread.

I didn't hate the Don Juan / Satan part. I underlined a whole bunch of stuff that was really smart and / or funny. I just...it obviously goes on too long. The characters acknowledge it themselves!

Pygmalion was better.

Soundtrack:
- Fishbone
-
Profile Image for Boadicea.
186 reviews60 followers
November 21, 2021
Bernard Shaw meets Nietzsche for breakfast, Dante for lunch, Faust for dinner and shares a nightcap with Mozart

This is a complex play, in so many ways, typical of GBS. His loquaciousness really knows no bounds and I commend any actor who has the temerity to take on the main male roles in this play. The speeches are long and interminable. Where one playwright might use one word, GBS doesn't just use ten, he'll go for the full century for good measure. And this is the major downfall to this play. It's rarely performed in its entirety, often having the 3rd act excised from performance, which really defeats the object of the play.

Essentially, it's a play about Don Juan, the "Don Giovanni" of Mozart, but turned as the prey of a manipulative conniving mademoiselle in the form of Dona Ana/Ann Whitefield. It's a really fascinating idea and there are many literary and intellectual references within the play. But, therein lies its problem, it's a conceited lumbering beast that somehow overwhelms its master.

Obviously, being the playwright that he is, there has to be Fabian motifs and socialist ideals, I understand, and indeed commend, his enthusiasm about using the play as an educational tool. However, there's just too much here: it could so easily have been 2 separate plays, which indeed, it has been performed as such. It's really a play within a play; like looking at a picture with 2 different perspectives within.

The dream sequence in Act III is the major stumbling block. Yet, that is the crux of the play; the Don Juan debate versus the Devil and the statue/Commander is fascinating, erudite and truly theatrical. But, at over 50 pages long, it is only part of the aforementioned Act and I would be getting quite twitchy if I was in a theatre seat for that duration!

Ultimately, whilst I would love to see this play performed, I'd prefer a good theatre director to rearrange and rewrite it, in order to really appreciate a performance. Otherwise, I might just be guilty of falling asleep!

馃槾

4 dazzling but incordinated starbursts.
Profile Image for Meem Arafat Manab.
376 reviews237 followers
May 5, 2020
In Act III Scene 2 of Man and Superman, Don Juan asks the Devil:
"Oh, come! who began making long speeches? ..."

Well, now you know the answer, folks. Shaw did.
Profile Image for Vagabond of Letters, DLitt.
593 reviews370 followers
April 14, 2021
4.75/5

Likely the most based and Nietzschean novel ever written even if it does go in for a dose of socialism.
Profile Image for Josh.
65 reviews12 followers
December 18, 2012
I feel I should qualify this 4-star rating: it's based more on the results of reading the book than on my enjoyment of the book itself. Shaw is a hell of an intellect and a delightfully acerbic critic of society, and there are several trenchant observations and commentaries in Man and Superman. However, when he veers toward -- for example -- an argument for state-sponsored eugenics, it gets kind of appalling.

If I were to rate the book solely on agreement with his propositions, it'd be a lower score due to the mixed bag: Shaw's keener observations are rather undermined by his apparent belief in the utility of eugenics as well as by his sourer cynicism. At one moment he exhibits concern for the well-being of all people and admirably progressive opinions against capital punishment; at another he expresses sharp disdain for the common fellow or "riffraff." Consensus notwithstanding, the book had me thinking in overdrive. I was repeatedly moved to scribble down quotes and ideas and rebuttals, more so than most books inspire. That definitely counts for something.
Profile Image for carina.
15 reviews2 followers
June 22, 2024
okurrrr if you鈥檙e into misogyny and eugenics you鈥檒l love this 馃槏馃敟馃敟
Profile Image for Lina.
437 reviews64 followers
December 25, 2017
Reader: Oh, hi, book! How are you doing?

Book: Contemplating the sense of life! [Three pages speech about the sense of life], you see?

Reader: Erm... yes... anyway, have you been anywhere nice recently?

Book: I have been to the Sierra Nevada, captured by bandits, held for ransom and then gone to hell.

Reader: They killed you?!

Book: Oh, no, I fell asleep.

Reader: And you couldn't have done that at home?

Book: What is the sense in sleeping if you don't do it in charming surroundings? And at least now I understand the relevancy of my life, of my struggles, and why I am where I am and who I am and [forty pages on the sense of life].

Reader: Good for you. Hey, did you hear? Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are getting married.

Book: [Ninety pages on the truth and state of courtship and marriage, sex and procreation]

Reader: I'm sorry to hear that. You won't be watching it then?

Book: I don't have eyes.

Reader: Oh, right... sorry.

Book: No problem.

Reader: Well, are you alright now after your kidnapping?

Book: Not very. I have been kidnapped again.

Reader: Oh... okay? Do you need any help?

Book: A divorce attorney, I suppose.

Reader: ... you mean you've gotten married?

Book: No, I mean I've purchased a new house. Of course I got married. What else do divorce attorneys do?

Reader: Watching their friends get married and lovingly stroking their bank accounts?

Book: That too.

Reader: So, your kidnapping is your marriage?

Book: What else is marriage?

Reader: A reckless waste of money for the excuse to wear a beautiful dress only once in your life?

Book: It is the appreciation of the beautiful that results in wednappings.

Reader: You could always fake your own death.

Book: Oh, but I can't. I want to be with her.

Reader: Then why did you get married?

Book: She trapped me.

Reader: And that's what divorce attorneys are good for.

Book: But what is the use? I will always be her slave.

Reader: You can divorce her.

Book: Yet I shall always be her slave.

Reader: Or you can divorce her.

Book: And I shall still always be her slave.

Reader: Then clearly you get off on that and I wish you all the best. At least your sex life will be interesting.

Book: Sex with paper sounds rather painful.

Reader: You are an eBook.

Book: Oh, rig- *catches a virus and dies*

Reader: And I wasn't even invited to your devildamn wedding! *shakes head and trots off to become a divorce attorney*

(Curtain)
Profile Image for Mohamed El-Mahallawy.
Author听1 book119 followers
July 28, 2017
爻賲賶 鬲賵賮賷賯 丕賱丨賰賷賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵毓 亘"賲爻乇丨 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇" 丕賵 "丕賱賲爻乇丨 丕賱賮賰乇賷" 賮賴賵 賷鬲賲賷夭 亘囟毓賮 丕賱丨丿孬 賳賮爻賴 兀賵 賴丕賲卮賷鬲賴 兀賲丕賲 爻賷賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲鬲丿賮賯 賮賷 丕賱丨賵丕乇 ...
賲爻乇丨賷丞 胤賵賷賱丞 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賵賱賰賳賴丕 鬲爻鬲兀賴賱 賰賱 丿賯賷賯丞 ..
丕賱賮賰乇丞 鬲亘丿賵 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 丨賵賱 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞 賲丕亘賷賳 丕賱兀氐丕賱丞 賵丕賱鬲賯丕賱賷丿 賵丕賱毓乇丕賯丞 賲賳 噩賴丞 賵丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 賵丕賱廿卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 賲賳 噩賴丞 兀禺乇賶 ..
孬賲 鬲鬲丨賵賱 賮賷 禺胤 賲賵丕夭賷 廿賱賶 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞 賲丕亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞 賵賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇噩賱 毓賳 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賵爻毓賷賴丕 賱賱夭賵丕噩 賱賰賷丕賳賴丕 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 賵賳賮賵乇 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賳 賵氐賮賴丕 亘匕賱賰 丕賱賵氐賮 賵賰兀賳賴 丕丨鬲賯丕乇 賱賴丕 賮賷 丨賷賳 丕賳賴丕 賰丕卅賳 賷爻毓賶 賱賱亘賯丕亍 賵丕賱鬲胤賵乇 賵丕賱爻毓賷 賳丨賵 毓賱丕賯丞 賮賰乇賷丞 賲丕丿賷丞 廿賱賶 噩丕賳亘 丕賱丨亘 賵丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞...
丨賷賳 賷賮賴賲 丕賱亘胤賱 丕賱廿卮鬲乇丕賰賷 丕賱爻丕毓賷 賳丨賵 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱賳噩丕丨 兀賳 丕賱賮鬲丕丞 鬲丨亘賴 賵鬲爻毓賶 丕賱賷賴 賷賴乇亘 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 賱丨馗丞 禺賷丕賱賷丞 廿賱賶 氐丨乇丕亍 丕爻亘丕賳賷丕 丨賷孬 鬲賯亘囟 毓賱賷賴 毓氐丕亘丞 孬賲 鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 丕賱賶 賮丕賳鬲丕夭賷丕 禺丕賱氐丞 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 廿賱賶 卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕禺乇賶 賮賷 丕賱賳丕乇 賵賲賳丕賯卮丞 賮賱爻賮賷丞 毓賳 賲丕賴賷丞 丕賱噩賳丞 賵丕賱賳丕乇 賮賷 卮賰賱 爻丕禺乇 賵毓亘孬賷 賷購匕賰乇賳丕 亘兀賳 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 賰丕賳 賱丕 丿賷賳賷 兀氐賱丕 ...
鬲賳鬲賴賷 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱爻毓賷丿丞 丕賱丿丕卅賲丞 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱夭賲賳賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘賷丞 亘夭賵丕噩 丕賱乇噩賱 賲賳 丕賱賲乇丕丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨亘賴 賵賷丨亘賴丕 ..
賱丕 賳睾賮賱 賴賳丕 丕亘丿丕 丕爻賱賵亘 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 丕賱爻丕禺乇 卮丿賷丿 丕賱賴夭賱 賵丕賱噩賲賱 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱賱丕匕毓丞 賲丕亘賷賳 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲
卮睾賱賳賷 賮賯胤 禺噩賱 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷 賲賳 匕賰乇 噩賳爻賷鬲賴 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱夭賲賳賷丞 賵賰丕賳 兀賲乇賷賰丕 賰丕賳鬲 爻購亘丞 兀賵 禺賱丕賮賴
賵丕毓噩亘鬲賳賷 噩賲賱丞 丕賱亘胤賱 賱賱賮鬲丕丞 毓賳 鬲乇亘賷丞 兀賲賴丕 .. 丕賳賴丕 "兀賮賷丕賱 兀賱賷賮丞 鬲賮鬲乇爻 兀賮賷丕賱 亘乇賷丞" 賵賰丕賳 丕賱鬲賯丕賱賷丿 賵丕賱毓丕丿丕鬲 鬲乇賷丿 兀賳 鬲購丿噩賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲胤賵乇...
賲爻乇丨賷丞 乇丕卅毓丞
Profile Image for BrokenTune.
755 reviews220 followers
July 17, 2014
Review first published on BookLikes:

"... the book about the bird and the bee is natural history. It's an awful lesson to mankind. You think that you are Ann's suitor; that you are the pursuer and she the pursued; that it is your part to woo, to persuade, to prevail, to overcome. Fool: it is you who are the pursued, the marked down quarry, the destined prey. You need not sit looking longingly at the bait through the wires of the trap: the door is open, and will remain so until it shuts behind you for ever."

I liked Man and Superman as a comedy of manners. But saying I liked it because of the flippant interplay between the characters, the witty dialogue and the satire of Edwardian society is hardly an analysis of Shaw's most philosophical work.

However, the sad truth in my case is that I just cannot remember what Shaw's point was in Man and Superman. I'm sure he had one but I got distracted by the candy-floss comedy in which he wrapped his message.

So, I may have to read this again sometime - or go and watch the play. I hear there is also a film version with Peter O'Toole.
Profile Image for Buck.
157 reviews991 followers
January 16, 2010
No, not that Superman, dumbass. The other one. You know, Nietzsche? The 脺bermensch? Blond beast? None of this rings a bell? What did you do at that fancy school of yours for four years?

So anyway, Man and Superman is uber-bad. And now I don鈥檛 know what to make of Shaw. Heartbreak House was unexpectedly awesome: smart, funny, pessimistic鈥攅verything you could ask for in a play. But this one鈥lech. A lumbering and tendentious monster. It鈥檚 like a highbrow, 1905 version of All in the Family: no topical issue left unexplored, no talking point undelivered. Except Shaw gets off a few good lines, which All in the Family never did, as far as I remember. Meathead was a funny name, though. I laughed at that when I was seven.
Profile Image for Haoyan Do.
214 reviews16 followers
September 21, 2018
I am quite amazed at the tension between Ann and Jack Tanner, despite the fact that Jack announced so emphatically that he had the least intention to marry Ann. Still, whenever they met, Jack was interested in converse with Ann, who took advantage of the twists and turns in the conversation to snare her prey. Actually in real life, women do that every day. And the older women get, the more women have to engage in such activities. Well, probably not every woman. Some just completely give up on relationships.
Profile Image for Jakob De Smaele.
9 reviews2 followers
Read
January 27, 2025
Het voelt alsof dit boek speciaal voor mij geschreven was. Het bevat alles waarvan ik houd: een Don Juan, speculaties over vooruitgang, grappige dialogen, en licht problematische begin-twinigste eeuwse politieke filosofie.

Bedankt Nils voor de aanrader.
Profile Image for Suhaib.
271 reviews106 followers
February 5, 2017
I had so much fun reading this! My first experience with modernist drama!

Man and Superman struck me as picturesque, easy to imagine and follow. The humor is awesome too; couldn鈥檛 resist some laughs here and there. The most hilarious scene is when Tanner and Straker are captured by the lovesick brigand Mendoza; and after when, with an unusual build up of familiarity and affinity between prisoners and captor, Mendoza starts reading some poems he wrote for his Louisa, who turns out to be Straker鈥檚 little sister. After some clenched fists and repressed tension, all the same, the night ends amiably with everyone falling asleep while languished Mendoza is still blurting out his third-rate poetry.

Here鈥檚 a glimpse:

The play starts with a Roebuck Ramsden, a haughty bald intellectual and old-timer, sitting in his library. After a while, a very romantic fool called Octavius joins him and professes his love for the girl under his guardianship. Tanner, a philosopher and political reformer, comes barging in like mad because Ann鈥檚 father has granted him her guardianship too. Ramsden and Tanner are now livid over the joint custody, sipping from a glass of hatred (not really) and almost getting at each other鈥檚 throats 鈥� they hate each other if you haven鈥檛 already guessed and the two clearly epitomize the conflict between old and new. Oh! And not to mention that Tanner hates Ann and calls her a hypocrite and a coquette, and rightly so.

Don鈥檛 worry I鈥檓 not going to spoil this for you.

The philosophic comedy continues with a car crash, a man鈥檚 attempt to run away from marriage, a held up by generous brigands, a dream about Lucifer and Don Juan having a philosophical debate (two mouthpieces for Shaw; couldn鈥檛 think of better praters really), a man鈥檚 willful descent from aristocracy and a final yielding to the Life Force. And that stands for sex.

So everything considered, this is a masterpiece, a pastiche 鈥� political, economical, psychological and philosophical. Read it! By all means! It鈥檚 one of those literary breezes!


This review is licensed under a .
Profile Image for S.Ach.
649 reviews201 followers
April 12, 2015
I have a huge inferiority complex about myself. That prevents me to approach great books, lest I wouldn't understand the great writers. I had heard the name of Bernard Shaw and how great a writer he was, in my school days. But never dared to read him.

Now, that some gray hairs have begun to reveal themselves in my head, I have been trying to imbibe some of the thoughts of great minds. Some times I fail, sometimes they fail me, but some other times, they get in to my mind and make me realize things that I have never thought of before - at least in their terms. Those are exhilarating moments of my life.

Reading 'Man and Superman' is one of those moments.
Man's eternal search for finding the 'Superman' who he can relate to and idolize at the same time is the basic theme of the book. And for a man being 'Superman' he has to sacrifice the social norms like 'marriage and conformity' and naturally would face resistance. Rationalization of this constitute the basic dialogues of the play.

Full of quotes that would make you think, and chortle simultaneously, makes this great 'comedy and philosophy' - as the author likes to put it, one of the finest reads of my life.

I would read it multiple times.
I loved especially the The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion

Respect for the 'English Nietzsche'.
Profile Image for Shawgi Al-o.
24 reviews15 followers
October 1, 2012


: 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 爻鬲亘賯賶 毓賱賶 胤丕賵賱鬲賷 賵賱賳 兀毓賷丿賴丕 兀亘丿丕 丕賱賶 丕賱乇賮 賮賴賷 鬲囟丨賰 賵鬲亘賰賷 賵鬲兀爻乇賰 賱毓馗賲 噩賲丕賱賴丕 貨 賮兀乇丿鬲 兀賳 兀囟毓 丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 賱賴丕 賮賱賲 丕爻鬲胤毓 賵賱賰賳 賱賲 賷亘賯賶 爻賵賶 氐丿賶 噩夭亍 賲賳賴丕 賷賱丕鬲丨賯賳賷 賰賱 賷賵賲

賰賱丕 賰賱丕 賰賱丕 氐睾賷乇鬲賷 賱丕 鬲氐賱賷 廿匕丕 賯賲鬲賺 亘匕賱賰 賮丕賳賰 爻賵賮 鬲賴丿乇賷賳 丕賱賮丕卅丿丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賲賰丕賳 "兀賷 噩賴賳賲". 賴賳丕賱賰 賰賱賲丕鬲 賰鬲亘鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丿禺賱 賴賷: (兀鬲乇賰 賵乇丕亍賰 賰賱 兀賲賱貙丕賳鬲 丕賱匕賷 鬲丿禺賱). 賮賯胤 鬲兀賲賱賷 兀賷丞 乇丕丨丞 鬲賱賰! 賱兀賳賴 賲丕 丕賱兀賲賱責 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱賷丞 丕賱丕禺賱丕賯賷丞.賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賰丕賳 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賱賰 兀賲賱 貙 賵亘丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 賱丕 賵丕噩亘貙 賱丕 毓賲賱貙 賱丕卮賷 賷鬲賲 丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱氐賱丕丞貙 賱丕 卮賷亍 賷賰賵賳 賲賴丿賵乇丕 亘丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘賲丕 鬲丨亘賷賳. 噩賴賳賲貙 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇貙 賴賷 賲賰丕賳 丨賷孬 賱丕 賷鬲賵噩亘 丕賳 鬲毓賲賱 兀賷 卮賷亍 爻賵卅 鬲爻賱賷丞 賳賮爻賰.

賵囟毓鬲 " 賱賲丕 兀囟賮鬲賴 賱賱鬲賵囟賷丨
Profile Image for Hira.
6 reviews
February 19, 2021
Shaw, our good, old satirist and intellectual iconoclast, offers his audiences a full peek into his philosophy and political ideology through his greatly amusing comedy of manners, 'Man and Superman' which was first staged in London's Royal Court Theatre in 1905. The play is popularly loved for its humorous sequences of secret marriages, confused love affairs and inheritance debates. However, when analysed on a philosophical level, the play is revealed to be so much more than just a light romantic comedy; primarily because it deeply engages with Nietzsche's ideas, particularly his concept of the 脺bermensch which is merged with Shaw's new concept of 鈥楲ife Force.鈥� The third act is a long dream sequence based on the Don Juan legend as it appears in Mozart's opera 'Don Giovanni.' I just wish Shaw knew some word economy because the play is too long. As a reader, I enjoyed the wry humour, sarcasm and philosophical meanings incorporated in a well-structured and interesting plot. But the ending could have been better was what I thought.
Profile Image for  Cookie M..
1,377 reviews153 followers
January 15, 2024
Well, what a load of misogyny and male superiority. I don't care if it was written over 100 years ago. GBS should be ashamed of himself. His idea of an amusing play about a battle in the war between the sexes hurt my ears to listen to.
Profile Image for 脰zer 脰z.
145 reviews8 followers
December 24, 2022
陌lk defa Shaw okudum, be臒endim. Yo臒un bir kitap / oyun. Shaw鈥檜n ne kadar dolu oldu臒unu anlad谋m.
Profile Image for Manik Sukoco.
251 reviews28 followers
January 1, 2016
Shaw has packed many high-level topics into this play, while at the same time keeping long portions of the dialogue fairly low-level. Two topics jump out most frequently: hell and enjoyment. His take on each respective topic is fresh, seemingly from an entirely new perspective.
In the third act, the characters' conversation stands out in a couple ways. The explanation of hell from Don Juan, the Statue, and The Devil's point of view is unique. From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, it reeks of blasphemy, twisting around the traditional views to show things as they really are: The devil finally gets to tell his side of the story; heaven is boring; anyone can go between the two afterlives whenever they please. What is interesting is that Shaw's hell can fit with the Judeo-Christian/Biblical facts, something that the blasphemy police certainly will not give any credence to or spend any time investigating. His idea that heaven and hell are created for those who are going there matches perfectly with Biblical theology. A person not living in the grace of Jesus would hate heaven just as much as a person living in his grace would hate hell. Biblical theologians would not agree (if one could get them to listen) that people can choose their own eternity, nor would they agree with the concept of non-believers enjoying themselves in hell, even if one could get them to voice their belief that they will be given over to all the desires of their flesh.
What is fascinating about Shaw's hell is just that idea - that if life is about your passions and enjoyment (namely, the flesh) then your afterlife will be personal to those same passions and enjoyment. At this point, the conservative Judeo-Christians would be sharpening their inquisition equipment in a fervent rage because much of the play speaks to that idea of personal enjoyment during life, specifically the English. Don Juan says that humans live to try to understand life more but later adds to that idea by saying that understanding only helps us to know that we are enjoying ourselves. Life then becomes the pursuit of enjoyment, and hell mimics that pursuit as a sort of eternal amusement park. In a statement that seems like a pre-response to his opponent's case, Don Juan then says that although he spent his whole life looking for pleasure, he never found it. If it could ever happen, it is that response which could appease the frantic theologians. The devil, being the father of lies has pulled the eternal wool over everyone's eyes, both the living and the dead, and has gotten them to abandon their real purpose.
Reading Shaw's works are a genuine treat. All of his plays are fabulous. His characters are memorable, and his humor is brilliant. This is a wonderful book, charming, significant, and insightful.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 300 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.