Scan barcode
erickibler4's review against another edition
5.0
It has been said about Shaw's plays that his characters are all different parts of Shaw's mind talking to one another; hashing out paradoxes. Nothing could be more true than saying this about Man and Superman. What he does here, though, is resolve seemingly inconsistent traits in human (male and female) beings into what becomes a descriptive philosophy of what the human animal is, and even positing something you could call a religion.
Shaw posits a Life-Force which, on the female side, seeks the creation of life. Women in Shaw's view are huntresses, each seeking from the pool of possible procreative partners the man most likely to produce superior offspring, and securing that man in marriage. The Superwoman is an especially strong and cagey huntress.
The male human is essentially destructive where the female is creative. And while this destructiveness can be devastating to society, it also serves creatively, as when a revolutionary mind tears down an obsolete system and makes way for a new one.
This play contains long-winded paragraphs of people speaking philosophically, yet it is also funny. Tanner's final unsentimental rant as he capitulates to the wiles of Ann Ramsden is a beautifully funny ending. You might say that it's a reverse of Taming of the Shrew, with Tanner as Kate and Ann as Petruchio.
The third act (of four) is the dream sequence, "Don Juan in Hell", which is often performed as a stand-alone play. Tanner becomes Don Juan, the now jaded seducer, having spent centuries in hell (a place where people seek pleasure and beauty). He's tired of it, and now intends changing his residence to heaven (because you can do that at will). Heaven is a place of truth; of reality. Don Juan wants to go there and set himself apart from those who are there to enjoy the humdrum reality, and contemplate realities yet to come. Everyone, including the Devil, is a reasonable sort, and the characters enjoy quite a lively conversation.
The Shavian Superman is one who has ideas that humanity may not quite be ready for, but who pushes in a new direction. The Superman and Superwoman are drawn from Darwinian thought. They are avatars which appear every so often to shepherd humanity to the next phase.
The play's appendix is "The Revolutionist's Handbook", a pamphlet ostensibly written by Tanner, which states his philosophy. After first demolishing ideas that there has been any progress in civilization, "Tanner" proposes that we experiment with human breeding in creating Supermen. Shaw, although a socialist, was disillusioned with democracy (as practiced) as government by the rabble, and was wrestling with finding out a way to improve the common stock of man so that democracy would become a more intelligent instrument.
Shaw posits a Life-Force which, on the female side, seeks the creation of life. Women in Shaw's view are huntresses, each seeking from the pool of possible procreative partners the man most likely to produce superior offspring, and securing that man in marriage. The Superwoman is an especially strong and cagey huntress.
The male human is essentially destructive where the female is creative. And while this destructiveness can be devastating to society, it also serves creatively, as when a revolutionary mind tears down an obsolete system and makes way for a new one.
This play contains long-winded paragraphs of people speaking philosophically, yet it is also funny. Tanner's final unsentimental rant as he capitulates to the wiles of Ann Ramsden is a beautifully funny ending. You might say that it's a reverse of Taming of the Shrew, with Tanner as Kate and Ann as Petruchio.
The third act (of four) is the dream sequence, "Don Juan in Hell", which is often performed as a stand-alone play. Tanner becomes Don Juan, the now jaded seducer, having spent centuries in hell (a place where people seek pleasure and beauty). He's tired of it, and now intends changing his residence to heaven (because you can do that at will). Heaven is a place of truth; of reality. Don Juan wants to go there and set himself apart from those who are there to enjoy the humdrum reality, and contemplate realities yet to come. Everyone, including the Devil, is a reasonable sort, and the characters enjoy quite a lively conversation.
The Shavian Superman is one who has ideas that humanity may not quite be ready for, but who pushes in a new direction. The Superman and Superwoman are drawn from Darwinian thought. They are avatars which appear every so often to shepherd humanity to the next phase.
The play's appendix is "The Revolutionist's Handbook", a pamphlet ostensibly written by Tanner, which states his philosophy. After first demolishing ideas that there has been any progress in civilization, "Tanner" proposes that we experiment with human breeding in creating Supermen. Shaw, although a socialist, was disillusioned with democracy (as practiced) as government by the rabble, and was wrestling with finding out a way to improve the common stock of man so that democracy would become a more intelligent instrument.
spaceisavacuum's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
Bernard Shaw’s ‘Man and Superman’ is his very own Don Juan; Molière had a Don Juan, Mozart did too, so did Wagner. My Don Juan is still Carlos Castañeda’s. In this Bernard tried to contrast from a Casanova, another prototype I don’t actually have a clue thereof: art, though, that art can supersede sex as secondary. Art is numerically everything; spirit, subject, source. I said that science is what art is not; Art is the vacillation of the animal: a feral burrow, a castle suspended in the clouds, architecture, invention, the mythos was secondary only to necessity: it became necessary to invent God; the invention of ‘God from the machine; deus ex machinae. The Epistle Dedicatory that composes XXXVIII (38) pages is more fascinating than the play, to explain in his own words:
“the being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.”
Don Juan kills Ann’s father in a joust. Ann is appointed guardian to the unscrupulous Jack Tanner, that all passions ought to be moral, ‘ought’ and ‘passion are enfettered lexicons… the Oughtity of Passion is that insuperable defying of the Oughts., O Petrarch, Mon frère!
I pick up books that I want to feel, at Present, sometimes they can come at a Apt time: Mendoza the brigand who robs from the rich, Tanner the Gentleman who robs from the poor, and headstrong Hector, ‘I wawnt’be a Mahn. I wawnt to know what poverty is.’ So there is a decision to choose: under the assumption that my guardian is not a tyrant, is better than losing all I own @ i stubborn blaze of defiance. I won’t be told what to do, I will be set where I’m neither abject nor truculent.
Ann goes to Hell. She meets the Don Juan, the Devil, and the Statue, who went to heaven. Earth is the home of the slaves of reality… their bods, hungry, cold, thirsty, aging, decaying, sickly. ‘But here [Hell] you escape the tyranny of the flesh.’ People are weary of heaven as in hell, for their sensation of flesh is mere discorporate; their souls, like, dance in inferno. Is Man, by invention, destroying himself? Why the devil - “I don’t admire the heavenly temperament.” 🌬️
“the being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.”
Don Juan kills Ann’s father in a joust. Ann is appointed guardian to the unscrupulous Jack Tanner, that all passions ought to be moral, ‘ought’ and ‘passion are enfettered lexicons… the Oughtity of Passion is that insuperable defying of the Oughts., O Petrarch, Mon frère!
I pick up books that I want to feel, at Present, sometimes they can come at a Apt time: Mendoza the brigand who robs from the rich, Tanner the Gentleman who robs from the poor, and headstrong Hector, ‘I wawnt’be a Mahn. I wawnt to know what poverty is.’ So there is a decision to choose: under the assumption that my guardian is not a tyrant, is better than losing all I own @ i stubborn blaze of defiance. I won’t be told what to do, I will be set where I’m neither abject nor truculent.
Ann goes to Hell. She meets the Don Juan, the Devil, and the Statue, who went to heaven. Earth is the home of the slaves of reality… their bods, hungry, cold, thirsty, aging, decaying, sickly. ‘But here [Hell] you escape the tyranny of the flesh.’ People are weary of heaven as in hell, for their sensation of flesh is mere discorporate; their souls, like, dance in inferno. Is Man, by invention, destroying himself? Why the devil - “I don’t admire the heavenly temperament.” 🌬️
connell98's review against another edition
4.0
At times, I was confused. Other times, greatly intrigued. It's like Oscar Wilde but with a dash of Milton and a bit of Joyce.
fudgeelizabeth9's review against another edition
challenging
funny
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
nhelregel's review against another edition
3.0
I thought this play was... interesting. It mostly reminded me of Oscar Wilde, except more bitter and heavier on philosophy. I cannot imagine an actual production of this play; it would last forever, especially the third act, which is comprised mostly of long philosophical rants. Also, the female characters have almost NO redeeming values. But then again, the male characters aren't exactly angels. As strange and out of place as it seemed, the third act actually contained some of my favorite lines, most of which were highly sacrilegious. In conclusion, not for everyone, but full of wit and diatribes.
paperkit's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
toxic heteronormative marriage, the play
kirbyhunt's review against another edition
funny
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
gsroney's review against another edition
3.0
“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.”
eb00kie's review against another edition
5.0
Marketing for Philosophers: when the Socratic method fails (usually due to the diminishing attention spans), draw out a decent romantic comedy, engage the sense of humor and serve the conclusions interspersed with the snappy dialogue.