Scan barcode
chelenag's review against another edition
2.0
I was constantly confused, but I finished it so it's fine.
david_rhee's review against another edition
3.0
Man and Superman is a play laden with incongruencies and surprises, and enough interplay between them to make the play predictably unpredictable. First, Shaw establishes the comforts of grounding tradition and then he forcefully infuses it with new blood for gasps and howls. Or maybe not. Who knows? Perhaps the audience was already way past clamoring to upset the old ways and manners. The play takes a bizarre turn when the genteel cast meets up with a gang of brigands in the desert, but that weirdness is quickly outdone by the vision or dream of hell which follows. As might have been suspected the Superman is Nietzsche's Ubermensch as is confirmed in the hell vision. Think man's ascent to superman by Origin of Species and natural selection being humbled by Descent of Man and the sobering realization that the principal being really is woman, or Life Force as Shaw would say. Though I wasn't really feeling this one, it was a funny and entertaining ride.
anetq's review against another edition
3.0
I heard the 1998 BBC radio production, with a brilliant cast. This is at once a classic marriage comedy (Who will marry the now fatherless young lady), a political farce (social democrats, anarkists and the like discuss in Spain, where the brits got by the fancy new motorcar), an explaining of Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch and other philosophical debate of men, women, the meaning of life etc. taking place in hell between some of the cast after their deaths with the devil and Don Juan (who in English sillily enough is pronounced 'Don Dju-an' or maybe 'Don Jew-an'). I can see why the play has been performed without the third act before (the philosophy debate from hell (literally!)) without it this would be a little more like one of the lighter Shakespeare comedies.
It is interesting - if also a bit messy - and verbose.
It is interesting - if also a bit messy - and verbose.
cassidyloverofbooks's review against another edition
challenging
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
pavram's review against another edition
5.0
drugo čitanje:
Kad sam prošle godine završio sa ovom knjigom, otpriike u slično doba godine, automatski sam dobio novopridošlicu omiljenim knjigama. Pošto ne volim da čitam o autoru nešto posebno pre nego što pročitam za mene prvo njegovo delo, kako bi mi utisak književnosti ostao na književnosti, o Šou sam čitao tek nakon završetka drame. I svašta nešto ima da se pročita... Diskutabilan čika, sve u svemu, iako na osnovu neke stručnije literature mogu da zaključim da je bio nešto razumniji nego kakvim ga Vikipedija opisuje (a i to mi govori zdrav razum), no opet, diskutabilan čika.
I tako odlučih da ga pročitam opet, sad tako uprljan Šoovom sopstvenom istorijom. I utisak mi se ama uopšte nije promenio.
Šoovo superiorno vladanje engleskim jezikom je neverovatno za posmatrati, njegovo odbijanje apostrofa i presmešan odnos prema fonetici dijalekata (izvinjavam se svim lingvistima na čerečenju izraza koje ne razumem u potpunosti), način na koji daje svojim likovima beskompromisne solilokvije, zaista je divno uživanje čitati njegovo pisanje. Filozofija prisutna u knjizi je začudjujuće dvojaka – iako je Šo gajio veoma pozitivan odnos prema didaktičkoj umetnosti, ovde postoji veoma ravnopravno višeglasje; ako nas nečemu “uči”, to je (ekstravagantnoj) diskusiji. I čak gde se mogu nazreti njegove malo... kontroverznije ideje, to je uvek u službi likova (koji neretko svojim delanjem ih potpuno pogaze).
Dakle, sve u svemu, i dalje jedno od najsmešnijih i najrazboritijih dela koje sam imao užitak da pročitam i retka knjiga koja ostaje toliko zabavna i pri ponovnom čitanju.
----
prvo čitanje:
Elem: ne sećam se tačno kako sam došao na ideju da čitam Šoa. Znam samo da sam gledao njegovu diskografiju, a Pigmalion mi beše suviše 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 ću vratiti nazad u rodni mi Govnograd. I dodje meni konačno Šo jednog lepog, letnje-kišnog dana (ne sećam se kakav je dan bio, no da ne bude baš samo anoniman). Otvorim knjigu, vidim da ima uvodno pismo od triesšes stranica, zatvorim, uzmem Horovica i u momentu na Šoa zaboravim.
Spadoh tako posle nekog vremena na poslednje dve knjige (u ovom trenutku, od mučenog Foleta sam već odustao) - Šo i Kristian Novak, ali kako se ne osetih u datom trenutku posebno suicidalno, raspoloženje koje cenim da je neophodno za Černu mati, vratih se na Šoa. Uvodno pismo bi dosta teško za čitanje, iako krcato zanimljivim razmišljanjima o tome zašto je tačno Šo odabrao da napiše dramu analog Don Žuanu, sve do dela kada, parafraziram, kaže 'of course, all wise men read the foreword only after reading the actual work', na šta se ja osetih prozvanim, pa se konačno dadoh u čitanju drame, ostavljajući pismo za neka bolja vremena.
Čovek i natčovek je (što bi pretpostavljam bio prevod na zerbski) drama, koja je po mom mišljenju pre roman jer prosto ne vidim način na koji nešto ovako, hm, obojeno, može da bude na adekvatan način predstavljeno na drvenim daskama. Sve u svemu, štivo, 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 nečeg što jedva može da se nazove smehom), sa multiplicitetom uzvičnika i ALL CAPS replika (Šo je začetnik instant mesendžer komunikacije), napisano perfidnom lakoćom i nikad boljim vladanjem engleskog jezika (ali zaista, u Šoovim rukama engleski poprima nekakav nadrealan kvalitet kakav ja do sad nisam sreo, te je neophodno čitati u originalu). Knjiga koja je suštinski o evoluciji, ali i svemu ostalom, kako to već najbolje knjige jesu. Ima tu pasaža o religiji, o umetnosti, o revoluciji, ma milina je čitati n+1 solilokvij koji sebi dozvoljavaju Šoovi junaci (ne zezam, neretko monolozi traju i po dve stranice, i vrlo je samosvestan toga Šo, te ubacuje pojedine running gag-ove). Morao bih da napomenem da je takodje možda malo pristupačnija muškom rodu, tzv 'knjiga za dečake', na isti način na koji i Hemingvej neretko odzvanja tim nekim nazovimoga muškim iskustvom. Ne bih reč promenio ovde, knjiga za sva vremena, u toj meri da mi dodje da je počnem nanovo.
I SAD MOGU DA PROČITAM UVODNIK
5+
Kad sam prošle godine završio sa ovom knjigom, otpriike u slično doba godine, automatski sam dobio novopridošlicu omiljenim knjigama. Pošto ne volim da čitam o autoru nešto posebno pre nego što pročitam za mene prvo njegovo delo, kako bi mi utisak književnosti ostao na književnosti, o Šou sam čitao tek nakon završetka drame. I svašta nešto ima da se pročita... Diskutabilan čika, sve u svemu, iako na osnovu neke stručnije literature mogu da zaključim da je bio nešto razumniji nego kakvim ga Vikipedija opisuje (a i to mi govori zdrav razum), no opet, diskutabilan čika.
I tako odlučih da ga pročitam opet, sad tako uprljan Šoovom sopstvenom istorijom. I utisak mi se ama uopšte nije promenio.
Šoovo superiorno vladanje engleskim jezikom je neverovatno za posmatrati, njegovo odbijanje apostrofa i presmešan odnos prema fonetici dijalekata (izvinjavam se svim lingvistima na čerečenju izraza koje ne razumem u potpunosti), način na koji daje svojim likovima beskompromisne solilokvije, zaista je divno uživanje čitati njegovo pisanje. Filozofija prisutna u knjizi je začudjujuće dvojaka – iako je Šo gajio veoma pozitivan odnos prema didaktičkoj umetnosti, ovde postoji veoma ravnopravno višeglasje; ako nas nečemu “uči”, to je (ekstravagantnoj) diskusiji. I čak gde se mogu nazreti njegove malo... kontroverznije ideje, to je uvek u službi likova (koji neretko svojim delanjem ih potpuno pogaze).
Dakle, sve u svemu, i dalje jedno od najsmešnijih i najrazboritijih dela koje sam imao užitak da pročitam i retka knjiga koja ostaje toliko zabavna i pri ponovnom čitanju.
----
prvo čitanje:
Elem: ne sećam se tačno kako sam došao na ideju da čitam Šoa. Znam samo da sam gledao njegovu diskografiju, a Pigmalion mi beše suviše 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 ću vratiti nazad u rodni mi Govnograd. I dodje meni konačno Šo jednog lepog, letnje-kišnog dana (ne sećam se kakav je dan bio, no da ne bude baš samo anoniman). Otvorim knjigu, vidim da ima uvodno pismo od triesšes stranica, zatvorim, uzmem Horovica i u momentu na Šoa zaboravim.
Spadoh tako posle nekog vremena na poslednje dve knjige (u ovom trenutku, od mučenog Foleta sam već odustao) - Šo i Kristian Novak, ali kako se ne osetih u datom trenutku posebno suicidalno, raspoloženje koje cenim da je neophodno za Černu mati, vratih se na Šoa. Uvodno pismo bi dosta teško za čitanje, iako krcato zanimljivim razmišljanjima o tome zašto je tačno Šo odabrao da napiše dramu analog Don Žuanu, sve do dela kada, parafraziram, kaže 'of course, all wise men read the foreword only after reading the actual work', na šta se ja osetih prozvanim, pa se konačno dadoh u čitanju drame, ostavljajući pismo za neka bolja vremena.
Čovek i natčovek je (što bi pretpostavljam bio prevod na zerbski) drama, koja je po mom mišljenju pre roman jer prosto ne vidim način na koji nešto ovako, hm, obojeno, može da bude na adekvatan način predstavljeno na drvenim daskama. Sve u svemu, štivo, 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 nečeg što jedva može da se nazove smehom), sa multiplicitetom uzvičnika i ALL CAPS replika (Šo je začetnik instant mesendžer komunikacije), napisano perfidnom lakoćom i nikad boljim vladanjem engleskog jezika (ali zaista, u Šoovim rukama engleski poprima nekakav nadrealan kvalitet kakav ja do sad nisam sreo, te je neophodno čitati u originalu). Knjiga koja je suštinski o evoluciji, ali i svemu ostalom, kako to već najbolje knjige jesu. Ima tu pasaža o religiji, o umetnosti, o revoluciji, ma milina je čitati n+1 solilokvij koji sebi dozvoljavaju Šoovi junaci (ne zezam, neretko monolozi traju i po dve stranice, i vrlo je samosvestan toga Šo, te ubacuje pojedine running gag-ove). Morao bih da napomenem da je takodje možda malo pristupačnija muškom rodu, tzv 'knjiga za dečake', na isti način na koji i Hemingvej neretko odzvanja tim nekim nazovimoga muškim iskustvom. Ne bih reč promenio ovde, knjiga za sva vremena, u toj meri da mi dodje da je počnem nanovo.
I SAD MOGU DA PROČITAM UVODNIK
5+
chgreen667's review against another edition
2.0
I was constantly confused, but I finished it so it's fine.
drifterontherun's review against another edition
5.0
A hell of a play! It's one thing to read it and to think of how it might ever possibly being able to be actually carried off on stage and quite another to see it done so by as marvelous a cast as it deserves. The National Theatre Live production was extraordinary and Ralph Fiennes as Jack Tanner gave what was unquestionably one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. He very simply IS Jack Tanner and to think of any other actor playing the role now is a downright blasphemous thought.
Much talk has been made of the various themes of Shaw's play, deservedly so, but this would all be for naught if not for the absolutely sensational dialogue throughout, most of it out of Jack's mouth. I provide, below, some of the most memorable few.
On artists: “The true artist will let his wife starve, his children go barefoot, his mother drudge for his living at seventy, sooner than work at anything but his art. To women he is half vivisector, half vampire.”
On love: “Oh, the tiger will love you. There is no love sincerer than the love of food. I think Ann loves you that way: she patted your cheek as if it were a nicely underdone chop.”
On his transforming into a "new person": “The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor: he took my measure anew every time he saw me, whilst all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me.”
Dispensing marriage advice: TANNER. “Marry Ann and at the end of a week you'll find no more inspiration than in a plate of muffins.
OCTAVIUS. You think I shall tire of her.
TANNER. Not at all: you don't get tired of muffins. But you don't find inspiration in them; and you won't in her when she ceases to be a poet's dream and becomes a solid eleven stone wife. You'll be forced to dream about somebody else; and then there will be a row.”
On the "lure" of marriage: “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.”
Mendoza on revolutionary movements: “A movement which is confined to philosophers and honest men can never exercise any real political influence: there are too few of them.”
On English "morality": “An Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable.”
Don Juan on death: “You may remember that on earth—though of course we never confessed it—the death of anyone we knew, even those we liked best, was always mingled with a certain satisfaction at being finally done with them.”
On a man's duties: “To a woman, Senora, man's duties and responsibilities begin and end with the task of getting bread for her children.”
On marriage: “Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?”
Hanging as marriage metaphor: “Does any man want to be hanged? Yet men let themselves be hanged without a struggle for life, though they could at least give the chaplain a black eye.”
I could go on but I had best stop there. Needless to say, Shaw's play 'Man and Superman' is terrific but, when performed by a truly capable cast with Ralph Fiennes in the lead, it is a marvel!
Much talk has been made of the various themes of Shaw's play, deservedly so, but this would all be for naught if not for the absolutely sensational dialogue throughout, most of it out of Jack's mouth. I provide, below, some of the most memorable few.
On artists: “The true artist will let his wife starve, his children go barefoot, his mother drudge for his living at seventy, sooner than work at anything but his art. To women he is half vivisector, half vampire.”
On love: “Oh, the tiger will love you. There is no love sincerer than the love of food. I think Ann loves you that way: she patted your cheek as if it were a nicely underdone chop.”
On his transforming into a "new person": “The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor: he took my measure anew every time he saw me, whilst all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me.”
Dispensing marriage advice: TANNER. “Marry Ann and at the end of a week you'll find no more inspiration than in a plate of muffins.
OCTAVIUS. You think I shall tire of her.
TANNER. Not at all: you don't get tired of muffins. But you don't find inspiration in them; and you won't in her when she ceases to be a poet's dream and becomes a solid eleven stone wife. You'll be forced to dream about somebody else; and then there will be a row.”
On the "lure" of marriage: “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.”
Mendoza on revolutionary movements: “A movement which is confined to philosophers and honest men can never exercise any real political influence: there are too few of them.”
On English "morality": “An Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable.”
Don Juan on death: “You may remember that on earth—though of course we never confessed it—the death of anyone we knew, even those we liked best, was always mingled with a certain satisfaction at being finally done with them.”
On a man's duties: “To a woman, Senora, man's duties and responsibilities begin and end with the task of getting bread for her children.”
On marriage: “Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?”
Hanging as marriage metaphor: “Does any man want to be hanged? Yet men let themselves be hanged without a struggle for life, though they could at least give the chaplain a black eye.”
I could go on but I had best stop there. Needless to say, Shaw's play 'Man and Superman' is terrific but, when performed by a truly capable cast with Ralph Fiennes in the lead, it is a marvel!