St Patrick's Day Book: 'Major Barbara'

[Scheherazade]

http://www.smileycollector.com/images/stpats/irishjigboy.gifThe Book Club will be reading Major Barbara by GB Shaw for the St Patrick's Day!http://www.smileycollector.com/images/stpats/irishjigboy.gif

If you would like to join us, get your copies ready!

Major Barbara: Online text. (http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/major_barbara/)




Book Club Procedures (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=57103#post57103)

[Pensive]

I have completed Act 1. It was very interesting, especially the characters of Barbara's father and her fiancee. I have found characters very funny, but in a very strange way. In a typical George Bernard-ish way, I think (at least this is what I gather after having read Pygmalion).

I am about to start Act 2, and I hope it will be as much of a fun as the previous chapter. :)

[Jay]

We had a blast discussing this in class today, mostly thanks to the teacher though. It was an enjoyable read.

[Pensive]

Finally, I have completed it. I think it was fun to read. But in the end, long speeches of Undershaft were a little bit tedious to follow.

[Weisinheimer]

I thought it was pretty entertaining. I agree with you, pensive, it did get a bit slow with Undershaft at the end, there. Overall, it was intersting and fun.

[Taliesin]

BILL. Goin to marry im?

BARBARA. Yes.

BILL [fervently] Gawd elp im! Gawd elp im!

BARBARA. Why? Do you think he won't be happy with me?

BILL. I've only ad to stand it for a mornin: e'll av to stand it
for a lifetime.

Thog reluctantly forced to agree

BTW, things tend to be quite tedious, until Undershaft comes in, he is like a breath of fresh air.



CUSINS. Nonsense! It makes them sober--

UNDERSHAFT. I prefer sober workmen. The profits are larger.

CUSINS. --honest--

UNDERSHAFT. Honest workmen are the most economical.

CUSINS. --attached to their homes--

UNDERSHAFT. So much the better: they will put up with anything
sooner than change their shop.

CUSINS. --happy--

UNDERSHAFT. An invaluable safeguard against revolution.

CUSINS. --unselfish--

UNDERSHAFT. Indifferent to their own interests, which suits me
exactly.

CUSINS. --with their thoughts on heavenly things--

UNDERSHAFT [rising] And not on Trade Unionism nor Socialism.
Excellent.

:thumbs_up

[Pensive]

Thog reluctantly forced to agree

BTW, things tend to be quite tedious, until Undershaft comes in, he is like a breath of fresh air.
:thumbs_up

Yes, his arrival is pretty entertaining. All his dialogues are immensely interesting, and make us want to see more of him. Later as well, his dialogues hold the charm but in Act 3, you may notice things getting slow and his dialogues becoming "lengthy" and so hard to follow.

The following is one of my favourite parts.


LADY BRITOMART. There is nothing that any Italian or German could
do that Stephen could not do. And Stephen at least has breeding.

UNDERSHAFT. The son of a foundling! nonsense!

LADY BRITOMART. My son, Andrew! And even you may have good blood
in your veins for all you know.

UNDERSHAFT. True. Probably I have. That is another argument in
favor of a foundling.

I can't help liking the character of Undershaft. He might be wicked, he might be unfair to his son, but one has got to admit he has got style. Fascinating! :p

[Virgil]

I read Act I yesterday and it is great!! I don't have time to give my comments now. Perhaps this evening.

[Schokokeks]

I read Act I yesterday and it is great!!
All right, since you seem so enthusiastic about it, I'll give it a go, too :D.
It's going to be the first book I'll be reading online only...I hope I'll be able to keep it up, reading a lot on the screen usually makes me very dizzy.

[Virgil]

Oh great Schoky. I'm still not ready to give my thoughts on Act i, that will take me a good half hour, but welcome to the discussion. I couldn't read even something as short as a play off a screen

How's Heart of Darkness?

[Schokokeks]

Oh great Schoky. I'm still not ready to give my thoughts on Act i, that will take me a good half hour, but welcome to the discussion.
I'm done with the first act by now, and I also like it very much :nod:. However, it's getting late here and I'm tired, but I'm looking forward to the discussion once I've had a good night's rest :).


How's Heart of Darkness?
It's really great, I'm enjoying it immensly ! I'm about 2/3 through, and I wish it were longer :). There are two other of Conrad's novel in the copy I'm reading, and I think I might go for them after I've finished Heart of Darkness. I'm glad you advised me to go for this one first :nod:.

[Virgil]

It's really great, I'm enjoying it immensly ! I'm about 2/3 through, and I wish it were longer :). There are two other of Conrad's novel in the copy I'm reading, and I think I might go for them after I've finished Heart of Darkness. I'm glad you advised me to go for this one first :nod:.

Which are the other two?

[Scheherazade]

BTW, things tend to be quite tedious, until Undershaft comes in, he is like a breath of fresh air.I agree with Tal that Undershaft's introduction to the play makes it much more interesting and entertaining. He is the devil's advocate and one cannot help pondering over his arguments.

Couple of things I have been wondering:

- Why do you think the play is titled Major Barbara?

- What would you do if you were Cusins? Would you accept Undershaft's offer?

- GBS seems to be a man of very strong opinions (and is somewhat opinionated). His plays are usually heavily laced with the messages he would like to pass on (feel like lectures at times). Why do you think his prefered genre was drama? Would it not be easier for him to express himself better in a novel, for example?

[Virgil]

Here finally are my thoughts of Act I.

First thing that caught my eye was the paradoxes that Shaw uses in describing the characters: Lady Britomart is “well dressed and yet careless of her dress, well bred and quite reckless of her breeding, well mannered and yet appallingly outspoken and indifferent to the opinion of her interlocutory, amiable and yet peremptory, arbitrary, and high-tempered to the last bearable degree. And Stephan is “gave” and “serious” and yet “childish.” These kinds of paradoxes run through the play and I think is the recurring motif. It supports the central theme. Notice this exchange:

LOMAX [leniently] Well, the more destructive war becomes, the
sooner it will be abolished, eh?

UNDERSHAFT. Not at all. The more destructive war becomes the more
fascinating we find it.
Another thing that strikes me about the play is how the types of characters reflect and counter Shaw’s beliefs, again in a paradoxical sort of way. Shaw was an atheist, pacifist, politically Liberal (of its day), socialist who did not believe in hereditary transfer or aristocracy that does not work . Notice how he creates his characters to have a part of his character and an opposing quality.
Major Barbara: Theist but pacifist.
Undershaft: Capitalist who was born poor and worked hard to become rich, military industrialist but does not believe in hereditary transfer.
Stephan: Liberal in politics but aristocratic.
Lomax: Idealist but lazy millionaire.
Cusins: A scholar capable of murder but not of cruelty; an intellectual who has fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist.

This provides incredible tension between the characters. The conflicts cross many lines, but the central conflict will be between the The Army of Salvation and the Army of Ordinance. How do Shaw’s intellectual sympathies get developed? How will this paradoxical tension that Shaw has created in the first act get worked out? A marvelous beginning.

[Pensive]

Couple of things I have been wondering:

- Why do you think the play is titled Major Barbara?
I don't know. Perhaps, because Barabara is the Major of Salvation Army, and it's the thing G.B. Shaw has wanted to discuss in his play the most. As Undershaft said something like this:


All religious organizations live by selling themselves to the rich people

And after all Barbara is Undershaft's "object" he wants to bring a change in. As the novel portrays quite exactly that he wasn't very much interested in other children as he was in Barbara. Lady Britomart kept on calling Barbara as his "pet".


- What would you do if you were Cusins? Would you accept Undershaft's offer?

Rejection. Rejection. Rejection. My self-esteem and self-respect wouldn't let me accept his offer. :p


- GBS seems to be a man of very strong opinions (and is somewhat opinionated). His plays are usually heavily laced with the messages he would like to pass on (feel like lectures at times). Why do you think his prefered genre was drama? Would it not be easier for him to express himself better in a novel, for example?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. He might have done well in the novels (if he had written any) as he does in his plays.

[Virgil]

- GBS seems to be a man of very strong opinions (and is somewhat opinionated). His plays are usually heavily laced with the messages he would like to pass on (feel like lectures at times). Why do you think his prefered genre was drama? Would it not be easier for him to express himself better in a novel, for example?

I don't know why either but there is a tradition in modern theater to present social issues. Goes back at least to Ibsen's "A Doll House." Shaw was a great admirer of Ibsen.

[Scheherazade]

Notice how he creates his characters to have a part of his character and an opposing quality.
Major Barbara: Theist but pacifist.
Undershaft: Capitalist who was born poor and worked hard to become rich, military industrialist but does not believe in hereditary transfer.
Stephan: Liberal in politics but aristocratic.
Lomax: Idealist but lazy millionaire.
Cusins: A scholar capable of murder but not of cruelty; an intellectual who has fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist.I am not sure how some of these characteristics you have lists are opposing.

A theist is not supposed to be a pacifist?

A scholar is not supposed to be a theist? Also, what makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?

[Schokokeks]

- Why do you think the play is titled Major Barbara?
Having read only Act I by now, and at first not knowing about the Salvation Army motive in it, I thought this was quite an interesting eye-catcher. Why would a woman (in Shaw's days) bear a military title ?
Although I think Barbara is not the dominant character in the first act, maybe the emphasis will change as her bet with her father unfolds in the following acts.


GBS seems to be a man of very strong opinions (and is somewhat opinionated). His plays are usually heavily laced with the messages he would like to pass on (feel like lectures at times). Why do you think his prefered genre was drama? Would it not be easier for him to express himself better in a novel, for example?
But is not brevity (and condension and reduction forced by the short space a drama offers) the soul of wit ? :)
Furthermore I think it's the common experience of watching a play in the theatre hall that adds to his purpose. A performance only takes one evening, and the addressee of Shaw's messages is meanwhile surrounded by lots of others, by the society, everyone facing the stage is equally concerned by the issues he puts forth, and the setting might encourage conversation and discussion among the audience after the curtain has fallen. I imagine this way of conveying his messages has a stronger impact than a solitary reading of a lengthier novel in one's deserted dining-room.

[Virgil]

A theist is not supposed to be a pacifist?

No the theist (Barbara) is opposed to the secularists (Undershaft, and others);
Pacifist (Barabara) is opposed to the military (Undershaft); Salvation Army versus the Military Army.


A scholar is not supposed to be a theist? Also, what makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?
I would agree with that, but just look at the religion forum here at lit net. Atheists seem to have this perception of people who believe as simpletons. They seem to think that everything falls as the evolution versus creationism debate. I didn't know for a fact if Shaw thought along those lines, so I looked it up and here is what I found:


The Religious Affiliation of Irish Playwright George Bernard Shaw:

George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright who received Nobel Price in Literature. Today Shaw is regarded as one of the most important and influential playwrights in history. He was also the founder of the Fabian Society.
Shaw's was raised as an Anglican, although Irish Anglicans were frequenly called "Protestants" instead of "Anglicans." As a child Shaw attended the Church of Ireland, which is an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion. Until he was about thirty years old, Shaw identified himself as an Atheist.

In the 1890s, Shaw renounced Atheism. He began identifying himself as a mystic. Some people believe Shaw was strongly influenced by Hinduism. Throughout the rest of his life, Shaw espoused a belief system that Sloan called "an idiosyncratic version of Henri Bergson's creative evolution." His self-described mystic beliefs focused on the evolution of humanity and other organisms, driven by a mysterious "life force." Shaw wrote explicitly about his beliefs, such as in "The New Theology" a 1907, and these beliefs also also espoused through his fictional plays.

and further down (I cut ou much here)


...Shaw scoffed at superstition, churches, ecclesiastics, rituals, ceremonies, and creeds. In The Adventures of the Black Girl in Search for God, a sardonic tale published in 1933, he derided the myopic sectarianism that strews dissension among Christians...

Shaw favored parliamentary legislation to abrogate the Church of England. In "The Church Versus Religion," he limned the average rector as a bigoted today of secular power and privilege: "He claims and exercises all the liberties of a country gentleman, and wallows openly in class prejudices. Often he snubs the poor and sides with the squire against them; he sees to it that servility and imperialist militarism are inculcated in the Church schools; he pitches the emblems of Christian peace into the cellar and waves the Union Jack the moment there is any question of war; he supports the way of the police as God's appointed way of dealing with crime."

Shaw [in his writing] depicted the god of Abraham and Moses as a boastful, imperious, and sanguinary fiend.

And still further down:


Shaw fused... the life force with the instrument. In "The New Theology," he prepped his audience: "When you are asked, 'Where is God? Who is God?' stand up and say, 'I am God and here is God, not as yet completed, but still advancing towards completion, just in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole society and the whole world, instead of merely looking after my personal ends."' God "would provide himself with a perfectly fashioned and trustworthy instrument. And such an instrument would be nothing less than God himself."

...Though [Shaw] ridiculed churches, clerics, orthodoxy, and anthropomorphic gods, he retained the moral fervor of his Protestant heritage. When hawking the life force and socialism, he was a holy prophet pitching the Kingdom of Heaven...
http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/George_Bernard_Shaw.html

So I take it back, he moved away from atheism but a rather unconventional theist to say the least but still had strong venom for religion.

Actually it fits even better now that I know this. Cusins has a rather unconventional religious belief, so the tension is between conventional and unconventional theists.

[Scheherazade]

No the theist (Barbara) is opposed to the secularists (Undershaft, and others);
Pacifist (Barabara) is opposed to the military (Undershaft); Salvation Army versus the Military Army.In your earlier post you said:

Major Barbara: Theist but pacifist.
Undershaft: Capitalist who was born poor and worked hard to become rich, military industrialist but does not believe in hereditary transfer.
Stephan: Liberal in politics but aristocratic.
Lomax: Idealist but lazy millionaire.
Cusins: A scholar capable of murder but not of cruelty; an intellectual who has fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist.So, it sounded like you used both 'theist' and 'pacifist' to describe Barbara (and the rest of the list, too, sounds like these characters have the contradicting qualities you listed next to their names).


I would agree with that, but just look at the religion forum here at lit net. Atheists seem to have this perception of people who believe as simpletons. They seem to think that everything falls as the evolution versus creationism debate.Virgil,

I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into others' mouths. It is a hasty generalisation to say that atheists consider 'believers' to be 'simpletons'; let us not turn this into a religious discussion, either.

My original question (A scholar is not supposed to be a theist? Also, what makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?) was based on your observation (which you presented as a contradiction) that Cusins, a scholar, had fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist. Are you suggesting that, based on your internet search, it was also GBS's stance as well? What makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?

Thank you very much for all the links you have provided but I would like to hear your personal opinions on the subject - should you care to share. These days it is possible to find resources to support almost any view on the net. (I wouldn't be surprised if we came up with some pages claiming that Gwen Steffani's latest single was actually inspired by Major Barbara! :p) Or at least you would be kind enough to tell us why you think these links are so important to you and how they support your views.
Cusins has a rather unconventional religious belief, so the tension is between conventional and unconventional theists.I am not even sure that Cusins can be called a 'theist'. It seems like his only interest in the Salvation Army is Barbara (Undershaft, I believe, realises this and asks him what he would do if Barbara finds out).

But is not brevity (and condension and reduction forced by the short space a drama offers) the soul of wit ? My thoughts are in line with your suggestions, Schokoko. I was wondering if GBS did not want to be bothered with the necessities of novel writing and just say what he wanted to say through his characters (rather than having to describe them in length). Also, reading novels could be considered a pastime for the intellectually and financially able. Like you mentioned, a play can get the attention of hundreds of people for couple of hours, pass on the intended message through visual means; rather time and cost effective! :)

[Virgil]

In your earlier post you said:So, it sounded like you used both 'theist' and 'pacifist' to describe Barbara (and the rest of the list, too, sounds like these characters have the contradicting qualities you listed next to their names).

I guess I wasn't clear. When I said "Theist but pacifist", the "but" separated a quality she did not share with Shaw with a quality that she did. I was commenting how each character had a Shaw trait and yet an opposing trait.



I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into others' mouths. It is a hasty generalisation to say that atheists consider 'believers' to be 'simpletons'; let us not turn this into a religious discussion, either.
I wasn't trying to. Are you saying that certain people don't ridicule people who believe in creationism? By the way I don't believe in creationism, so I'm not trying to put in a plug for it. The prejudice, however, is prevalent.


My original question (A scholar is not supposed to be a theist? Also, what makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?) was based on your observation (which you presented as a contradiction) that Cusins, a scholar, had fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist. Are you suggesting that, based on your internet search, it was also GBS's stance as well? What makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?
Perhaps I shouldn't have been presumptuous to think every one knew of Shaw's hatred for religion. I had a teacher in undergrad for modern drama who was a Shaw scholar, so I was exposed to a bit of Shaw's ideas, although it was a long time ago. Internet or not Shaw despised conventional religion. As to Barbara, I don't see any evidence that she is an intellectual. Shaw doesn't associate her with any scholarly form of religion, say like a Jesuit. He associates her with a street level religion of the Salvation Army. Not that I'm saying she's anti-intellectual, but she's not intellectual either. Rather common man.


Thank you very much for all the links you have provided but I would like to hear your personal opinions on the subject - should you care to share. These days it is possible to find resources to support almost any view on the net.
True, but I think that site captured Shaw's views accurately. Even in this play he makes the militarist such as Undershaft, who is definitly anti-Shaw in his values, come out better than the theist. From Act three, Undershaft says,

In your Salvation shelter I saw poverty, misery, cold and hunger. You gave them bread and treacle and dreams of heaven. I give from thirty shillings a week to twelve thousand a year. They find their own dreams; but I look after the drainage. The religion of Salvation is seen as a means of staying in poverty.


I am not even sure that Cusins can be called a 'theist'. It seems like his only interest in the Salvation Army is Barbara (Undershaft, I believe, realises this and asks him what he would do if Barbara finds out).
Yes, I agree that his interest is Barbara. But this exchange between him and undershaft seems to suggest he's got a paganesque religion:

UNDERSHAFT. So will you, my friend. She will find out that that
drum of yours is hollow.

CUSINS. Father Undershaft: you are mistaken: I am a sincere
Salvationist. You do not understand the Salvation Army. It is the
army of joy, of love, of courage: it has banished the fear and
remorse and despair of the old hellridden evangelical sects: it
marches to fight the devil with trumpet and drum, with music and
dancing, with banner and palm, as becomes a sally from heaven by
its happy garrison. It picks the waster out of the public house
and makes a man of him: it finds a worm wriggling in a back
kitchen, and lo! a woman! Men and women of rank too, sons and
daughters of the Highest. It takes the poor professor of Greek,
the most artificial and self-suppressed of human creatures, from
his meal of roots, and lets loose the rhapsodist in him; reveals
the true worship of Dionysos to him; sends him down the public
street drumming dithyrambs [he plays a thundering flourish on the
drum]. It goes on for a little bit of dialogue, but I didn't want to copy the whole thing over. It's in Act II.


My thoughts are in line with your suggestions, Schokoko. I was wondering if GBS did not want to be bothered with the necessities of novel writing and just say what he wanted to say through his characters (rather than having to describe them in length).
Actually he wrote several novels but were not well received. He apparently had more talent for drama.


Also, reading novels could be considered a pastime for the intellectually and financially able. Like you mentioned, a play can get the attention of hundreds of people for couple of hours, pass on the intended message through visual means; rather time and cost effective!
I'm not sure how it was in Shaw's day, but today going to a play is way more expensive than buying a book, at least around here.

[Pensive]

I am not sure how some of these characteristics you have lists are opposing.

A theist is not supposed to be a pacifist?

A scholar is not supposed to be a theist? Also, what makes you think that Barbara is not an intellectual?

I agree with Virgil in the matter that Barbara seems nothing more than a common person. I don't find anything I would call intellectual in her character. She is just a simple (no wonder, interesting though) woman who strongly believes in pacifism, and opposes what her father says.

To me, Undershaft looks much more intellectual. A pity, none of his children turned up to be like him....I would have liked to read it that way as well...:p

What do you people think about the character of Lady Britomart? It is natural to get enraged on the fact the father of your child is going to hand over his huge business toa foundling, but the way Lady Britomart adopts to defend her son's right, I think, makes her quite unpleasant. She is just another oh-so-prim-and-proper self-righteous woman, and such a hypocrite.

The way, George Bernard Shaw has put the issue of "hypocrisy" seems very interesting. Lady Britomart, who hates her husband's ways, and doesn't approve of his cannoe business, herself wants the money he got out of it.

[Virgil]

I agree with Virgil in the matter that Barbara seems nothing more than a common person. I don't find anything I would call intellectual in her character. She is just a simple (no wonder, interesting though) woman who strongly believes in pacifism, and opposes what her father says.

To me, Undershaft looks much more intellectual. A pity, none of his children turned up to be like him....I would have liked to read it that way as well...:p

What do you people think about the character of Lady Britomart? It is natural to get enraged on the fact the father of your child is going to hand over his huge business toa foundling, but the way Lady Britomart adopts to defend her son's right, I think, makes her quite unpleasant. She is just another oh-so-prim-and-proper self-righteous woman, and such a hypocrite.

The way, George Bernard Shaw has put the issue of "hypocrisy" seems very interesting. Lady Britomart, who hates her husband's ways, and doesn't approve of his cannoe business, herself wants the money he got out of it.

Very good Pensy. I agree with everything you said here. She is hypocritcal.

[Scheherazade]

I guess I wasn't clear. When I said "Theist but pacifist", the "but" separated a quality she did not share with Shaw with a quality that she did. I was commenting how each character had a Shaw trait and yet an opposing trait.Could you clarify which ones are the qualities possessed by the characters? The first ones or the second ones? Shaw was a pacifist, against hereditary transfer, aristocratic, lazy millionaire?

Major Barbara: Theist but pacifist.
Undershaft: Capitalist who was born poor and worked hard to become rich, military industrialist but does not believe in hereditary transfer.
Stephan: Liberal in politics but aristocratic.
Lomax: Idealist but lazy millionaire.
Cusins: A scholar capable of murder but not of cruelty; an intellectual who has fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist.
Are you saying that certain people don't ridicule people who believe in creationism? By the way I don't believe in creationism, so I'm not trying to put in a plug for it. The prejudice, however, is prevalent.What I think/say is irrelevant right now and it does not contribute anything to our discussion to speculate on how atheist or creationists might say so please let's not drag it that direction.
Perhaps I shouldn't have been presumptuous to think every one knew of Shaw's hatred for religion. True that there will be some members who are not very familiar with every aspect of Shaw's life and his beliefs; we all learn something new during these discussions. Like you pointed out in your earlier post:
So I take it back, he moved away from atheism but a rather unconventional theist to say the least but still had strong venom for religion.I am lucky we are discussing an author I am 'a little' familiar with as I had the opportunity to write my sophomore year thesis on Shaw (mainly feminism aspect in his plays) at university.
As to Barbara, I don't see any evidence that she is an intellectual. Shaw doesn't associate her with any scholarly form of religion, say like a Jesuit. He associates her with a street level religion of the Salvation Army. Not that I'm saying she's anti-intellectual, but she's not intellectual either. Rather common man.Barbara is very different from the average SA followers (eg Jenny). She does not blindly preach or follow. Her arguments are not the usual 'Thou shall not...' ones (look at how cleverly she addresses to Bill Walker); when her father's donation is accepted, her reaction proves that she thinks for herself; she questions and philosphies.
If you are calling her a 'common' person because she does not have a university degree, in the beginning of the previous century, women were rarely admitted to universities and most of those who were could only attend lectures but could not obtain degrees. What's more, a degree rarely makes one intellectual. It is also noteworthy that she is different from her mother and sister. She is not associated with 'scholarly form of religion' because she does not follow religion for common reasons; she makes a conscious decision to spend her time trying to help others in the way she believes to be right and she is not arrogant or presumptuous to think that it is below her to get involved in this way. In my opinion, all these qualities point to an intellectually developed person and we do not have any proof in the play that she is otherwise.
The religion of Salvation is seen as a means of staying in poverty.I think Undershaft is pointing out that it is hard for people to be 'religious' or 'pious' when they have to worry about their basic survival issues. One can cope with hunger and cold only for so long; there will be a time when even the best of us will be tempted to do 'anything' to satisfy our basic needs. The Salvation Army, as it is presented in the play, is promising a great after-life but meanwhile on the way to Heaven, all they can offer is dry bread and treacle to keep those people going. The Army will have to do more to make the journey to Heaven more pleasant for its people if it wants them to remain in the right path and offer them the means to this end as well.
I'm not sure how it was in Shaw's day, but today going to a play is way more expensive than buying a book, at least around here.As far as I can remember, theatre-going used to be a popular entertainment for many in the earlier days (starting from Shakespeare's days; The Globe's section for commoners) but it has slowly become a more expensive pastime.

[Virgil]

Could you clarify which ones are the qualities possessed by the characters? The first ones or the second ones? Shaw was a pacifist, against hereditary transfer, aristocratic, lazy millionaire?
Here is eactly waht I said:

Another thing that strikes me about the play is how the types of characters reflect and counter Shaw’s beliefs, again in a paradoxical sort of way. Shaw was an atheist, pacifist, politically Liberal (of its day), socialist who did not believe in hereditary transfer or aristocracy that does not work . Notice how he creates his characters to have a part of his character and an opposing quality.
Major Barbara: Theist but pacifist.
Undershaft: Capitalist who was born poor and worked hard to become rich, military industrialist but does not believe in hereditary transfer.
Stephan: Liberal in politics but aristocratic.
Lomax: Idealist but lazy millionaire.
Cusins: A scholar capable of murder but not of cruelty; an intellectual who has fallen in love with a non-intellectual theist.

This provides incredible tension between the characters. The conflicts cross many lines, but the central conflict will be between the The Army of Salvation and the Army of Ordinance. How do Shaw’s intellectual sympathies get developed? How will this paradoxical tension that Shaw has created in the first act get worked out? A marvelous beginning.
Perhaps not very well said, so let me try again. Shaw is an anti-formal religion (I had thought he was an atheirst), pacifist, and socialist. This is in complete opposition to the characters in the play who are theists, militarists, and capitalists (and throw in aristocracy too). And yet Shaw mixes within characters the values he opposes values with values he believes in, for instance Barbara being a Christian (in opposition to Shaw's vague mysticism) but also a pacifist. Now am I clear?


If you are calling her a 'common' person because she does not have a university degree, in the beginning of the previous century, women were rarely admitted to universities and most of those who were could only attend lectures but could not obtain degrees. What's more, a degree rarely makes one intellectual.
I said she was not anti-intellectual. Yes, she's bright if that's what you mean. But I don't see anything in the play that would make her associated with an intellectual form of religion, say like C.S. Lewis. Point it out to me if it's there, but I don't see it, and The Salvation Army is an organization devoted to helping the lower class. From Wiki: "The Salvation Army's main converts were at first alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes and other "undesirables" of society. These "undesirables" were not welcomed into polite Christian society, which helped prompt the Booths to start their own church." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_Army.


It is also noteworthy that she is different from her mother and sister. She is not associated with 'scholarly form of religion' because she does not follow religion for common reasons; she makes a conscious decision to spend her time trying to help others in the way she believes to be right and she is not arrogant or presumptuous to think that it is below her to get involved in this way.
I completely agree with that.


In my opinion, all these qualities point to an intellectually developed person and we do not have any proof in the play that she is otherwise.
I did not say that she was not smart, but I don't see any signs that her religion is founded on intellectual principles. She wants to help the poor from compassion. That is a good thing, but it is not necessarily intellectually driven.


I think Undershaft is pointing out that it is hard for people to be 'religious' or 'pious' when they have to worry about their basic survival issues. One can cope with hunger and cold only for so long; there will be a time when even the best of us will be tempted to do 'anything' to satisfy our basic needs. The Salvation Army, as it is presented in the play, is promising a great after-life but meanwhile on the way to Heaven, all they can offer is dry bread and treacle to keep those people going. The Army will have to do more to make the journey to Heaven more pleasant for its people if it wants them to remain in the right path and offer them the means to this end as well.
Here's where i think we differ greatly. Undershaft and Shaw, as I see it, are saying that religious institutions, even the most devoted to the lower classes as The Salvation Army, paradoxically keeps people in poverty. I quoted Undershaft in a previous post, but there are more examples. Here's another, and notice the reference to "common" people:

CUSINS. Take care! Barbara is in love with the common people. So
am I. Have you never felt the romance of that love?

UNDERSHAFT [cold and sardonic] Have you ever been in love with
Poverty, like St Francis? Have you ever been in love with Dirt,
like St Simeon? Have you ever been in love with disease and
suffering, like our nurses and philanthropists? Such passions are
not virtues, but the most unnatural of all the vices. This love
of the common people may please an earl's granddaughter and a
university professor; but I have been a common man and a poor
man; and it has no romance for me. Leave it to the poor to
pretend that poverty is a blessing: leave it to the coward to
make a religion of his cowardice by preaching humility: we know
better than that. We three must stand together above the common
people: how else can we help their children to climb up beside
us? Barbara must belong to us, not to the Salvation Army.

That is a very powerful passage, and at this point in the play we see the conflict coming to a head: the ethos of salvation versuses the ethos of militarism, interestingly both equally disdainful to Shaw.

[Jay]

My thoughts are in line with your suggestions, Schokoko. I was wondering if GBS did not want to be bothered with the necessities of novel writing and just say what he wanted to say through his characters (rather than having to describe them in length). Also, reading novels could be considered a pastime for the intellectually and financially able. Like you mentioned, a play can get the attention of hundreds of people for couple of hours, pass on the intended message through visual means; rather time and cost effective! :)
Before my teacher mentioned it, I didn't even realize the play had a preface (read a digital version which didn't include it). I haven't read it yet (the preface) but what was said in the class about it, it sure seemed like Shaw was very much bothered about what he was saying that he went to such lengths as to write prefaces almost as long as the plays themselves at times, 'summarizing' the play and his points in them to make sure the reader gets the 'right' idea. I do agree with both of you and Schoko about brevity and clarity and enjoyment though, but then again, in my opinion, Shaw did intend his plays to be read as well (novel-like element maybe?), not likely that they'd perform a recital of his lengthy prefaces in the theathres.

edit: Just wanted to ask if anybody actually did read the preface?

[Virgil]

edit: Just wanted to ask if anybody actually did read the preface?

I have the preface in my edition, which I used over twenty years ago in college. It still has my notes in it. But I have not read it now with our read, and I don't recall any of it. It's almost 50 pages, about half as long as the play. I probably won't read it.

[Scheherazade]

Perhaps not very well said, so let me try again. Shaw is an anti-formal religion (I had thought he was an atheirst), pacifist, and socialist. This is in complete opposition to the characters in the play who are theists, militarists, and capitalists (and throw in aristocracy too). And yet Shaw mixes within characters the values he opposes values with values he believes in, for instance Barbara being a Christian (in opposition to Shaw's vague mysticism) but also a pacifist. Now am I clear?Thanks for trying again, Virgil.

These characters show contradicting qualities; however, don't we all? Your argument regarding Shaw's character set up has reminded me of the 'Author's Curse' thread. Was Shaw trying to shape his characters in a way to represent his views or were they based on his observations and shaped themselves in a way?
I said she was not anti-intellectual. Yes, she's bright if that's what you mean. But I don't see anything in the play that would make her associated with an intellectual form of religion, say like C.S. Lewis. Point it out to me if it's there, but I don't see it, and The Salvation Army is an organization devoted to helping the lower class. From Wiki: "The Salvation Army's main converts were at first alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes and other "undesirables" of society. These "undesirables" were not welcomed into polite Christian society, which helped prompt the Booths to start their own church." Working for an organisation that helps working class people does not mean one lacks capacity for more 'challenging' things. We differ in that you believe the play does not offer anything to prove she is an intellectual and I believe it does not offer anything to prove that she is not. What's more, in my opinion, there are many indicators (as they are stated in my earlier post) that she is more likely to be an intellectual than not.

The title of the play, Major Barbara, I think, also proves that. Barbara is a character who develops intellectually and goes through some kind of enlightenment during the play.
Here's where i think we differ greatly. Undershaft and Shaw, as I see it, are saying that religious institutions, even the most devoted to the lower classes as The Salvation Army, paradoxically keeps people in poverty.I think I addressed this in my earlier post. I don't think Undershaft is suggesting that religious institutions keep lower classes poor on purpose but they are failing them by not offering them any support to deal with the difficulties in 'this world'. These institutions should also worry about these people's welfare here because how they fare in afterlife heavily depends on that. If your basic needs are not met, you are less likely to worry about moral issues (or even if you do, your survival instict might prove stronger than a guilty conscience).
I do agree with both of you and Schoko about brevity and clarity and enjoyment though, but then again, in my opinion, Shaw did intend his plays to be read as well (novel-like element maybe?), not likely that they'd perform a recital of his lengthy prefaces in the theathres.That is a great point, Jay. I am wondering whether Shaw wrote these prefaces at the time of writing his play because this play, for example, was first staged in 1905 but it was not published till 1907. I also remember reading that some parts of his prefaces were written in response to the criticism he received.

I scanned the preface to Major Barbara but, without reading the play, it made little sense. Maybe I should go back and read it thoroughly.

[Virgil]

These characters show contradicting qualities; however, don't we all? Your argument regarding Shaw's character set up has reminded me of the 'Author's Curse' thread. Was Shaw trying to shape his characters in a way to represent his views or were they based on his observations and shaped themselves in a way?
Very good question Scher. Obviously because I point it out I find it significant, and because every major character has an element of Shaw's traits and an element of an opposing trait, I find it hard to believe it was accidental. Plus Shaw was a very well known public figure by this time, so the general public knew fro what he stood for, at least the play going public.


Working for an organisation that helps working class people does not mean one lacks capacity for more 'challenging' things. We differ in that you believe the play does not offer anything to prove she is an intellectual and I believe it does not offer anything to prove that she is not. What's more, in my opinion, there are many indicators (as they are stated in my earlier post) that she is more likely to be an intellectual than not.
I only said her religion is not intellectually based, not that she wasn't intellectual. And now that I've completed the play and see her changed world view at the end, I will say she has reached a very intellectually complex position. Yes, if it will make you happy, ;) she is intellectual.


The title of the play, Major Barbara, I think, also proves that. Barbara is a character who develops intellectually and goes through some kind of enlightenment during the play.
Yes, of course she is the central character of the play. She evolves as the Salvation Army ethos loses to the military army ethos.


I don't think Undershaft is suggesting that religious institutions keep lower classes poor on purpose but they are failing them by not offering them any support to deal with the difficulties in 'this world'.
I never said "on purpose." I think he believes as a consequence of their charity.

What do people think of the character Bill in the second act? Such a brute of a character, and is unredeemable. Is he there to show how ineffective Barbara's message is?

[Virgil]

Another point I wish to make about Act II is that we see the firm purity of Barbara's position. And it proves disaterous. Her purity to not be flexible in matters of morality actually leads to her disillusionment. Here are passages from Act II that show Barbara's purity.


UNDERSHAFT. You shall see. All religious organizations exist by
selling themselves to the rich.

CUSINS. Not the Army. That is the Church of the poor.


BARBARA [tears coming into her eyes as she ties the bag and
pockets it] How are we to feed them? I can't talk religion to a
man with bodily hunger in his eyes. [Almost breaking down] It's
frightful.

JENNY [running to her] Major, dear--

BARBARA [rebounding] No: don't comfort me. It will be all right.
We shall get the money.

UNDERSHAFT. How?

JENNY. By praying for it, of course. Mrs Baines says she prayed
for it last night; and she has never prayed for it in vain: never
once. [She goes to the gate and looks out into the street].



BARBARA. No: the Army is not to be bought. We want your soul,
Bill; and we'll take nothing less.

BILL [bitterly] I know. It ain't enough. Me an me few shillins is
not good enough for you. You're a earl's grendorter, you are.
Nothin less than a underd pahnd for you.

UNDERSHAFT. Come, Barbara! you could do a great deal of good with
a hundred pounds. If you will set this gentleman's mind at ease
by taking his pound, I will give the other ninety-nine [Bill,
astounded by such opulence, instinctively touches his cap].

BARBARA. Oh, you're too extravagant, papa. Bill offers twenty
pieces of silver. All you need offer is the other ten. That will
make the standard price to buy anybody who's for sale. I'm not;
and the Army's not. [To Bill] You'll never have another quiet
moment, Bill, until you come round to us. You can't stand out
against your salvation.

When the Salvation Army capitualtes, despite Barbara's efforts to remain pure, and accepts money from the whiskey owner and from Undershaft, then Barbara ideals are essentially defeated. Purity cannot function in the world. Paradoxes that run through the play show that society is complex. I asked in the previous post what is the function of having such a brute as Bill in this play. Let me answer my own question. Bill is a character who cannot be reformed. One cannot take Bill and change his speech, say like Eliza in Pygmalion, and make him a decent member of society. Pygmalion offers an equation to solve social problems: change the speech of a poor person and you will make him/her middle class. That equation fails in Major Barbara (the play). Society with all it's paradoxes is complex; whiskey and munitions help society, not necessarily evil. And people like Bill cannot be reformed through prayer and such.

And so the two sides of the conflict can also be seen as the mature, albeit, Machiaveliian Undershaft versues the immature, young idealists in Cusins and Barbara. The young idealists lose by having this veil that prevents them from seeing society with its complexities removed. Barbara is left shattered at the end of Act II.

[Virgil]

I did not give my final thoughts on the play.

The third act to me is a unveiling of the naiveté if not even childishness of the younger characters as Undershaft rebuffs all their ideals.

First Stephan. Undershaft asks him what he is good at so they can find a career for him.


UNDERSHAFT. Rather a difficult case, Stephen. Hardly anything left but the stage, is there? (Stephen makes an impatient movement.) Well, come! is there a n y t h i n g you know or care for?
STEPHEN (rising and looking at him steadily). I know the difference between right and wrong.
UNDERSHAFT (hugely tickled). You don’t say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you’re a genius, a master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!
But it’s more than just facetious banter; he hits at the very core of the idealism that has clouded their view of reality. He says shortly after:


UNDERSHAFT. … You are all alike, you respectable people. You cant tell me the bursting strain of a ten-inch gun, which is a very simple matter; but you all think you can tell me the bursting strain of a man under temptation. You darent handle high explosives; but youre all ready to handle honesty and truth and justice and the whole duty of man, and kill one another at that game. What a country! what a world!
Without posting the rest of the passage, Stephan continues to be childishly naïve until finally Undershaft finds the perfect profession for him:


UNDERSHAFT. Stephen: Ive found your profession for you. Youre a born journalist. I'll start you with a high-toned weekly review. There!
[I had to include that; I have a similar reaction to journalists.:lol: :p ]

And then it’s Cusin’s turn. The discussion turns to a war in the far east.


STEPHEN. Another Japanese victory?
UNDERSHAFT. Oh, I dont know. Which side wins does not concern us here. No: the good news is that the aerial battleship is a tremendous success. At the first trial it has wiped out a fort with three hundred soldiers in it.
CUSINS (from the platform). Dummy soldiers?
UNDERSHAFT. No: the real thing. (Cusins and Barbara exchange glances. Then Cusins sits on the step and buries his face in his hands. Barbara gravely lays her hand on his shoulder, and he looks up at her in a sort of whimsical desperation.) Well, Stephen, what do you think of the place?
“Dummy soldiers?” And he is supposed to be the intellectual? The real world isn’t toy games. It’s “the real thing.”

Then there’s Barbara who Undershaft wants to take over his factory.


BARBARA. Oh how gladly I would take a better one to my soul! But you offer me a worse one. (Turning on him with sudden vehemence.) Justify yourself: shew me some light through the darkness of this dreadful place, with its beautifully clean workshops, and respectable workmen, and model homes.
UNDERSHAFT. Cleanliness and respectability do not need justification, Barbara: they justify themselves. I see no darkness here, no dreadfulness. In your Salvation shelter I saw poverty, misery, cold and hunger. You gave them bread and treacle and dreams of heaven. I give from thirty shillings a week to twelve thousand a year. They find their own dreams; but I look after the drainage.
BARBARA. And their souls?
UNDERSHAFT. I save their souls just as I saved yours.
BARBARA (revolted). Y o u saved my soul! What do you mean?
UNDERSHAFT. I fed you and clothed you and housed you. I took care that you should have money enough to live handsomely -- more than enough; so that you could be wasteful, careless, generous. That saved your soul from the seven deadly sins.
That is the reality. His money saved her from a life similar to the destitute that visit the Salvation Army. And later:


LADY BRITOMART. Your ideas are nonsense. You got on because you were selfish and unscrupulous.
UNDERSHAFT. Not at all. I had the strongest scruples about poverty and starvation. Your moralists are quite unscrupulous about both: they make virtues of them. I had rather be a thief than a pauper. I had rather be a murderer than a slave. I dont want to be either; but if you force the alternative on me, then, by Heaven, I'll choose the braver and more moral one. I hate poverty and slavery worse than any other crimes whatsoever. And let me tell you this. Poverty and slavery have stood up for centuries to your sermons and leading articles: they will not stand up to my machine guns. Dont preach at them: dont reason with them. Kill them.
BARBARA. Killing. Is that your remedy for everything?
UNDERSHAFT. It is the final test of conviction, the only lever strong enough to overturn a social system, the only way of saying Must. Let six hundred and seventy fools loose in the street; and three policemen can scatter them. But huddle them together in a certain house in Westminster; and let them go through certain ceremonies and call themselves certain names until at last they get the courage to kill; and your six hundred and seventy fools become a government. Your pious mob fills up ballot papers and imagines it is governing its masters; but the ballot paper that really governs is the paper that has a bullet wrapped up in it.
The machine gun is the ultimate reality. That is what guarantees the ballot box. Go and start a resurrection and see how the government reacts. Shortly after comes the intellectual climax of the play:


UNDERSHAFT. Ought, ought, ought, ought, ought! Are you going to spend your life saying ought, like the rest of our moralists? Turn your oughts into shalls, man. Come and make explosives with me. Whatever can blow men up can blow society up. The history of the world is the history of those who had courage enough to embrace this truth. Have you the courage to embrace it, Barbara?
LADY BRITOMART. Barbara, I positively forbid you to listen to your father's abominable wickedness. And you, Adolphus, ought to know better than to go about saying that wrong things are true. What does it matter whether they are true if they are wrong?
UNDERSHAFT. What does it matter whether they are wrong if they are true?
Here Shaw ties the paradox motif with the reality motif. And this then leads to the dramatic climax, the conversion of Barbara to Undershaft’s world view:


CUSINS. I thought you were determined to turn your back on the wicked side of life.
BARBARA. There is no wicked side: life is all one. And I never wanted to shirk my share in whatever evil must be endured, whether it be sin or suffering. I wish I could cure you of middle-class ideas, Dolly.And shortly after:


BARBARA. … My father shall never throw it in my teeth again that my converts were bribed with bread. (She is transfigured.) I have got rid of the bribe of bread. I have got rid of the bribe of heaven. Let God's work be done for its own sake: the work he had to create us to do because it cannot be done except by living men and women. When I die, let him be in my debt, not I in his; and let me forgive him as becomes a woman of my rank.
CUSINS. Then the way of life lies through the factory of death?
BARBARA. Yes, through the raising of hell to heaven and of man to God, through the unveiling of an eternal light in the Valley of The Shadow. (Seizing him with both hands.)...

And so, she comes to an understanding of the paradoxes of life. A magnificent and mature work. Of all the Shaw plays i've read, this is my favorite.