January / G.B. Shaw Book: 'Pygmalion'

[Pensive]

The written play is better than My Fair Lady in which Eliza's last decision is different.

There was one thing that I noticed and it was the usage of no apostrophe in contractions, even in Professor Higgins's and Pickering's speech. I am a bit confused about it. I have always heard that a sentence having "youre" instead of "you're" is gramatically incorrect. Can someone correct me if I am ignorant of something here?

The play was actually awesome, witty and engaging. I enjoyed reading Mr. Doolittle's dialogues a lot as well. Fascinating book, a bit of a laugh but deals with serious matters like class distinction and the changing of people according to the society they dwell in.

[Nightshade]

The written play is better than My Fair Lady in which Eliza's last decision is different.
.

ha yes which is why I like this sooo much more

[Whifflingpin]

"I have always heard that a sentence having "youre" instead of "you're" is gramatically incorrect. Can someone correct me if I am ignorant of something here?"

You are correct. Shaw argued, I think, that English spelling should be reformed, but that has not yet happened. So keep using apostrophes correctly, at least until you have the standing of Shaw, and can take up his work.

[Virgil]

Finished Act II. Here's something that struck me. Higgins traces Doolittle's paretage by his speech.

HIGGINS
[to Pickering] Brought up in Hounslow. Mother Welsh, I should think. [Doolittle opens his mouth, amazed. Higgins continues] What do you want, Doolittle?

As I've said in the previous posts that it's a little hard to believe that one can tell from what neighborhood one comes from by the speech, but I guess it's possible. Now to be able to tell where your parents came from and, not only that, to tell where one's mother as opposed to father came from, now that is pushing credibility. I don't believe that's possible.

Also, this seems to echo Sherlock Holmes and Watson, with Higgins being Holmes and Pickering being Watson. Is it just me? Not that it means anything one way or the other. Just a thought.

[grace86]

I have to catch up. Still going through Act I. But I wouldn't be getting through it at all if it weren't for that DailyLit website that someone here on LitNet recommended.

I never realized before that it dealt largely with phonetics.

[Nightshade]

Finished Act II. Here's something that struck me. Higgins traces Doolittle's paretage by his speech.




As I've said in the previous posts that it's a little hard to believe that one can tell from what neighborhood one comes from by the speech, but I guess it's possible. Now to be able to tell where your parents came from and, not only that, to tell where one's mother as opposed to father came from, now that is pushing credibility. I don't believe that's possible.

Also, this seems to echo Sherlock Holmes and Watson, with Higgins being Holmes and Pickering being Watson. Is it just me? Not that it means anything one way or the other. Just a thought.

I woudnt be so sure about that, from one who is a mix its not that hard to tell if the mix is differant enough, sya you take and egptian-nonenglish speaking mix. Usually if the mum is egyptian the arabic will be idomatic and almost abasloutly undisnguishable( who talks to the baby??) but if the mum is a foriegner well then little mistakes pop out and if your good enough you can tell where the persons parent came from by the mistakes thay make.

[Virgil]

I woudnt be so sure about that, from one who is a mix its not that hard to tell if the mix is differant enough, sya you take and egptian-nonenglish speaking mix. Usually if the mum is egyptian the arabic will be idomatic and almost abasloutly undisnguishable( who talks to the baby??) but if the mum is a foriegner well then little mistakes pop out and if your good enough you can tell where the persons parent came from by the mistakes thay make.

Boy it's beginning to sound like Sherlock Holmes more and more.

But getting back to your point, if it's the mom talking to the child, and the child is male, wouldn't he talk like the mom. And then there would be no gender difference. How can Higgins distiguish Doolittle's mom as Welch but not the father? I should go back and see what exactly Doolittle has said up to that point.

[Nightshade]

no but the idea is that you devlop the idea of languge within the first few years of life, now Im not sure how higgins would have known this seeing as its a theory from later on but still.

[Virgil]

no but the idea is that you devlop the idea of languge within the first few years of life, now Im not sure how higgins would have known this seeing as its a theory from later on but still.

But when and how would a man lose his mother's language quirks? How can he tell what Doolittle says was handed down from his mother if as a man he will developed his own idiosyncratic quirks?

[grace86]

In Act II, does anyone else agree with me that Higgins is a complete jerk to Eliza? He is frustrating me, I hope he gets better.

Pickering sounds like he is trying to be nice to Eliza, but he's having fun watching Higgins insult her.

[Virgil]

Oh absolutely. I think the point is that despite he being a gentleman by birth he is no gentleman.

[Scheherazade]

Shaw argued, I think, that English spelling should be reformed, but that has not yet happened. So keep using apostrophes correctly, at least until you have the standing of Shaw, and can take up his work.

I think it was Shaw's belief that devices such as apostrophe were not necessary for meaningful communication and he also opted for American spellings of most words getting rid of the extra letters;eg, 'color' instead of 'colour'. If I remember correctly he left money in his will for the 'improvement' of the English language but, like WP, says it ain't happening yet! So hold on your apostrophes tight!

Also, this seems to echo Sherlock Holmes and Watson, with Higgins being Holmes and Pickering being Watson. Is it just me? Not that it means anything one way or the other. Just a thought.

I think this is a very unfair and somewhat superficial analysis of Pickering. He is not in the play as a sidekick or for amusement purposes. He is definitely not there to make Higgings look good. If anything, he reminds us what a good man / gentleman can be like (a little note here: I don't think there are any references in the play that neither Higgins nor Pickering actually belongs to 'aristocracy' (though they are obviously well-off and Upper Class). It is Pickering who offers Eliza a seat or worries about her future and he surely a good influence on both Eliza and Higgins throughout the play.

In Act II, does anyone else agree with me that Higgins is a complete jerk to Eliza? He is frustrating me, I hope he gets better.

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that Higgins is a little boy trapped in a man's body (or acts like one) and his unbecoming behaviours and manners are not only towards Eliza but anyone who would not play with his rules or stands his way. He is barely courteous towards his own mother and her guests. So, I don't agree that he is a complete jerk to Eliza; he is what he is at all times.

Look at this description of Higgins in Act II:

He appears in the morning light as a robust, vital, appetizing sort of man of forty or thereabouts, dressed in a professional-looking black frock-coat with a white linen collar and black silk tie. He is of the energetic, scientific type, heartily, even violently interested in everything that can be studied as a scientific subject, and careless about himself and other people, including their feelings. He is, in fact, but for his years and size, rather like a very impetuous baby "taking notice" eagerly and loudly, and requiring almost as much watching to keep him out of unintended mischief. His manner varies from genial bullying when he is in a good humor to stormy petulance when anything goes wrong; but he is so entirely frank and void of malice that he remains likeable even in his least reasonable moments.

- What do you think of Mrs Pearce? I find it interesting that this Middle Class lady is the first person to bring up the subject of Eliza's status within Higgins' household and her future. Even though she is only working for Higgins, she does not mind expressing her opinons when it comes to moral issues regarding Eliza. Shaw giving his approval to Middle Class morality in person of Mrs Pearce?

- The Eynsford Hill family is not as well off as the rest of them but they are still Upper Class and treated with 'respect'. Class does not necessarily come with money and pedigree is more important than material worth?

[Virgil]

I think this is a very unfair and somewhat superficial analysis of Pickering. He is not in the play as a sidekick or for amusement purposes. He is definetely not there to make Higgings look good. If anything, he reminds us what a good man / gentleman can be like (a little note here: I don't think there are any references in the play that neither Higgins nor Pickering actually belongs to 'aristocracy' (though they are obviously well-off and Upper Class). It is Pickering who offers Eliza a seat or worries about her future and he surely a good influence on both Eliza and Higgins throughout the play.

Oh Scher, I wasn't analyzing him in that way. I said it didn't mean anything to the story. I think what was running through my head was that the form of the characters interacting (two gentlemen working together, one of the gentlemen being more acutely skillful in some way) seemed to be common. It seems like a very turn-of-the-century British-y sort of thing.

[Virgil]

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that Higgins is a little boy trapped in a man's body (or acts like one) and his unbecoming behaviours and manners are not only towards Eliza but anyone who would not play with his rules or stands his way. He is barely courteous towards his own mother and her guests. So, I don't agree that he is a complete jerk to Eliza; he is what he is at all times.

Yes, it's very evident in Act III. Look at the way he interacts with his mother.

[Virgil]

Finished Act IV. Does anyone know if there are more than one version of the play? The copy in lit net ends act iv with this:

Eliza smiles for the first time; expresses her feelings by a wild pantomime in which an imitation of Higgins's exit is confused with her own triumph; and finally goes down on her knees on the hearthrug to look for the ring.

But my copy of the play has two extra sentences here:

When she finds it she considers for a moment what to do with it. Finally she flings it down on the dessert stand and goes upstairs in a tearing rage.

The extra sentences makes a world of difference to the meaning of the ending here. I have not been reading the e-version, so I wonder if this is a copy and paste error or there are different versions of the play.

Also my version has extensions to each of the Acts, and Shaw in his preface says may be eliminated for ordinary theatres due to complex staging. They were more intended for the cinema according to the preface.