Girardeau and Nouzovsky 1

Turnitin Id: 220564574

Sculpting Galatea An Analysis of George Bernard Shaws Pygmalion

Anna Nouzovsky Brad Girardeau Mr. Harry-LASA Senior English IV Period One December 12, 2011

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 2 It is so intensely and deliberately didactic, and its subject is esteemed so dry, that I delight in throwing it at the heads of the wiseacres who repeat the parrot cry that art should never be didactic. It goes to prove my contention that art should never be anything else, Shaw writes of Pygmalion. Born 1856 in Dublin, he captivated audiences with the interplay of ideas, winning the 1925 Nobel Prize in Literature. In plays like Major Barbara and The Doctors Dilemma, he explored and criticized many aspects of society. Pygmalion, no exception, delves into the intertwining subjects of phonetics, class division, and morality. Yet despite Shaws portrayal of it as dry didacticism, Pygmalion is full of life, showcasing human interactions and their difficult ambiguities. It tells the story of a young flower girl on the streets of London, Eliza Doolittle, and her transformation into a lady through the power of language. Henry Higgins, a blustery phonetics expert, effects this transformation, joined in the endeavor by the more mild-mannered Colonel Pickering, who is well versed in Indian dialects. Together, they walk the contours of Ovids myth of Pygmalion, where Pygmalion, a talented sculptor, creates a statue of the perfect woman, who is then brought to life by Venus and named Galatea. Critics often investigate the manner in which Shaw uses language to bring about Elizas transformation from flower girl to duchess, examining his ideas about society and the fluidity of human nature in the process. Yet even as Shaw explores the prodigious power of language to create and transform, he humorously shows its shortfalls, revealing through Elizas interactions with Higgins that the strength of ones character and morals is what truly defines an individual. Audiences have long questioned Shaws motivation in avoiding the popular wish for a romantic, love-story ending. In the second printing of the play, Shaw had to add an epilogue making more explicit the impossibility of this ending, an effort to forestall the attempts of directors to modify it. Still one reviewer, Hilton Als in Love for Sale, does touch on the romantic

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 3 underpinnings of the play, connecting Eliza, a relatively strong individual, to Shaws other female characters and his own love life. While interesting, the romantic lens should only represent a small view of Pygmalion as a whole. As Christopher Busiel in An Overview of Pygmalion explains, such a romance would depend upon a transformation in Higgins which he is incapable of making. This also indicates that Shaw perhaps intended to create a failed love story in part to demonstrate the pitfalls that come with the inability to grow. In addition, Shaw makes clear in the phonetics-focused Introduction included in later editions that he prefers to highlight the linguistic element of Pygmalion. This focus lends to an analysis of social transformation through language, where transformation stands as the central theme. Shaw explores Elizas fluid metamorphosis, who stands in contrast to the solid, unchangeable Higgins, and the lenses through which critics view this theme have elicited a variety analysis. One essential component of the play comments on the absurdity of social society, where a simple girl can easily climb to the hierarchys zenith by merely learning proper English. As Busiel notes, Shaw rejected the sense of innate inequality which dominated British society around the turn of the century. He believed instead in the innate quality of humans to grow and evolve, showing us the lack of meaning in societys ranking system. Throughout the play, it becomes clear that Shaw believes in human improvement and evolution as the key to social transformation (Busiel), and he uses Eliza as a vehicle to express this philosophy. These critiques have clearly found an essential meaning of Pygmalion. Going beyond simple narrative, it delves into the core values of British society at the time and rejects the notion of natural class division. Shaw goes further than showing the ability of Higgins to chisel Elizas crude speech and manner into that of a duchess, suggesting as well that the truly important transformation comes from Elizas growth into a unique individual. He indicates that the system of outward appearances

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 4 that society uses to judge class is not only easily fooled but entirely misguided; ones true worth lies beneath the surface. Some critics miss this deeper meaning, analyzing only language instead of the character that language communicates. For example, Jean Reynolds views Eliza as a pure creation of Higgins and his language. He claims that lacking an authentic, inborn essence of her own, Miss Doolittle (Eliza) is a supplement to Higgins's original. While this is well supported throughout most of Pygmalion, it fails to recognize that Eliza eventually breaks away from her creator. Eliza initially ascends in social class through artificial language, still just an experiment of Higgins. But at the end, she asserts her own worth and takes ownership of her new character, becoming more than a mere supplement. Still Shaw clearly wanted to imprint the immense power of language on the reader. As Reynolds remarks, "language is central, engendering all the rest. But if words create difficulties for Shaw's characters (and us), they are also instruments of empowerment, expertly expressing the power that Shaw ascribes to it. Shaw chooses speech as the realm in which Eliza makes her full transformation, and if Eliza loses her elegant articulation, little is left of the dazzling apparition (Reynolds). The moment where Eliza finally gains some measure of power over Higgins is when she realizes that she possesses the same expert knowledge of phonetics as he does. With this linguistic knowledge, she can become not just a creation but a creator. Still Shaw carefully shows that language alone is only a facilitator, creating an apparition or facsimile of a true human soul. We see this in some of the funniest moments of Pygmalion, coming from the incongruity of Higgins or Elizas words with their current realities. As Shaw develops their characters, he indicates that changes in speech and mannerism are ineffective unless they affect these underlying realities.

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 5 One important scene in Higgins portrayal comes in an exchange with his housekeeper, Mrs. Pearce, after he decides to instruct Eliza, where she cautions him to clean up his behavior. In response to her admonishment not to swear in front of Eliza, he blusters [Most emphatically] I never swear. I detest the habit. What the devil do you mean? (Shaw 395; act II), demonstrating the contrary. And more serious than a what the devil is another word that Higgins [loftily] asserts he has never uttered; in fact, Mrs. Pearce informs, Only this morning, sir, you applied it to your boots, to the butter, and to the brown bread (396; act II). Brushing off his excuse of the utterances as mere alliteration, Mrs. Pearce, natural to a poet, she moves to the subject of personal cleanliness, where a similar exchange unfolds (396; act II). In this segment, Higgins illustrates a comical lack of perception of his own general character. His first rejection of any hint of inappropriate language ends in a mild profanity, while the second is followed by evidence of three cases that morning. Then asserting his attention to the little details of tidiness, he assumes the air of a man in an unassailable position (Shaw 396; act II), but this supposition crumbles in the face of evidence soon provided. Clearly what one says does not make it so. The incongruity of Higgins true nature and his speech extends beyond just facts and falsehoods to encompass how he speaks as well. All of the previous statements were uttered loftily or emphatically with an unassailable air. They suggest Higgins is a man with definite, considered ideas. But a few statements later, he will brush off the demonstrably erroneous assertion as if it were nothing of significanceand of course he will be careful before the girl. Is that all? (397; act II). These descriptions are not entirely without merit, suggesting the overpowering strength that is a critical facet of his personality. Yet this is the aspect that Higgins professes to wish away, where he never had the slightest intention of walking over anyone (388; act II). Shaw creates in Higgins an extraordinary finesse of characterization. He develops a man

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 6 with great weight and strength but little inertia, possessing rough manners and an overbearing nature in reality but arguing in protest of such attributes in his speech. This is the maze of personality that Eliza traverses in her linguistic journey. Despite the ostensible focus on language, Shaw ensures that character development also occupies a position of importance. In one of the funnier scenes of the play, he shows the inadequacy of language to entirely define an individual even more clearly than in the earlier depiction of Higgins. Visiting the At Home day of Henrys mother, Mrs. Higgins, Eliza applies her grasp of high-class dialect to the realm of small talk. Responding to a polite inquiry on the weather, she remarks: The shallow depression in the west of these islands is likely to move slowly in an easterly direction. There are no indications of any great change in the barometrical situation (Shaw 417; act III), in a remark much too formal. Yet by the end, Eliza responds to a question with the exclamation: Walk! Not bloody likely. [Sensation]. I am going in a taxi (419; act III). The use of bloody (previously alluded to by Mrs. Pearce and Higgins) is particularly shocking, historically taboo on the British stage until Pygmalion. In choosing to include it, Shaw piercingly illustrates that Eliza has much to learn besides phonetics to become a lady. Indeed, Elizas true triumph comes not in the ladylike success of the garden party, but in the confrontation with Higgins that follows. From her original attempts to resist being bossed around in the first scene at his house to the confrontation the night of the garden party, Higgins natural, overrunning strength prevails in at least some respect. A similar result seems likely after the exchange, where Eliza, [desperate], exclaims Oh, you are a cruel tyrant. I cant talk to you: you turn everything against me: Im always in the wrong. (Shaw 456; act V). She comments on the immense talent Higgins possesses for sophistry, creating and melding powerful ideas out of raw language. But Eliza finally discovers the power that she hasHiggins has given her her own

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 7 knowledge of phonetics. And it is not until this assertion of her own strength that finally inspires Higgins almost incredulous, By George, Eliza, I said Id make a woman of you; and I have (458; act V). Before, she was another of Higgins creations, a draggle-tailed guttersnipe of which he would make a duchess (387; act II); now, she lives. Paralleling the myth of Pygmalion, Shaw writes a story not merely of transformation but of creation. Higgins is the sculptor of Eliza, statue that comes to life. He begins with a rough, unformed block of ah-ah-ah-ow-ow-oo dialect, creating from it a beautiful duchess through the chisel of phonetics and polish of mannerism. Through the work of language comes an unparalleled work of beauty, a brilliant assertion of class malleability and equality. Yet Venus animating spark, rather than perfect speech, is an assertion of independence: Elizas own character standing strong against Higgins overpowering moral force. In Shaws time, language was a barrier between the classes, a barrier that could be overcome with proper training. He shows its power in allowing Eliza to transcend the status of her birth and, more grandly, in bringing to life the entire story of Pygmaliona play acted out by live characters before the audiences eyes. But it was not language alone that effects this transformation; the human character, soul and morals, work as well, and this character, like language, has the capacity for growth and improvement. This egalitarian message resonates universally, an embrace of nurture over nature. Shaw disputes the idea that one is stuck in their own social class, ideas, or identity, and he expresses his belief in an ever changing, ever growing method of living. In the end, we learn from Higgins and Eliza that change is not to be feared and life is constantly to be improved upon.

Girardeau and Nouzovsky 8

Works Cited Als, Hilton. "Love for Sale." The New Yorker 29 Oct. 2007: 98. Literature Resource Center. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. Busiel, Christopher. "An overview of Pygmalion." Drama for Students. Detroit: Gale. Literature Resource Center. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. "George Bernard Shaw - Biography". Nobelprize.org. Web. 4 Dec 2011 <http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/shaw-bio.html>. Pontee, Edward. The Myth of Pygmalion. University of Michigan. Web. 4 Dec 2011 <http://www.umich.edu/~engb415/literature/pontee/Pygmalion/Pygsmry.html>. Reynolds, Jean. "Deconstructing Henry Higgins, or Eliza as Derridean 'Text.'." Shaw: The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies 14 (1994): 209-217. Rpt. in Drama Criticism. Ed. Timothy J. Sisler. Vol. 23. Detroit: Gale, 2004. Literature Resource Center. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. Shaw, George Bernard. Pygmalion and Three Other Plays. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 2004. Print.