I’m not sure whether Shaw would be pleased that I am writing about this, but I want to focus on why The Philanderer is such an enjoyable read. I know that Shaw wants his audience/readers to focus on the thesis of this play: marriage. But then again, why did he have to make it so funny?
The drama is well and truly a drama: full of twists, overly dramatic characters, clueless stubborn fathers, scheming, philandering and a love triangle bringing everything together. Ironically though, this melodramatic structure was found in a lot of well-made plays which Shaw was outspoken against at the time. Sauders described the well-made play as being an artificial dramatic form which would usually focus on the middle class and serve the audience by ‘providing expectation, suspense and emotional satisfaction’ – which The Philanderer does.
If Shaw was primarily interested in presenting his thesis on marriage, then why would he make use of these theatrical conventions he heavily despised?
Robert J. Cardullo argues that Shaw makes use of this time-tested structural pattern of melodrama’ – which the 19th-century audience was very familiar with at the time – as the foundation to present his thesis. Shaw cleverly uses this structure to present the conflict of idealism vs realism which he discusses in his book The Quintessence of Ibsenism. What better way to get your audience to care about your philosophy than by presenting it in comedic drama?
Genius right? Actually, no.
This play was extremely unpopular and slammed by critics (some labelling it his worst play) who never really understood it or were uncomfortable with Shaw’s radical views on marriage. Because, unlike a conventional drama that would have a happy ending where two people get married, this drama takes a dark turn and ends with Julia’s tragedy. Neither idealism nor realism is given any more importance than the other, both syntheses expose their issues which leaves no resolution for this ‘outdated’ institution of marriage.
Regardless of its undeserved unpopularity, The Philanderer is fun to read, not only for its entertainment value but also because Shaw makes it very reader-friendly.
In the preface to his Unpleasant plays, Shaw writes about how drama, at the time, had fallen off due to censorship laws set up in 1737*, and because drama could not be enjoyed at home, unlike novels and music. (For the sake of this blog I am focussing on the latter, however, I left a small note at the bottom of the blog regarding his comments on censorship laws.)
Shaw was aware of the importance of publishing his plays as not everyone was going to the theatre. Also, he added, that mostly, people would only go to the theatre to see a play once they’ve read it and understood it.
‘For the sake of the unhappy prisoners of the home, then, let my plays be printed as well as acted.’
However, simply publishing your plays was not enough. Shaw was very critical of drama at the time for not being artistic enough as they only included ‘bare words’ that the public was not interested in reading.
‘The presentation of plays through the literary medium has not yet become an art.’
Therefore, Shaw took it a step further and implemented a novelistic style of writing which included descriptions of scenery, characters and their political beliefs. His plays do not merely include bland stage directions but also detailed paragraphs setting the scene.
Another reason why he is so descriptive is that he wanted to strip authority from the actors-managers of the time, who, in his opinion, were creating ‘inferior’ adaptations, as they never understood the intellectual intention of the author. In fact, Shaw even takes a dig at his beloved Ibsen here, who although has written intellectually coherent dramas, is not understood by most.
‘ “What I have said, I have said. [Ibsen]” Precisely; but the point is that what he hasn’t said, he hasn’t said.’
When discussing actors’ role in the theatre, in a semi-belittling way, Shaw says that actors should not be burdened with the task of being ‘intuitive as to the intellectual meaning and circumstantial conditions,’ instead, this should be made clear to them from the author’s descriptions. Having said that, for Shaw, actors existed as vehicles for the text and not vice-versa. It was his goal at the time to flip the tradition of the theatre being run by actors-managers rather than the playwrights on its head.
And I have to say, this works. Reading drama can be tedious and dry at times; pages and pages of dialogue without being able to properly craft an image of the scenery or emotions. But with this style of writing, Shaw can cater to the ‘unhappy prisoners of home’ and produce a hilarious page-turner which challenges our views on the institution of marriage, all from the comfort of your bedroom.
*Reading Shaw’s frustration over the censorship laws as he throws shade at the ‘gentleman who robs, insults, and suppresses [him] as irresistibly as if he were the Tsar of Russia’ definitely tickled me. Bear in mind he was talking about a ‘deceased man’ here, but that still did not hold him back from firing shots at the man who blocked the production of Mrs Warren’s Profession in 1893.
Works cited
Cardullo, Robert J. “Bernard Shaw, the Philanderer, and the (Un)Making of Shavian Drama.” Neophilologus, vol. 96, no. 1, Apr. 2011, pp. 137–50.
Saunders, Graham R. “The Persistence of the ‘Well-Made Play’ in British Theatre of the 1990s.” Contemporary Drama in English, vol. 15, no. Non-Standard Forms of Contemporary Drama and Theatre, Jan. 2008, pp. 225–37.
Shaw, George Bernard. Plays: Pleasant and Unpleasant, vol. 1, Constable and Company Ltd., 1912.