I’m Walking a Line—I’m Thinking About Empty Motion: George Bernard Shaw Picks on his Empty Readers

For such a talented writer, Shaw had quite the cynical opinion of his readers. After writing the entirety of Pygmalion, he decided to write the “sequel,” which he believes to be more needed than the preface he writes (1005). Shaw also must have had quite the ego, for it seems he views himself as a “hero” for including an “energetic phonetic enthusiast” as the “hero of a popular play” (1005). While this may be rather egotistic, it is still important. Shaw’s view of his fellow English speakers was not very high, but it goes to show that he does care. He wrote a play about learning the language when he wrote Pygmalion which is a great idea and in his eyes quite helpful to his readers. In a way this was like an instruction guide to the English to get them to think about language. Shaw writes in his into that “[t]he English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it” (1005). In order for Shaw to write this play correctly, he had to study the way that people spoke. The character or Liza has to speak poorly, and must be taught to properly speak English by Professor Higgins and Pickering. Shaw did his homework for this, and because it was something that he was interested in, it was easier for him to do. Even though the preface (which he said he didn’t need but I believe to be more important than the sequel) mocks the English for their poor use of their language. What I find interesting though, is that Shaw berates his readers for not having a grasp on their language yet he thinks “the reformer we need most today” is a character from a play (1005). If the audience he is speaking to cannot use the language correctly, how are they supposed to read and understand the point he is trying to make through his play? When he says “it is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making another Englishman despise him,” does he include himself (1005)? Perhaps the audience is not insulted by these accusations, but inspired to change. They will read his work, and they will learn. According to his “sequel,” Shaw sees more problems than just the language.

After the last act of Pygmalion, Shaw writes, what he calls, a sequel. It starts off, much like the preface, with a slight at the people who are reading the play. While his assertion is very valid and I completely agree with him, it just seems a little harsh. He begins by saying that the sequel would “hardly need telling if our imagination s were not so enfeebled by their lazy dependence on the ready-mades and reach-me-downs of the ragshop in which Romance keeps its stock of ‘happy endings’ to misfit stories” (1063). What Shaw said may be true, and possibly truer today than it was when he originally wrote the play. Shaw believes that people have lost their imagination because of diluted Romance tales with silly endings. He is a far superior writer than any riffraff that would be writing such a thing, and he needs to include a nine page sequel to his already complete play. Shaw assumes way too much about his reader. Even if it is true, it is hard to believe that with this attitude, he was able to become one of the greatest modern English writers.