Love the Tanner character. I used to identify with him alot, but now not so much anymore, only certain aspects. He's actually quite over the top.
Some of this book was over my head, it was only the second play I've ever read and the first I've read by Bernard Shaw. He has a pretty cool style, quite tounge-in-cheek and lighthearted....Continua
very carefully and smartly written but if the introduction wouldn't have been so long maybe even the rest of the book would have appeared less pedantic
Paradossale, sarcastico, ampolloso: queste caratteristiche ne rendono difficole la lettura. Ho capito il titolo solo nelle ultime pagine: Compare our conduct and our codes with those mentioned contemporarily in such ancient scriptures and classics as have come down to us, and you wil find no jot of ground for the belief that any moral progress whatever has been made in historic time... does any man seroiusly believe that the chauffeur who dirves a motor car from Paris to Berlin is a more highly eveolved man that the charioteer of Achilles, or that a modern Prime Minister is a more enlightened ruler than Ceasar becuse he rides a tricycle, writes his dispatches by the electric light, and instructs his stockbroker through the telephone? ... Pur only hope, then, i s in evolution. We must replace the man by the superman.
Unico piacere dell'opera, ma sicuramente un gran piacere per chi lo apprezza, è la sua ricchezza linguistica.
Pedants: yes, I know that this was first published in 1903, two years after Victoria died, but the sentiment remains the same.
This, spouts Shaw in his endless introduction, is a play of ideas. It ends with a marriage or two and the entire cast laughing. It features a dreamt discussion between Don Juan and the Devil, amongst others, in Hell.
It is excruciating.
This is a combination of everything fashionable during the late Victorian era. It's a genteel play, it is comedic, it continually alludes to the classics and it has a Big Moral Message. And it goes on. And on. And on and on. At times, it feels as if it's not Don Juan in Hell but the audience, whom are forced to endure hour after hour of twenty-minute long answers to twenty-minute long questions. It has that irritating Wildean element of everything meaning the exact opposite, with the equally infuriating quality of trying to refute that illogic.
There is a nice morality at the heart of the play but it's completely lost in the ridiculous verbiosity. Truth be told, the moment when the scandalous girl meets her illicit husband's father for the first time encapsulates the play's whole argument brilliantly. But that's not enough for Shaw! Instead, he has to analyse and analyse and argue and repeat over and over again the same arguments, the same rebellions, the same conformities.
How I want to pretend that Shaw acted as a prelude to Waugh. How disappointed I am that he is not. Gentle reader, do not be fooled. Read in abbreviation, if at all....Continua