Pygmalion is a play I have been meaning to read on my own for quite some time now, so reading it for class makes the task that much more approachable. The story seems to be about Mr Higgins transforming a plain flower girl named Eliza into a Duchess. However, with a little more reading it is not quite that simple.
In the first place, Higgins is treating Eliza as if she were just pebbles that he can do with as he wishes. Although they establish the fact that she has no family or husband, he neglects to consider that deep down she has a sense of self ownership. Despite the fact that this girl is supposed to be considered "simple" in the most derogatory way, there is evidence early on that she has a wit about her. She is defiant sometimes without reason, but can certainly manipulate circumstances to her advantage.
Secondly, the notion that Higgins will be able to do this all on his own seems obviously impossible. For a girl who has never had a proper bath, transforming her into a Duchess by means of phonetics alone seems an impossible task. Yet there is an admirable amount of determination in Higgins, even despite the fact that it is all for his own self gain.
Any story involving change naturally appeals to me. I think as people we desire to change, and studying the ways in which other people go about this task can be enlightening. Thus far I have been reminded that rarely is change simple, and more often than not it relies on both external and internal factors, not all of which can be controlled.
I find this story fascinating as well. You would think that taking somebody from Eliza's original state to that of one people would consider more proper is a good thing. But, is it really or is Higgins pushing his own ideas of what is acceptable on Eliza? I am a huge believer in reinvention and anyone who can do that is a hero or heroine in my book. However, when someone takes the liberty of changing someone else because the changee does not fit into a preconceived idea, I find that to be selfish.
ReplyDeleteDavid, you and Fee touched on a concept that continues to plague me. What "state" is considered "more proper"? Why? Who determines what is proper and desirable?
ReplyDeleteIt's an idea with which I struggled while taking a class entitled "Women in Islam." The faculty clearly steered away from making any judgments about the restrictions placed on Islamic women, repeatedly stating that cultural perceptions vary from one society to another. I agree--as far as that goes. But what about circumstances that are blatantly wrong, such as slavery? Were we to continue to condone that institution just because the South considered it economically feasible? Wouldn't most Islamic women relish the freedoms American women have? Or would they? Who is to say?
I've wandered too far from our play but perhaps Shaw, as a Socialist, wants his readers to see parallels within our own circumstances and how we judge other people. . .
I think as people, we desire "change" the noun more than "to change." Often, people are more determined NOT to change than TO change, set in their ways and such. Eliza is a great example of this, especially when fighting a proper bath to the bitter end.
ReplyDelete