George Bernard Shaw

by . John Lane Company

This book an EXACT reproduction of the original book published before 1923. This IS NOT an OCR?d book with strange characters, introduced typographical errors, and jumbled words. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.

Genres: Biography, Philosophy, Literary Criticism, Nonfiction, Catholic, Biography Memoir, Literature

250 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1909

Reviews

[Fonch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ladies and gentlemen Ladies and gentlemen, although this has deprived me of hours of reading the book that at that time I had proposed to read (when I wrote this review I was anxious to exceed 200 books, and when I surpassed the barrier of 200 I wanted knowing that it was impossible to reach the 237 books of last year, and even approaching 230 I looked for something more affordable, and that was to beat the 207 books that was my best mark in Goodreads) by Nell Gwyn Royal Mistress by John H. Wilson https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (whose review I hope to share soon in Goodreads). But before this I wanted to write a review of what has been the last book of the year (last year 2022).
Last year (2021, when it was full of illusion) paradoxically was an interesting biography of "William Cobbett" also written by G.K.C https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... (which in my modest opinion was more to my liking than this biography). The one that was read last. This work has not been so nice, although bearing the signature of G.K. Chesterton is a guarantee of his genius. The big lesson this bio gives us Goodreads users, and readers is this. Like writing the biography of your rival, or ideological adversary, and remaining his friend. This biography of George Bernard Shaw author of the very interesting work Pygmalion https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... (which was taken several times to the big screen. The first time with a script by the great George Bernard Shaw, who won an Academy Award, being played by one of my favorite actors Leslie Howard. The second version gave the Oscar to Rex Harrison, and was accompanied in the performance by the always stellar Audrey Hepburn in the form of a musical, but the ending that broke the anti-romantic philosophy of George Bernard Shaw was closer to the typical Hollywood Happy Ending. In my opinion this ending was closer to the original Greek myth that inspired it. I hope that the prevailing ideologies do not put their claws in it as they have done with Achilles, Galatea, and Circe. But recovering the thread of the question the ending that stood out from Shaw's work brought controversy, and it was not to everyone's taste, especially my friend the Professor, since he considered that Eliza Doolitle could not marry such a selfish man, who does not feel any love for her, and who uses her as if she were a human guinea pig on which she is being experimented). Pygmalion is highly appreciated by Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., and by a humble servant. George Bernard Shaw (the picturesque biography of G.K. Chesterton) shows something that makes the character of the anime Dragon Ball Z, or the saga of the combat of the Gods in Dragon Ball Super Son Goku https://www.goodreads.com/series/5741... (not to be confused with the Son Goku, or Son Wukong of "Journey to the West" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... even if it was the inspiration. My interest in this work that I want to read was reborn thanks to the film Doraemon journey to ancient China. The English title has more to do with the plot.) The wonderful thing about Dragon Ball is that many times Goku started fighting with an enemy, or when he defeated him (or lost in him in the case of Beerus he ended up making him his friend). The same thing happens in many John Ford films (that the feuding characters ended up resolving their conflicts with fists, and in the end it did not matter who was the winner, because in the end the characters in contention ended up becoming friends). In times of polarization, and tension in most countries, enmity for ideological and political reasons has become a global problem. We must learn this noble quality from G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton and Shaw are at the ideological antipodes (neither managed to prevail, or convert the other). To this day Shaw has aged badly (in fact, H.G. Wells is https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... more famous than Shaw, and more for being a science fiction author, than for his political theories, and ideological theories that have aged really badly, although his sketch of History still has followers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... ). On the other hand, as prophesied Arthur Bryant https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... G.K. Chesterton is more relevant than ever, and is better reread (who in life, despite his popularity was denied the awards. In Stockholm they preferred to give the Dynamite Prize to George Bernard Shaw, than to G.K. Chesterton, and as the mourned Paul Johnson said in that jewel called "Humorists" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... G.K. Chesterton has had the immense misfortune of being expelled from the university environment. An error that I have tried to correct without success, because I consider myself the successor of his historiographical school in case he had it). Partly because perhaps not ascribed to any trend of his time has made him timeless, or as it was said of St. Thomas More https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... a man for all ages. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Perhaps part of the triumph was that unlike Shaw Chesterton he did not seek to destroy the person (this defect of George Bernard Shaw was shown by Dale Alhquist https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... who is President of the Chesterton Society in America), but the ideas of the person, and was even very charitable to the people he corrected. The first thing Chesterton does when talking about Shaw is to talk about his Johannine character, and his preference for prologues, which are sometimes longer than the works he writes, and serve to express his ideas. Then he talks about the three pillars that define George Bernard Shaw, and that characterize him. In this case being Irish, Protestant, and progressive (Chesterton describes the qualities of the Irishman for which he has great sympathy, since many of his characters, and heroes are Fenians). More than biographies what G.K. Chesterton writes They are ideas, or traits of the people about whom he writes that allow us to know him (I think the exact word would be brushstroke. More than a biography what G.K. Chesterton does is make a digression of the people, and what defines that person). He talks about the Irish character, and how this influences Shaw. The differences of this with Oscar Wilde https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , and Wishtler (with whom Chesty is a tad hard, although we must give him the reason that Wilde's philosophy is sweetened by his sweet words). It is very interesting the comparison that G.K. Chesterton makes with other Irish Protestants (or the garrison nobility, as he calls it, or of the castle) such as Sheridan (whom he calls indolent), Goldsmith https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Swift https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Richard Sheridan https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and the parliamentarian Parnell. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (comparing Shaw's beards, and Parnell).
It speaks of Shaw's puritanical character that as Father Carr Shaw is an alcoholic his son abhors alcohol. He talks about Shaw's hard beginnings, and how he knew poverty. How, despite Shaw's support for women's suffrage, in the end, he has a terrible opinion of women, and places them in a position of inferiority with respect to men. Regarding Shaw's animalism, which is not because he likes animals, but because he does not like dead animals. Regarding pacifism, and here he compares it with Tolstoy https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... that the problem is not so much wars, but that what Shaw dislikes are war songs (remember that although Shaw opposed the First World War he supported the war against the Boers. Something that both Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... opposed. This was already commented on in my review of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Chesterton mentions how Shaw has become Ibsen's apostle https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (this year I plan to read the "Enemy of the People" my friend Don Andrés Guijarro https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... has been persuasive, and very insistent on this issue, and the Professor too) first says that the book that Shaw wrote about Ibsen is not about Ibsen, but it is a vision of Ibsen's ideas from Shaw's point of view. That Ibsen's problem (Ibsen appeared in G.K. Chesterton's book "Heretics" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... and G.K. Chesterton https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... said that, if Dante https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... about Dante a review of Giovanni's "Dante Vivo" will soon be written. Papini https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... a wonderful biography of the Florentine writer, and that the best book of December had been able to describe in his work heaven, purgatory, and hell Ibsen only described in his works hell) is not that he is pessimistic, but that he is too optimistic. Chesterton goes so far as to say lapidarily that Dante's pessimism is more consoling than Ibsen's optimism, which is like a frigid breeze from the north. Chesterton talks about Peer Gynt, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... and "The Enemy of the People." Regarding Nietszche's Superman, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... that hug Shaw returns to take out the myth of Jack Giant-Hunter. At the end Chesterton comments on Shaw's works. He talks about Mrs. Warren's profession https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... and how a mother, and a daughter disagree about how the mother has become rich thanks to exploiting a brothel, and the mother tells her that she is living thanks to it. In Major Barbara, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... criticism of the plutocracy in the salvation army. In another novel he talks about how a woman decides to follow with her husband a seemingly strong preacher, and not opt for the shy poet because the husband needs her more. In his work Caesar, and Cleopatra https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... G.K. Chesterton is critical of the conqueror, and that he may be the precursor of the antichrist (on that I will base my critique of the Planet of the Apes https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... whether the monkey Caesar is the antichrist like Triquiñuela or Shift in " The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., or not. My friend Don Andrés Guijarro maintains that Papini instead maintained that Caesar would be a character who performed a divine mission like Alexander the Great). He accuses him of being cold, and cruel in his forgiveness (a phrase that in the short story "The Secret Garden" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... served to define the atheist, anticlerical, and stoic Aristides Valentine). He mentions Joan of Arc, although Shaw had not yet written St. Joan where he tries https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... justify that Joan was not killed by the English, but by the Church, and that Joan of Arc is a heretic precursor of Luther (which shows the ignorance, or bad faith of Shaw Joseph Pearce https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... She pointed out how in her prologue she attacked works that extolled her as the novel of Joan of Arc written by Mark Twain https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., although the most grotesque, was that to cover up the crimes of the Russian Revolution she said that the Americans had dedicated themselves to lynching Russians, as if the proportion of victims were the same. Out of charity we will not go into detail of how George Bernard Shaw witnessed the horrors of famines, and crimes of Soviet Russia, and blatantly lied about it)). The book does not end like this, but I want to conclude my review with a comment that Chesterton leaves about his friend when asked if Shaw was the danger to come, and he replied that he was not, and that it was a pleasure that vanished. Interesting, useful, very funny book that offers us great brushstrokes such as Shaw. Without being one of G.K. Chesterton's masterpieces, it is a very estimable review. My grade is (4/5).

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH: A typical biography by Chesterton (which means an atypical biography) about his personal friend and philosophical opponent Georges Bernard Shaw, whom he studies as a critic and a dramatist. Unfortunately this book was written in 1909, when Shaw still had not written two of his most important plays: Pygmalion and The Apple Cart.

ESPAÑOL: Una biografía típica de Chesterton (es decir, una biografía atípica) sobre Georges Bernard Shaw, su amigo personal y oponente filosófico, cuya obra crítica y dramática estudia con detalle. Lo malo es que este libro fue escrito en 1909, cuando Shaw aún no había escrito dos de sus obras más importantes: Pygmalion y The Apple Cart.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

You'd be hard pressed to find another biography that contains so little biographical information--yet that doesn't prevent this book from being a work of genius. Chesterton has an unusual way of avoiding the facts of a person's life in favor of examining the pure essence of it. After reading this book, I couldn't tell you whether or not Bernard Shaw had any siblings, but I could confidently explain what it would be like having him as a dinner guest.
Chesterton makes an interesting biographer for Shaw in that, in addition to being Shaw's personal friend and regular conversational foil, he fervently admired Shaw both as a person and as an artist, but nevertheless disagreed with him on every major issue. Not for one moment does Chesterton take a stab at giving an "unbiased" perspective of the man...make no mistake, this book is just as much about Chesterton's worldview as it is about Shaw's. With any other writer, it would seem the height of arrogance to call a man a genius and then handily dismiss each and every one of his views, but Chesterton has a playful way of doing it without seeming full of himself. You never get the feeling he's showing off or dealing with Shaw unjustly. Even the fact that the book's subject is continually being eclipsed by its author hardly seems intentional--and it's an approach that I, for one, wouldn't care to see changed.
There are two quibbles I have with this book, neither of which is really Chesterton's fault. The first is that the section on Shaw's Irish heritage feels weak, partly because it relies heavily on stereotypes and partly because those stereotypes no longer exist. My second quibble is that Chesterton, on very rare occasion, chooses to employ the "n-word." Ironically, the one time he uses it in this book is when he is criticizing the awful treatment of Africans. In both these cases, some perspective is called for. In England, at the time this book was written, the n-word didn't carry the same negative connotation it does now. Just wanted to point that out.
It takes this book a little while to get rolling, but, once it does, each sentence begins to feel like a revelation. More amazing quotes than I can count. If you have any interest in George Bernard Shaw, or if you have to write an essay on him for a class, I highly recommend you begin right here.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think that it is very likely that Chesterton has captured George Bernard Shaw in this biography. I think Chesterton makes a ton of excellent points. It's just that so many of his references are so specific to their particular time, that it is hard for the modern reader to understand or really appreciate the argument being made.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chesterton on Shaw. Chesterton understood Shaw as a sort of secular Puritan. Of course, Chesterton’s off-track view of Puritanism and Calvinism shine through! But Shaw does fit Chesterton’s parody!

Mutually respectful and antithetical, the humour could be brutal:-

Chesterton: “I see there has been a famine in the land. “Shaw: “And I see the cause of it.”

Shaw: “If I were as fat as you, I would hang myself. “Chesterton: “If I were to hang myself, I would use you for the rope.”

[Lawrence Leporte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Biographical detail and literary criticism are relevant to Chesterton only insofar as they support his views as to how George Bernard Shaw fits into the world (the world, that is, as Chesterton sees and interprets it). And this, of course, is what makes the book such a pleasure. It's Chesterton holding forth on a variety of topics, and occasionally bringing Shaw into the conversation because that's who he's supposed to be writing about.

If you want factual detail about Shaw and his plays there are, undoubtedly, plenty of better sources.

If, however, you're interested in how GKC might apply his wit and towering intellect to, among other things, discussions of Puritans, Socialists and the interior layout of English pubs, then take this one along to NASCAR or the back yard with a cooler and a lawn chair and enjoy the ride.

[Doubravka · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tohle není žádná biografie, ani kritický rozbor díla, ani polemika. Je to elaborát na téma "jak se Shaw mýlil ve všem, o čem si myslel něco jiného než já" se spodní linkou "každé malé dítě ví, že jediný správný pohled na svět je katolický pohled na svět". Kde se Chesterton obtěžuje argumentovat, argumentuje proti slaměným panákům, kde chválí, chválí svoje vlastní názory, o kterých tvrdí, že je Shawovo dílo obsahuje. Že je to chvílema vtipný a asi na dvou místech zajímavý, na věci nic nemění. Jestli to bylo ve skutečnosti míněno jako respektuplné přátelské šťouchnutí, na prachsprostého čtenáře to rozhodně tak nepůsobí. Mimo sociální sítě jsem snad v životě nečetla nic tak arogantního.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

G.K. Chesterton’s George Bernard Shaw (1909) is less a formal biography than a lively, affectionate fencing match between two of the sharpest minds in early 20th-century English letters.

Shaw was Chesterton’s ideological opposite—an atheist where he was Catholic, a socialist where he was distributist—yet the book reads like a love letter to an intellectual sparring partner whose ideas were as irresistible to challenge as they were to admire.

Chesterton starts with what he calls the “preface paradox,” noting that Shaw’s plays often arrive wrapped in long-winded introductions. It’s not verbosity for its own sake, he teases, but a byproduct of quick wit: Shaw thinks so fast and deeply that he needs an extra prelude to set the stage for his ideas. In Chesterton’s hands, even a jab at wordiness feels like affectionate ribbing.

To explain Shaw’s mind, Chesterton proposes three “roots”: The Irishman, the Puritan, and the Progressive. From the Irishman, Shaw inherits a taste for irony and contrarian wit. From the Puritan, moral urgency and a certain uncompromising clarity.

And from the Progressive, his zeal to improve the world—sometimes recklessly, sometimes brilliantly. This triptych frames Shaw as a man formed by tensions, always straddling the pull of tradition and the push of reform.

Chesterton admires Shaw’s ability to strip away false romance—whether about empire, war, or convention—but notes that sometimes his skepticism leaves him unable to honor what is genuinely noble, like love or valor. On Major Barbara, Chesterton challenges Shaw’s theological irreverence, especially the line about never believing in a God you couldn’t improve upon. For Chesterton, some truths are sacred and beyond “improvement”—and it’s here their philosophies visibly clash.

Still, he gives Shaw enormous credit for his genius as a conversationalist. Shaw’s plays, Chesterton observes, are essentially dialogues in perpetual motion—arguments wearing costumes, ideas performing themselves on stage. Even when they are didactic, they remain irresistibly alive because they are crafted out of living talk, not abstract lecture.

The book brims with comic asides—Chesterton pokes at Shaw’s vegetarianism, for instance, with the observation that Shaw seems to dislike dead animals more than he loves living ones. But the humor never curdles into contempt; Shaw is “essentially manly and decent,” an opponent worthy of serious engagement.

Chesterton even grants that Shaw’s “demagogue” streak—the crowd-rousing, the self-conscious showmanship—isn’t cynical manipulation but an honest instinct to speak directly to people about fundamentals. He recognizes in Shaw a performer who cares deeply about the audience’s understanding, even if the delivery is theatrical.

The enduring charm of George Bernard Shaw lies in this balance of wit and warmth. Chesterton disagrees with Shaw on nearly everything theological and much political, yet he writes with generosity, curiosity, and an unshakable sense that intellectual combat is not personal war. In today’s climate of echo chambers, their example feels almost utopian: two public intellectuals who sharpened each other’s thinking precisely because they refused to retreat into their own ideological corners.

What Chesterton gives us is not just a portrait of a playwright, but a portrait of a friendship founded on the rare art of disagreement without enmity.

You close the book not only knowing Shaw better, but wishing more debates could be this spirited, this funny, and this humane.

[Watergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

This, like all of GK Chesterton's body of work, is a study of ideas. And I think it is important to know that, especially going into any of his biographies. It explains why some are disappointed at his seeming lack of focus on the study of the dates, events and circumstances of the subject of his biography. But if you look a little closer, you begin to see that GKC is painting a larger picture. A picture not only of the man, but of what intellectual ground the man grew up out of. A picture not only of what happened in his life, but of what it meant to the man. A picture not only of the actions of a man, but of why. This to me is an amazing point of view, In some ways even more important in the biographical sense than the study of facts & figures. Once you begin to see his method, you soon fall in love with his formula.

It is much like GKC's Father Brown formula for solving mysteries vs. Sherlock Holmes's method (which GKC exposes in one of his other books). Father brown seeks to know & understand a man's nature and philosophy, and with that information in mind and the facts of the case, he deduces what and why things happened in the case. Sherlock Holmes picks up the facts of a case - each of which can lead in hundreds of directions - and from that data inducts his way to a conclusion of the case. Although I have immensely enjoyed Sherlock Holmes, I do prefer Father Brown's methods.

GKC's method of 'thought about thought' fascinates me endlessly, and it is repeated in again and again in all of his books and essays. He is ever showing his work, hinting at where a man's ideas came from, and how a man's actions are invariably tied to his ideas. Backing up further for a larger view, he points to where ideas lead, showing how philosophies end, and shedding light on the "gods behind the gods."

For me the value of what he was doing is monumental and incredibly valuable, even though at first glance it may seem like the wild and crazy antics of a jongleur. Here is a man who sees men as more than the sum of their actions. And as you look closer you begin to see a rhyme and reason, and even a bit of magic behind the quick movements of the mind of this man. For he is juggling with angels and demons, and the balls fly up to heaven and descend into the depths of hell.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chesterton admits that he is not a faithful biographer, but this is definitely not your typical biography. There is scarcely a single biographical fact in the entire book about George Bernard Shaw. Chesterton excuses this with the remark that his life is so humdrum, while his books and plays are so exciting. Even when writing about Shaw's literature, he doesn't state the facts, because he is too concerned with what Shaw is trying to say rather than the whatever he exactly said!

But that's what I like about Chesteron. He always can capture the essence of whatever topic he chooses to address. Hence his appellation, the Apostle of Common Sense.

Thankfully I have read several of Shaw's plays before reading this book, otherwise you would be lost. This is no introductory course to Shaw's works. I have read Candida, Arms and the Man, Pygmalion, The Doctor's Dilemma, Major Barbara, and a few others. The book is mostly an eposide in a life of friendly sparring between the two authors. Chesterton is both critical and fair to Shaw, which is rare in our day and age where we hardly try to understand our opponents and instead try to demonize them or make them look absolutely ridiculous.

Chesterton throws in much of his own philosophy around his interpretation of Shaw's. I will share a few of my favorites here:

Stable philosophies can't be too serious all the time: If ever Shaw exhibits a prejudice it is always a Puritan prejudice.  For Puritanism has not been able to sustain through three centuries that native ecstasy of the direct contemplation of truth; indeed it was the whole mistake of Puritanism to imagine for a moment that it could.  One cannot be serious for three hundred years. In institutions built so as to endure for ages you must have relaxation, symbolic relativity and healthy routine. In eternal temples you must have frivolity.  You must “be at ease in Zion” unless you are only paying it a flying visit.

On the absurdity of progressivism and conservatism: If ever Shaw exhibits a prejudice it is always a Puritan prejudice.  For Puritanism has not been able to sustain through three centuries that native ecstasy of the direct contemplation of truth; indeed it was the whole mistake of Puritanism to imagine for a moment that it could.  One cannot be serious for three hundred years. In institutions built so as to endure for ages you must have relaxation, symbolic relativity and healthy routine. In eternal temples you must have frivolity.  You must “be at ease in Zion” unless you are only paying it a flying visit.

On music and math: That is why the common arithmetician prefers music to poetry. Words are his scientific instruments.  It irritates him that they should be anyone else’s musical instruments. 

On the absurdity of "equal time" in the classroom: But Shaw effected a further development, if possible more fantastic. He said that one should never tell a child anything without letting him hear the opposite opinion.  That is to say, when you tell Tommy not to hit his sick sister on the temple, you must make sure of the presence of some Nietzscheite professor, who will explain to him that such a course might possibly serve to eliminate the unfit.  When you are in the act of telling Susan not to drink out of the bottle labelled “poison,” you must telegraph for a Christian Scientist, who will be ready to maintain that without her own consent it cannot do her any harm. What would happen to a child brought up on Shaw’s principle I cannot conceive; I should think he would commit suicide in his bath.

The paradox of childhood: But Shaw effected a further development, if possible more fantastic. He said that one should never tell a child anything without letting him hear the opposite opinion.  That is to say, when you tell Tommy not to hit his sick sister on the temple, you must make sure of the presence of some Nietzscheite professor, who will explain to him that such a course might possibly serve to eliminate the unfit.  When you are in the act of telling Susan not to drink out of the bottle labelled “poison,” you must telegraph for a Christian Scientist, who will be ready to maintain that without her own consent it cannot do her any harm. What would happen to a child brought up on Shaw’s principle I cannot conceive; I should think he would commit suicide in his bath.

Paradoxes are the essence of life: But Shaw effected a further development, if possible more fantastic. He said that one should never tell a child anything without letting him hear the opposite opinion.  That is to say, when you tell Tommy not to hit his sick sister on the temple, you must make sure of the presence of some Nietzscheite professor, who will explain to him that such a course might possibly serve to eliminate the unfit.  When you are in the act of telling Susan not to drink out of the bottle labelled “poison,” you must telegraph for a Christian Scientist, who will be ready to maintain that without her own consent it cannot do her any harm. What would happen to a child brought up on Shaw’s principle I cannot conceive; I should think he would commit suicide in his bath.

Shaw's distrust of tradition: If Shaw had found in early life that he was contradicted by Bradshaw’s Railway Guide or even by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he would have felt at least that he might be wrong. But if he had found himself contradicted by his father and mother, he would have thought it all the more probable that he was right. If the issue of the last evening paper contradicted him he might be troubled to investigate or explain.  That the human tradition of two thousand years contradicted him did not trouble him for an instant. 

Today's rejection of deism as proper in public: If Shaw had found in early life that he was contradicted by Bradshaw’s Railway Guide or even by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he would have felt at least that he might be wrong. But if he had found himself contradicted by his father and mother, he would have thought it all the more probable that he was right. If the issue of the last evening paper contradicted him he might be troubled to investigate or explain.  That the human tradition of two thousand years contradicted him did not trouble him for an instant. 

Shyness as a sign of the divided soul: Shyness is always the sign of a divided soul; a man is shy because he somehow thinks his position at once despicable and important. If he were without humility he would not care; and if he were without pride he would not care. 

The more men are against it, the more it is a sign of the future: Shyness is always the sign of a divided soul; a man is shy because he somehow thinks his position at once despicable and important. If he were without humility he would not care; and if he were without pride he would not care. 

Moderns have to encourage pleasure!: Shyness is always the sign of a divided soul; a man is shy because he somehow thinks his position at once despicable and important. If he were without humility he would not care; and if he were without pride he would not care. 

[Thom Swennes · Rating 3 out of 5]

This narrative begins with establishing the perimeters and laying down a few rules and possible expectations. If the reader is looking for or expecting a biographical work outlining the life of a distinguished playwright, don’t come anywhere near this book. The fact that Shaw was Irish is swept away as immaterial. That the writer was a protestant or a social refugee is only of interest as it influenced his work. C.K. Chesterton tries to give the reader a glimpse of the world through the eyes of this artist of the stage. Religious, social, economical and political values and leanings are only weighed against their part in his work. One may construe and interpret this review as negative and that would be an injustice to both me and the book. It is imperative that this book be seen as an essay rather than a biography. Although this isn’t really the type of work C.K. Chesterton is best known for, he succeeds in painting a vivid portrait of a very influential and talented dramatist. Some may consider it dried to the point of disintegration but for all the Shaw admirers it serves as a mirror of the man behind the plays.

[Eduardo · Rating 2 out of 5]

He encontrado este libro de pura casualidad tras haber leído (o visto) por primera vez una obra de Bernard Shaw (que dice Wikipedia que así quería que le llamaran). Mi lectura es un intento de entender por qué algo tan malo cimentó la carrera del autor.

GBS, GKC, Anatole France, Anatole France y tantos otros forman parte de un conjunto de autores que, siendo chico, me sonaban como famosos y "modernos clásicos". A alguno, como Pearl Buck, he llegado a leerlo. Sobre todo con los españoles (Camilo José Cela,Miguel Delibes o Pedro Ruíz de Alarcón) se producía una aglomeración temporal; y no, no eran contemporáneos.
Curioso es que gran parte de estos ilustres han pasado al vertedero de la historia; e incluso los realmente célebres ( Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift, Charles Dickens, Molière, Lev Tolstoi) parecen sufrir el desprecio de la generación de mi hija. Este libro, además, pierde el tiempo en comparaciones con otros escribas muy muy menores.

GBS y GKC eran, incluso, amigos. Los imagino riéndose juntos del borrador del libro.
Las críticas de GKC están salpimentadas por su papismo y reaccionarismo. Escribe mejor que GBS, pero es menos ingenioso de lo que cree.
Construye un hombre de paja (irlandés, puritano, progresista) y luego lo va diseccionando.
GBS era además vegetariano, eugenista y antivacunas, pero solo merece algún comentario marginal de GKC, explicando por qué debieran justificarse de otra manera (la manera católica, obvio).

La lectura cumplió mis objetivos. Como ya pasé por El hombre que fue Jueves , mando a GKC directo al panteón de los hombres ilustres. En cuanto GKC, leeré, quizás, Pygmalion (y veré My Fair Lady) y Saint Joan , posteriores a esta crítica.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a biography in the normal sense at all, but still Chesterton manages to convey the essence of what Shaw was about, and to help us realise why he wrote and spoke as he did, why he viewed life the way he did, and much more. Many of the plays are covered in pertinent detail.
As always Chesterton gives us wonderful and memorable lines, and, because he was well-acquainted with Shaw as a contemporary with whom he'd often debated, he gives us a well-rounded picture of the man, emphasizing both his positive and negative aspects.

[Matthew Dambro · Rating 5 out of 5]

They were friends who vehemently disagreed publicly and in private. But this small volume is in many ways a tribute to GBS that his followers could not improve upon. It would be difficult to imagine two more different souls with philosophies and theologies heartfelt and antagonistic, but somehow they saw through the differences and recognized the common humanity. It is a brilliant piece of work.

[George Polansky · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting review of Shaw the man and its impact on his works. I found it a little hard to follow as I am not well read on Shaw's Plays.

[Eric Lindner · Rating 5 out of 5]

So terrific - for many reasons - including how two totally different people can argue civilly - and how Shaw was so misunderstood - so brilliant - people have tried to co-opt him for > 100 years

[sare · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not Chesterton's best and, frankly, i don't trust his opinions of other people. But enjoyable nonetheless

[Mac · Rating 4 out of 5]

About fifteen years ago, I read a bunch of books by G.K. Chesterton. His writing style is very distinctive. He loves using paradox to make his points. One example that I recall was him saying how George Bernard Shaw believed all things were permitted, yet was a joyless Puritan. Chesterton himself, on the other hand, was a conservative Catholic who gamboled merrily through life. I enjoyed Chesterton's books, but sometimes his arguments began to seem jerry-rigged and simplistic.

In the years since I had my fill of Chesterton, I made a thorough survey of Shaw's writing, at least the part that has entered the public domain. To be honest, I enjoyed some elements in his writing, but overall I read with more duty than pleasure. I was thus interested to read Chesterton's biography (really more like a study) of Shaw, written in the midst of his career.

I think Chesterton paints a realistic and compelling portrait of what makes Shaw tick. Even when he is not being completely fair to Shaw, Chesterton gives us a sense of his opinions and arguments. Toward the end of the book, he comments on most of the plays that Shaw had finished up to that point (1909). Though Shaw had already written several of his classics (Mrs. Warren's Profession, Arms and the Man, Caesar and Cleopatra, Man and Superman, Major Barbara, etc.), he had not yet created Pygmalion or Saint Joan, two of his most popular works.

In the end, this book says almost as much about its author, Chesterton, as about its subject, Shaw. Readers interested in both men will get the most out of it. I hope someday to read a more conventional biography of Shaw but in the meantime I do feel I have a better grasp of his personality after reading this book.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review title: Shaw by Chesterton

I recently ordered some classic public domain works by Chesterton and others in print-on-demand format online and discovered some flaws in the format. Here, the pagination and page breaks are sometimes missing or random. There are no paragraph separators at all the whole way through; I am only able to judge when a new paragraph begins by either the obvious start of a new idea, or by the line above falling obviously short of the right margin--but the margin is not right justified so even that method is sketchy. Based on these examples, I would caution against buying print-on-demand sight unseen.

But I would recommend trying to find this and other classics in traditional print editions because Chesterton is always a genius and here he is writing a biography of his friend and fellow genius Shaw. In describing Shaw as an Irishman, a Puritan, and a Progressive, he identifies Shaw as his direct opposite, as indeed he was even though the two men were fast friends while also frequent debate opponents.

Chesterton's exposition of these three points is the organizing framework for the first third of the book. But of course, being Chesterton, along the way he is going to write blinding truth on other topics. For example on the difference between humor and wit:

"Wit is. . . the idea that truth is close and clear. Humour, on the other hand, is . . . the idea that truth is tricky and mystical and easily mistaken. . . . Humour is akin to agnosticism, which is only the negative side of mysticism. But pure wit is akin to Puritanism. . . . Very briefly, the man who sees the consistency in things is a wit--and a Calvinist. The man who sees the inconsistency in things is a humorist--and a Catholic. . . . Bernard Shaw exhibits all that is purest in the Puritan. " (no page numbering)

He then spends the rest of the book describing Shaw as a critic (of music, art, and drama), a dramatist, and a philosopher. As a critic, says Chesterton, Shaw was most noted for his dislike of Shakespeare, which "misunderstanding" arose "largely from the fact that he is a Puritan, while Shakespeare was spiritually a Catholic." The reference to Puritanism and Catholicism as an analysis of Shaw's critique of Shakespeare is a fine example of a Chesterton rant that may have seemed a throwaway aside earlier but was actually setting up a valid proof. Chesterton clinches the point: readers may not agree with his calling Shakespeare "Catholic with a big C; they will hardly complain of my calling him catholic with a small one." For indeed, Shakespeare was if nothing else universal (the small c meaning) in his passions and plays.

In the section on Shaw as dramatist Chesterton references many Shaw plays, none of which I had read. He does not mention Pygmalion, the play Shaw is best known for writing. Not to worry, though, as Chesterton uses the time wisely and enjoyably enough for readers like me with his witty writing. Chesterton's description of Shaw's treatment of Julius Caesar is the longest part of the section and provides insight into Caesar and Shaw that must be unique to Chesterton.

As a philosopher, Chesterton calls out three false perceptions of Shaw: he wrote "problem plays", he was paradoxical, and he was a Socialist. And Chesterton attacks these perceptions through the more famous Shaw plays such as Man and Superman and Major Barbara, which more readers are likely to have read or at least have some familiarity to. But again Chesterton keeps you informed and entertained regardless, and concludes with three things that Shaw has done (as opposed to those things he is falsely accused of having done) that set him apart and above:


1. He has combined intelligence with intelligibility, demystifying the philosophies "quacks" (Chesterton's term) make complex.

2. He has "improved philosophic discussions by making them more popular, [and]. . . He has also improved popular amusements by making them more philosophic." in other words he has brought philosophy back into the real world.

3. "He has obliterated the mere cynic.. . . . The followers of Shaw are optimists," like him able to understand and distinguish real pessimism from mere cynicism.

These are worthy traits, and Shaw by Chesterton is a worthy biography.

[Walter · Rating 4 out of 5]

GK Chesterton was known as an expert on British literature of the 19th and early 20th Century. Earlier he wrote a book about the works of Charles Dickens, but in this volume Chesterton tackles a far more personal topic. Chesterton and Shaw were close personal friends, but also diametrically opposed in their worldview. Whereas Chesterton was a devout Catholic, Shaw was an atheist. Whereas Chesterton was a Distributionist, Shaw was a socialist. And whereas Chesterton was an enthusiast of classical and medieval thought, Shaw was a progressive. The two men actually traveled around the English speaking world, debating each other on a range of issues relating to faith and politics. So when Chesterton wrote a volume about Shaw, you have to know that it was a very personal work.

This short volume covered several aspects of Shaw; Shaw the Puritan, Shaw the Irishman, Shaw the Progressive, and Shaw the Philosopher. As is usual in Chesterton, every aspect of the man is analyzed in the light of eternal things. Through this work, the reader comes to an intimate knowledge of George Bernard Shaw, a playwright and novelist who was once an incredibly popular writer around the turn of the 20th Century, although he is relatively unknown today.

The only thing that I didn't like about this book were the last two chapters, which droned on and seemed unfocused. In those chapters Chesterton covered the plays of Shaw, and he digressed incredibly. It was hard to follow some of Chesterton's point in these chapters, and the mind wanders easily. But I would still highly recommend this book to fans of both Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw.

[Olamide OPEYEMI · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an intelligent way to chronicle the life of George Bernard Shaw by a master of paradoxes, G K Chesterton! With the arduousness of an investigative journalist, he thoroughly scrutinizes the development of GBS, going through four cardinal stages: puritan, progressive, dramatist and philosopher. All of this with uncommon wits and reasonable and well meaning conjecture.

Both of them are masters and Chesterton quite beautifully acknowledges the masterful prowess of GBS as a playwright, commentator and even critic (or is it cynic?). The biographer did not hide his admiration for GBS, even though it gave him the right, in a sense, to highlight what may be the inconsistencies of his doctrines. It is interesting to know that later in life, according to GKC, Shaw became more of a refined puritan willing to allow the crude aspects of his puritanical beliefs to fizzle away.

This to me is a rare and excellent biography that is highly entertaining and instructive.

[Angelino Desmet · Rating 1 out of 5]

G.K. Chesterton, a master of circumlocution and verbosity. Either his pretentiousness causes esoteric writing, or his esoteric writing makes him seem pretentious. Whatever the came first, he's got his head up his ass. This is without a doubt the worst book I've ever read.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good.

[Phil Chapman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. Made me want to read GBS.

[Rodolfo Borges · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ninguém nunca foi, ao mesmo tempo, tão cruel e respeitoso com um adversário.