BERNARD SHAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 85, 11 April 1933, Page 14

BERNARD SHAW.

The following lines, "I think lie has missed the greatest of the achievements of the dramatist, the power to create characters that live," in an otherwise excellent letter on Bernard Shaw, which appeared in the "Star" over the name of S. Glading, awoke in mo the thought, "How fe\v people really understand Shaw." Ever einco he wrote his first play Shaw has been accused of creating automatons, mouthpieces for hia ideas, and of substituting polished puppets for human beings. In some cases this may bo true (although Sybil Tliorndike's "St. Joan" did not strike me as being a painted marionette), but Shaw himself is the first one to admit this, and in his splendid preface to "The Showing Up of Blanco Posnot" he explains his purpose in doing so. Shaw's plays are like, shall we say, examples in arithmetic. In his prefaces Shaw elaborates and puts forward an idea or a set of ideas and in tlio plays he gives a working example of his theory or his views, just as in a book on arithmetic the author explains the problem and then give 3 an applied oxamplo in order to illustrate his meaning. Shaw himself has admitted that his wit, his paradoxes, and his opigrams aro in mjjst cases tho conventional sugar coating round his doctrinal pill, and it certainly is a dual tribute to the man that his plays and his ideas have become so fully accepted, in spite of tho fact that they are often against the grain and are obviously embroidered to entice the general public into bombardment range. In a splendid article on Shaw, Gilbert Norwood says that "whatever one may think of Shaw's conclusions, 110 ono but a partisan journalist can deny the sincerity and public spirit of his' aims." This attitude towards Shaw is the attitude of such penetrating men as Chesterton, who, though they do not agree with Shaw's doctrines, at least endeavour to understand, appreciate, jind givo him credit for them. Contrast this stand with that of the modern newspaper. To judge by contemporary journals, Shaw is an irritating, doddering old crank who runs around in a- loin cloth insulting everybody he comes across. A fine idea we would have of Euripides if we were to judge him as he appears in the "Frogs" of Aristophanes or of some of Pope's contemporaries if were were to believe the "Dunciad"! Tho English publicist knows that the quickest 'way to-rob a man of his influence and prestige -is to ,call him amusing, the firm belief of the public being that if a man is funny he

is not in earnest. So Sliaw is dubbed a "jester," that is to say, "This is a funny man; read him if yon like, but don't believe anything he says, because he's only pulling your leg." This same attitude is noticeable in Helen Keller's article in the "Star." While pointing out his lack of emotion she excuses it by saying "that his refusal to see any good in human institutions" (the hallmark of a sterling reformer) "has ended with an inability to respect personality. In another part of the article she eays that "Bernard Shaw is one of the •greatest men in the world to-day." Yet, instead of heading the article "Shaw, Great Reformer" or "Shaw, Cleansing Humanitarian," the "Star" has headed it "Shaw Lacks Genius" (a point very much open to question at any time)> and instead of naming one of his virtues aggravates, the offences by adding "Magnificent Self-sufficiency"! If half the people who criticise Shaw were to read one of his plays, they would, I am sure, not be so loud in their condemnation next time his name was mentioned. This so-called "remarkable egotism" is certainly exaggerated and, anyhow, may be excused. Mr. Glading mentions Pitt in his letter, and one has only to review history to find scores of other great men who knew they were great, and, like Shaw, were not afraid to say so. Shaw is the first one to laugh at himself, as anyone who has read his prefaces may well testify, and that saving grace, in my eyes, at least, exonerates him from the charge of "self-sufficiency." It may seem rather strange for me to add now that I do not agree with Shaw in most; of his doctrines, although I am_ with him wholeheartedly in his smashing of the ancient bogies and silly ideas that 50 per cent of the civilised world still holds and believes in, and in his clean, earnest endeavour' to make this world a better one for everybody .to live in; but I do so in the faint hope that my humble example will assist others to a wider view of Shaw and a more wholesome appreciation of his many splendid points. JOHN TANNER.