What do you think?
Rate this book
Candida
Candida centers on a romantic triangle and parodies courtly love and the domestic drama of Ibsen. It abounds with classical allusions, the fervor of a religious revival, and poetic inspiration and aspirations.
74 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1934
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
1,692 books3,831 followersGeorge Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews
October 20, 2022
بستة شخصيات فقط يصنع لنا جورج برنارد شو عرضا مسرحيا يليق بإسمه و صيته الذائع
العمل الذكي جدا المتعدد المعني و المبنى لك أن تفهمه كما هو أو كما تريد أو تحاول أن تستشف ما أراده برنارد شو نفسه
استمعت إليه من إذاعة البرنامج الثقافي - مصر على يوتيوب في عرض قارب الساعتين من إخراج محمود مرسي و بطولة سميحه أيوب و محمد الدفراوي و ترجمة عبدالحميد سرايا.
القس الخطيب المفوه الإشتراكي الهوى متزوج بكانديدا التي تصغره كثيرا في العمر و يعيش معها في سعادة و نجاح حيث يتبوأ مكانه مرموقه في المجتمع و لديه الشهرة و المال و الأولاد إلى أن يلاقي الشاعر الصغير الذي لم يتم العشرين بعد ديوجين الذي يحب كانديدا حبا شاعريا جنونيا و يواجه زوجها موريل بأنه أجدر بها فهي لا تناسب القس و حياته و هو بدوره لا يفهمها و لا يهتم بها.
في حين ينشب شجار و صراع بينهما تكون الزوجة في عالم مثالي أخر تنظر إليهما نظرة الأم و الزوجة و الصديقة و الإبنة في آن واحد و تصل لحل حاسم في ذلك الصراع الذي كاد أن يهدم البيت على من فيه.
كانديدا شخصية على مستوى كبير من الرقة و الأنوثة و الذكاء و الحكمة و كأنها إنجلترا نفسها التي تفضل الإشتراكية ذات الصبغة الدينية عن الحلول العصرية المتسرعة التي لم تنضج و التي تمثلها يمينية الشاعر ابن اللورد و أبيها الرأسمالي الجشع عاشق المال.
إذا أردت العمق فستغوص حتما في المستويات المتعددة لهذه المسرحية و إن أردت الإستمتاع و فقط فسوف تصل إلى أقصى درجات الإستمتاع تدريجيا و حتى المشاهد الأخيرة من القصة التي حرصت على ألا أحرق لك إلا الدقائق الأولى من أحداثها.
May 13, 2019
With Arms and the Man (1894) Shaw created his first great play: later the same year, with Candida Shaw created his first great starring role for an actress.
The play itself—a drama of ideas masquerading as a three act love triangle (or vice versa)--is clear in its objectives. The beautiful and charming young matron Candida is torn between her devoted but smug middle-aged husband, the Christian Socialist lecturer and minister James Morell, and the passionate young l’art pour l’art poet Eugene Marchbanks, who wishes to save her from her prosaic middle-class and transform her into a muse-with-benefits. Which one—if either—will Candida choose?
The audience cares about Candida’s choice because the part of Candida itself is compelling. What precisely makes such a starring female role? Well, using Shakespeare’s Cleopatra as an example—Shakespeare, whom Shaw pretended to despise but learned much from—such a great woman must be prepared for. She must never be the first one on stage, for the other characters must have time to talk about with admiration and envy, as in the following two passages spoken by her husband and his female secretary:
”We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it. Get a wife like my Candida and you’ll always be in arrear of your repayment.”and
“Candida here, and Candida there, and Candida everywhere!..It’s enough to drive anyone out of their senses...to hear a woman raved about in that absurd manner merely because she’s got good hair and a tolerable figure.”And then, when the talked-of woman finally arrives, she must not be--at least at first--too explicit in her statements or definite in her attitudes. She must be enigmatic, with something of the goddess about her, as mysterious as the Kore Logos’ archaic smile.
Oddly enough, Candida’s greatness wasn’t recognized at first. Perhaps because Oscar Wilde was then at the height of success, the poet Marchbanks was often seen as the better of the three major roles. It wasn’t until 1924, when Katherine Cornell made Candida her own, that the greatness of Shaw’s creation began to be recognized.
I’ll conclude with a portion of Candida’s superb third act speech, in which she tells both James and Eugene and Marchbanks how much female effort it has taken to keep her husband “strong,” “clever,” and “happy”:
Ask James's mother and his three sisters what it cost to save James the trouble of doing anything but be strong and clever and happy. Ask ME what it costs to be James's mother and three sisters and wife and mother to his children all in one. Ask Prossy and Maria how troublesome the house is even when we have no visitors to help us to slice the onions. Ask the tradesmen who want to worry James and spoil his beautiful sermons who it is that puts them off. When there is money to give, he gives it: when there is money to refuse, I refuse it. I build a castle of comfort and indulgence and love for him, and stand sentinel always to keep little vulgar cares out. I make him master here, though he does not know it, and could not tell you a moment ago how it came to be so...And when he thought I might go away with you, his only anxiety was what should become of ME! And to tempt me to stay he offered me… his strength for MY defence, his industry for my livelihood, his position for my dignity...
April 30, 2019
Che donna!
Se escludiamo Pigmalione, in Italia non si ristampa più niente di George Bernard Shaw, che per questo non gode di molta visibilità. Così leggere questo testo teatrale è diventato un privilegio per pochi (”Noi pochi, noi felici pochi”).
Peccato, perché Candida è una delle donne più affascinanti e volitive che mi sia mai capitato di incontrare sul mio percorso di lettrice.
"Ah, James, mi comprendi davvero ben poco quando parli della tua fiducia nella mia bontà e nella mia purezza! Le donerei entrambe al povero Eugène, nello stesso modo in cui darei il mio scialle a un mendicante che muore di freddo, se non ci fossero altre cose che mi trattengono. Abbi fiducia, piuttosto, nel mio amore per te, James; se questo finisse mi importerebbe ben poco delle tue prediche: chiacchiere con le quali inganni ogni giorno te stesso e gli altri".
Se escludiamo Pigmalione, in Italia non si ristampa più niente di George Bernard Shaw, che per questo non gode di molta visibilità. Così leggere questo testo teatrale è diventato un privilegio per pochi (”Noi pochi, noi felici pochi”).
Peccato, perché Candida è una delle donne più affascinanti e volitive che mi sia mai capitato di incontrare sul mio percorso di lettrice.
"Ah, James, mi comprendi davvero ben poco quando parli della tua fiducia nella mia bontà e nella mia purezza! Le donerei entrambe al povero Eugène, nello stesso modo in cui darei il mio scialle a un mendicante che muore di freddo, se non ci fossero altre cose che mi trattengono. Abbi fiducia, piuttosto, nel mio amore per te, James; se questo finisse mi importerebbe ben poco delle tue prediche: chiacchiere con le quali inganni ogni giorno te stesso e gli altri".
May 7, 2022
The LA Theater Works production of Candida by George Bernard Shaw features Mary Beth Hurt (The Big Chill!) as Candida, one of Shaw’s great roles. Candida is a strong woman, giving evidence of the feminism for which Shaw would consistently advocate throughout his career. On the surface, it would seem to be the story of a woman choosing between two men, her husband, the likable Christian socialist minister Morell, and a young poet (of 18!), Marchbanks, who adores her, and wants to free her from her middle-class life, but in truth it is about a woman who ultimately chooses herself, while making it clear she has been a wife, mother, and servant of the community, all the time taking care of others. But she “belongs” to no one but herself, and in the end--this being one of his plays Shaw categorized as “pleasant,” we already know whom she will choose.
So I didn’t love Candida as much as some of Shaw’s other plays, but it is warmer than most of them, and very well-plotted, even if it is never quite surprising. It’s a Victorian/Edwardian “comedy of manners” written in 1894, and a good one from a master. If it is the only play you ever read from Shaw and you like happy endings, you might very well say it is a four-star play, or better, as it is clever and witty and amusing, and a thoughtful exploration of love and marriage, but for me I’ll say it is a three-star Shaw.
So I didn’t love Candida as much as some of Shaw’s other plays, but it is warmer than most of them, and very well-plotted, even if it is never quite surprising. It’s a Victorian/Edwardian “comedy of manners” written in 1894, and a good one from a master. If it is the only play you ever read from Shaw and you like happy endings, you might very well say it is a four-star play, or better, as it is clever and witty and amusing, and a thoughtful exploration of love and marriage, but for me I’ll say it is a three-star Shaw.
September 17, 2018
Here: three distinct attitudes towards marriage. Alas, this is not as good as the outstanding "Arms and the Man," nor, for that matter, the tepid "Mrs. Warren's Profession." It's regarded as "brilliantly plotted"; with one, or perhaps THE, most masterfully-plotted play. Ever. Also, it was what Shaw considered to be his favorite. But I was not moved by Candida. Perhaps it is the title that is to blame--being so closely related to that favorite of mine, Voltaire's "Candide" my expectations were... different. Still, I might write a paper correlating the two--as dissimilar as they are from each other. The love triangle takes too much precedence; the peripheral characters are not too funny nor interesting. Really, "the mystery" (which is the play's very odd and strange subtitle) is why this is regarded as one of his best.
September 21, 2021
بـ ٦ شخصيات بس تطلّع حاجة بالروعة دي و الجمال دة!!
شابوه چورچ برنارد بجد 😂💚👏
شابوه چورچ برنارد بجد 😂💚👏
February 16, 2017
Wonderfully acted, helping to make shaw accessable to modern listeners.
October 22, 2023
Maybe 3.5. I liked this, but I didn't love it as much as I usually do Shaw's plays.
December 19, 2015
Another Love Triangle
19 December 2015
Well, even though it has been included in the collection of Shavian plays known as Play's Pleasant, I was a little surprised to discover that this particular play was written at almost the opposite end of Shaw's career to the first play – Arms & the Man. Anyway, I was making my way to Adelaide by train and I wanted something that I could read while on the train, and hopefully write a review on it in the same breath. Well, a three-act Bernard Shaw play certainly fits the bill, though I would have to say that this is certainly not one of his best plays. In fact, to be honest with you, it's sort of rather ordinary.
One can simply describe this play as being a love triangle, pure and simple. However there isn't anything all that exciting or wonderful about this particular love triangle, and in a way you already know how it is going to work out in the end. Okay, Shaw did write a pretty decent romantic comedy, and his protagonist does hold similar views as to him (with the exception that he is a Christian Pastor, though like Shaw he is also a practising socialist), however in the end it is just another tired old story where you have two guys competing over the same girl. Well, that might be being a little bit too harsh because there are some interesting aspects to this story, and in a way we know that our protagonist, Morell, is always going to win out.
So, the heroine of the play, Candida, who is married to Morell, returns home after three weeks with this young poet in tow. When Candida is out of the room the young poet then begins to bait Morell in suggesting that not only is she no longer in love with him, but that she is having an affair. This, of course, causes a lot of tension, but it seems for a while that Morell isn't all that great a person, and is little more than a tired old pastor. Yet we quickly discover that this is not the case. Our poet friend is quite mistaken (and actually a bit of a shark on top of that) and is sent off packing into the darkness.
The reason that we realise that the Poet is actually a pretty cunning little character is because of something referred to as 'Prossie's Complaint'. The name comes from one of the supporting characters – Proserpina – who happens to be Morell's secretary. The complaint is that she happens to be in love with Morell, along with quite a number of other women, however they can't say or do anything about it because he is already married. This revelation is put to him by none other than his wife Candida, which is why I came to the realisation that Candida was never going to leave Morell for another man simply because she actually possesses somebody who, in her mind, is an awesome catch.
This is the second play that I have read of Shaw's where he borrows a figure from Greek Mythology, the other being Pygmalion. However, I struggle to see how Proserpina (or Persepbone) fits in with this place since Persephone was the daughter of Demeter who was kidnapped by Hades, lord of the underworld, to become his wife. After a bit of a tussle she would spend six months of the year with her mother (thus bringing on Summer) and six months with Hades (thus bringing on Winter). To be honest, I struggle to see how Proserpina's love (or apparent love) for Morell is related to this ancient Greek Myth.
However, another thought does come to mind – Prossie's complaint simply comes from the mouth of Candida. Sure, Morell has quite a number of women attending his socialist meetings, but Candida's claim is that the reason they do this is because they are in love with him. Sure, this may actually be the truth, but we must also remember that this is coming from the mouth of Candida, in much the same way that Marchbank's (the poet) claim that Candida is in love with him turns out to be false. In a way a number of the conflicts that arise in this play simply arise through people's perceptions.
It is not at all surprising that Proserpina, and the women who attend Morell's talks, are in love with him. I remember when I was in youth group there were a couple of leaders who would regularly stand out the front and deliver talks. Okay, there would be a number of people who would deliver talks, but these two guys caught the attention of the young ladies because they were both single. How do I know – well the young ladies (or at least one of them) told me. There is something, well, sexy about a person that has the confidence to stand out in front of a group of people and deliver a talk, though I am going to add that you do need to do it well – there is no point in being a speaker if you are crap at public speaking – you aren't going to impress anybody.
The first time I read this play I was wandering whether it was going to end well (Candida remains with Morell) or end badly (Candida goes with Marchbank). Since this play is included in a collection of plays called 'Plays Pleasant' it was probably a dead giveaway that Candida wasn't going to leave Morell (especially since it appears that Morell is actually a pretty nice person). On this second reading, where I picked up on the idea of Prossie's complaint, it became clear that Candida would have been foolish to leave Morell.
19 December 2015
Well, even though it has been included in the collection of Shavian plays known as Play's Pleasant, I was a little surprised to discover that this particular play was written at almost the opposite end of Shaw's career to the first play – Arms & the Man. Anyway, I was making my way to Adelaide by train and I wanted something that I could read while on the train, and hopefully write a review on it in the same breath. Well, a three-act Bernard Shaw play certainly fits the bill, though I would have to say that this is certainly not one of his best plays. In fact, to be honest with you, it's sort of rather ordinary.
One can simply describe this play as being a love triangle, pure and simple. However there isn't anything all that exciting or wonderful about this particular love triangle, and in a way you already know how it is going to work out in the end. Okay, Shaw did write a pretty decent romantic comedy, and his protagonist does hold similar views as to him (with the exception that he is a Christian Pastor, though like Shaw he is also a practising socialist), however in the end it is just another tired old story where you have two guys competing over the same girl. Well, that might be being a little bit too harsh because there are some interesting aspects to this story, and in a way we know that our protagonist, Morell, is always going to win out.
So, the heroine of the play, Candida, who is married to Morell, returns home after three weeks with this young poet in tow. When Candida is out of the room the young poet then begins to bait Morell in suggesting that not only is she no longer in love with him, but that she is having an affair. This, of course, causes a lot of tension, but it seems for a while that Morell isn't all that great a person, and is little more than a tired old pastor. Yet we quickly discover that this is not the case. Our poet friend is quite mistaken (and actually a bit of a shark on top of that) and is sent off packing into the darkness.
The reason that we realise that the Poet is actually a pretty cunning little character is because of something referred to as 'Prossie's Complaint'. The name comes from one of the supporting characters – Proserpina – who happens to be Morell's secretary. The complaint is that she happens to be in love with Morell, along with quite a number of other women, however they can't say or do anything about it because he is already married. This revelation is put to him by none other than his wife Candida, which is why I came to the realisation that Candida was never going to leave Morell for another man simply because she actually possesses somebody who, in her mind, is an awesome catch.
This is the second play that I have read of Shaw's where he borrows a figure from Greek Mythology, the other being Pygmalion. However, I struggle to see how Proserpina (or Persepbone) fits in with this place since Persephone was the daughter of Demeter who was kidnapped by Hades, lord of the underworld, to become his wife. After a bit of a tussle she would spend six months of the year with her mother (thus bringing on Summer) and six months with Hades (thus bringing on Winter). To be honest, I struggle to see how Proserpina's love (or apparent love) for Morell is related to this ancient Greek Myth.
However, another thought does come to mind – Prossie's complaint simply comes from the mouth of Candida. Sure, Morell has quite a number of women attending his socialist meetings, but Candida's claim is that the reason they do this is because they are in love with him. Sure, this may actually be the truth, but we must also remember that this is coming from the mouth of Candida, in much the same way that Marchbank's (the poet) claim that Candida is in love with him turns out to be false. In a way a number of the conflicts that arise in this play simply arise through people's perceptions.
It is not at all surprising that Proserpina, and the women who attend Morell's talks, are in love with him. I remember when I was in youth group there were a couple of leaders who would regularly stand out the front and deliver talks. Okay, there would be a number of people who would deliver talks, but these two guys caught the attention of the young ladies because they were both single. How do I know – well the young ladies (or at least one of them) told me. There is something, well, sexy about a person that has the confidence to stand out in front of a group of people and deliver a talk, though I am going to add that you do need to do it well – there is no point in being a speaker if you are crap at public speaking – you aren't going to impress anybody.
The first time I read this play I was wandering whether it was going to end well (Candida remains with Morell) or end badly (Candida goes with Marchbank). Since this play is included in a collection of plays called 'Plays Pleasant' it was probably a dead giveaway that Candida wasn't going to leave Morell (especially since it appears that Morell is actually a pretty nice person). On this second reading, where I picked up on the idea of Prossie's complaint, it became clear that Candida would have been foolish to leave Morell.
May 15, 2018
Chekhov wrote his realist stories between drinks at parties in his home, taking inspiration from the characters around him to create a world of small, short-sighted people who seem real through a combination of meanness and absurdity. They are dull enough to have the problems of a normal person, but eccentric enough to come off as individuals instead of simply mouthpieces or archetypes.
Shaw sometimes works along the same lines, but his approach to absurdity is much grander, and will not yield to pettiness. Shaw writes his characters likes he imagines himself to be: mighty thinkers of great instinctual understanding. At least, this is how he paints himself in his rambling, opinionated, yet unsupported prologues.
While we wouldn't be likely to accuse Chekhov of writing his characters 'too small' to be believable, Shaw's are too grand for anything resembling real life; just as he aspired to be.
His plays are the product of his lifelong struggle between overwrought philosophy and humorous banter. Sometimes the romantic wins out, sometimes the lecturer. He is usually at his best on the romantic side, since he is never quite well-informed or well-structured enough to support the philosophical.
Despite often declaring himself the 'enemy of romanticism', he is very fond of characters, sentiments, and ideas which are very romantic, in that they are 'larger than life'. Of course, he accepts no standard definition for 'Romantic', often indicating it has something to do with 'falseness' as opposed to his own 'heartfelt truths'. Perhaps no one told him that 'heartfelt truth' is precisely the sort of excuse Romantics give for holding tightly to their ideals.
In style, Shaw evokes contemporaries Wodehouse and Wilde, who were likewise concerned with wits (both quick and slow) and the inherent humor of class incompatibility. They both take the whole thing much less seriously than Shaw, making little pretense to 'Philosophical Ideals'. Wilde often discusses such ideas (through his characters), but it's all a farce for him--treating the trivial seriously and the serious trivially, to ape Wilde's beloved chiasmus.
Shaw's plays often seem a farce, but this tends to be the result of his lack of structure. He imagines his grand ideas will be self-evident, and hence rarely bothers to put a foundation underneath them. Instead, moments are strung together with whimsy and caprice, which almost always undermine any point he was meant to have put across.
Candida is a humorous and interesting play, with rather bizarre characters, but the way the conflict plays out is convoluted and absurd, relying on a natural concordance of thought between the three main actors, despite their drastically different views. They all seem to understand just what the other is getting at, even when it might not be clear to the audience.
Likewise, they draw out the conflict over myriad conversations regarding art, truth, beauty, and human need. They never quite hide the conflict, nor address it, merely rehashing it this way and that and flitting back and forth between confidence and stricken terror with every 'revelatory' utterance.
It's rather clear that Shaw is striking the pose of the realist, but trying to create drama along the lines of Shakespeare. He has admitted as much himself, from time to time, often alongside boasts that he can perfectly reproduce Shakespeare's form and style at will. Again, his lack of humility is our burden to bear.
He tries to create powerful, complex characters and set them at odds, but they all seem to speak with one voice, undermining the conflict of their supposedly variant personalities. They are not grand in specific, discrete ways, but are all built along the same intellectual lines, merely differentiated by their outward character. It is the opposite of the 'Three Musketeers characterization', where the main characters seem similar on the outside, in terms of desires and position, but are easily differentiated by personality and approach.
Their outward eccentricities may be vivid--most notable in Marchbanks--but Candida is another one of Shaw's strong, capable women, who can rarely be differentiated one from the other. Her husband is meant to be the blustering orator, but he is mostly characterized by other characters talking about how much he blusters, instead of by actual demonstration on his part.
Like 'Mrs. Warren's Profession', Shaw tries to produce a surprise ending from all the melodrama, but the story has too few twists and turns. The conflict is introduced early on and remains the same throughout, bereft of new insights or unexpected shifts. Even if he could capture Shakespeare's style and powerful characterization, he would still fall far short for lack of development.
The play is funny, curious, and idiomatic, as are the best Shaw plays, with plenty of opportunities for actors to display their talent--despite the fact that they were mostly intended to be read instead of performed, often more resembling novellas than scripts in their construction. But despite amusing us or intriguing us here or there, 'Candida' is not the gripping, clever melodrama it pretends to be, and it is too long-winded and indecisive for the farce it is.
Shaw sometimes works along the same lines, but his approach to absurdity is much grander, and will not yield to pettiness. Shaw writes his characters likes he imagines himself to be: mighty thinkers of great instinctual understanding. At least, this is how he paints himself in his rambling, opinionated, yet unsupported prologues.
While we wouldn't be likely to accuse Chekhov of writing his characters 'too small' to be believable, Shaw's are too grand for anything resembling real life; just as he aspired to be.
His plays are the product of his lifelong struggle between overwrought philosophy and humorous banter. Sometimes the romantic wins out, sometimes the lecturer. He is usually at his best on the romantic side, since he is never quite well-informed or well-structured enough to support the philosophical.
Despite often declaring himself the 'enemy of romanticism', he is very fond of characters, sentiments, and ideas which are very romantic, in that they are 'larger than life'. Of course, he accepts no standard definition for 'Romantic', often indicating it has something to do with 'falseness' as opposed to his own 'heartfelt truths'. Perhaps no one told him that 'heartfelt truth' is precisely the sort of excuse Romantics give for holding tightly to their ideals.
In style, Shaw evokes contemporaries Wodehouse and Wilde, who were likewise concerned with wits (both quick and slow) and the inherent humor of class incompatibility. They both take the whole thing much less seriously than Shaw, making little pretense to 'Philosophical Ideals'. Wilde often discusses such ideas (through his characters), but it's all a farce for him--treating the trivial seriously and the serious trivially, to ape Wilde's beloved chiasmus.
Shaw's plays often seem a farce, but this tends to be the result of his lack of structure. He imagines his grand ideas will be self-evident, and hence rarely bothers to put a foundation underneath them. Instead, moments are strung together with whimsy and caprice, which almost always undermine any point he was meant to have put across.
Candida is a humorous and interesting play, with rather bizarre characters, but the way the conflict plays out is convoluted and absurd, relying on a natural concordance of thought between the three main actors, despite their drastically different views. They all seem to understand just what the other is getting at, even when it might not be clear to the audience.
Likewise, they draw out the conflict over myriad conversations regarding art, truth, beauty, and human need. They never quite hide the conflict, nor address it, merely rehashing it this way and that and flitting back and forth between confidence and stricken terror with every 'revelatory' utterance.
It's rather clear that Shaw is striking the pose of the realist, but trying to create drama along the lines of Shakespeare. He has admitted as much himself, from time to time, often alongside boasts that he can perfectly reproduce Shakespeare's form and style at will. Again, his lack of humility is our burden to bear.
He tries to create powerful, complex characters and set them at odds, but they all seem to speak with one voice, undermining the conflict of their supposedly variant personalities. They are not grand in specific, discrete ways, but are all built along the same intellectual lines, merely differentiated by their outward character. It is the opposite of the 'Three Musketeers characterization', where the main characters seem similar on the outside, in terms of desires and position, but are easily differentiated by personality and approach.
Their outward eccentricities may be vivid--most notable in Marchbanks--but Candida is another one of Shaw's strong, capable women, who can rarely be differentiated one from the other. Her husband is meant to be the blustering orator, but he is mostly characterized by other characters talking about how much he blusters, instead of by actual demonstration on his part.
Like 'Mrs. Warren's Profession', Shaw tries to produce a surprise ending from all the melodrama, but the story has too few twists and turns. The conflict is introduced early on and remains the same throughout, bereft of new insights or unexpected shifts. Even if he could capture Shakespeare's style and powerful characterization, he would still fall far short for lack of development.
The play is funny, curious, and idiomatic, as are the best Shaw plays, with plenty of opportunities for actors to display their talent--despite the fact that they were mostly intended to be read instead of performed, often more resembling novellas than scripts in their construction. But despite amusing us or intriguing us here or there, 'Candida' is not the gripping, clever melodrama it pretends to be, and it is too long-winded and indecisive for the farce it is.
June 4, 2022
Candida by George Bernard Shaw
I no longer desire happiness: life is nobler than that. Parson James: I give you my happiness with both hands: I love you because you have filled the heart of the woman I loved. - Marchbanks
Candida is thirty-three and she is married to the parson, James. Their marriage of some fifteen years now could be better and as with most marriages of the time it is one of convenience. James is a well respected orator in the church and business community. He has also been spoiled since birth. In having taken on the marriage, Candida has taken over the stroking of James' emotional needs as well.
In this dramedy, the young eighteen-year old poet and upstart Marchbanks has fallen in love with the much older and married Candida and he professes his love in front of James. He further chastises James about James' neglect of Candida and the insults just keep multiplying.
All three acts of this play take place in the parsonage. It is a master class on life in Victorian England and I loved it. The supporting characters include James' secretary and James' father-in-law and they were excellent too.
Here are some of my favorite lines
James: My talent is like yours insofar as it has any real worth at all. It is the gift of finding words for divine truth.
Marchbanks (impetuously): It's the gift of the gab, nothing more and nothing less.
Marchbanks: Wicked people means people who have no love: therefore they have no shame. They have the power to ask love because they don't need it: they have the power to offer it because they have none to give.
James: When Candida promised to marry me, I was the same moralist and windbag that you now see.
James (seizing Marchbanks): Out with the truth, man: my wife is my wife: I want no more of your poetic fripperies.
5 stars. Pretty darn impressive for a play written in 1894.
I no longer desire happiness: life is nobler than that. Parson James: I give you my happiness with both hands: I love you because you have filled the heart of the woman I loved. - Marchbanks
Candida is thirty-three and she is married to the parson, James. Their marriage of some fifteen years now could be better and as with most marriages of the time it is one of convenience. James is a well respected orator in the church and business community. He has also been spoiled since birth. In having taken on the marriage, Candida has taken over the stroking of James' emotional needs as well.
In this dramedy, the young eighteen-year old poet and upstart Marchbanks has fallen in love with the much older and married Candida and he professes his love in front of James. He further chastises James about James' neglect of Candida and the insults just keep multiplying.
All three acts of this play take place in the parsonage. It is a master class on life in Victorian England and I loved it. The supporting characters include James' secretary and James' father-in-law and they were excellent too.
Here are some of my favorite lines
James: My talent is like yours insofar as it has any real worth at all. It is the gift of finding words for divine truth.
Marchbanks (impetuously): It's the gift of the gab, nothing more and nothing less.
Marchbanks: Wicked people means people who have no love: therefore they have no shame. They have the power to ask love because they don't need it: they have the power to offer it because they have none to give.
James: When Candida promised to marry me, I was the same moralist and windbag that you now see.
James (seizing Marchbanks): Out with the truth, man: my wife is my wife: I want no more of your poetic fripperies.
5 stars. Pretty darn impressive for a play written in 1894.
July 28, 2011
Being an admirer of Bernard Shaw's witticisms in his social commentary plays like Pygmalion, Apple Cart, Man and Superman and Saint Joan, I was pleasantly surprised to find this heart-warming, whimsical turn by Mr Sarcastic himself. As the parson and the eighteen-year-old poet crossed swords I felt myself troubled by the tense situations (unlike his more famous plays where one can appreciate the comedy in the fast dialogue) and when Candida spoke I felt myself calm down. How is it that Bernard Shaw manages to switch tacks so quickly in political plays yet emote so well in Candida? Must must read as it offers yet another dimension to Shaw.
April 1, 2015
(كانديدا)
رأيت عدة محاكيات لها في أفلام الأبيض و الأسود أثرت على حكمي في البداية .. في تلك الأفلام عادة ما كان يتم اختذال شخصيتها في شكل عبثي مسطح .. ، و لكنها هنا عميقة .. جميلة .. فيلسوفة
***
(الخطيئة المقدسة)
انها شعار المرحلة :) ! قرأت تقنينا لها عن نفس الكاتب (جورج برنارد شو) من قبل في مسرحية
(Overruled)
و ساءني ما قرأت حينذاك ..، و الآن .. و ان لم يسيئني ما قرأت اليوم بنفس المقدار ، الا اننى مازلت متحفظة قليلا على بعض النقاط ، و التى على الرغم منها ايضا وجدت تلك الـ (كانديدا) رائعة في النهاية
! و على أية حال
...
...
كانديدا المرأة القوية الجميلة ، التي شيدت لزوجها قلعة شاركته فيها بكل وجدانها و مشاعرها و افكارها ..
...
و زوجها موريل (رجل الدين الإشتراكي!) القوي العصامي المشهور الـ.. الـ.. الـ.. ، و الذي على الرغم من كل ذلك .. هو الضعيف .. من دونها
...
و اخيرا .. هناك يوجين (الولد) المراهق و الشاعر ، الفنان .. الذي احبها حب عاصف كاد أن يهدم تلك القلعة الحصينة التي شيدها الزوجين و تشاركوها سنين طوال
..
لم تكن العقدة لتخلق ، وكان الأمر ليمر بسلام لولا ماباحت به كانديدا لزوجها موريل ،
فالزوج يثق بزوجته ثقة كبيرة ، ليس من السهل ابدا ان يكسرها طفلا كذاك القرد يوجين من وجهة نظره ، كانديدا ايضا لم تكن لتخون تلك الثقة ابدا ..
و لكنها نظرت الى الأمر من منحى آخر شاعري و نبيل من وجهة نظرها و هو ما عبرت عنه لزوجها .. فيوجين هو طفل ، شاعر مفتقد للحنان و الاهتمام و كانت فقط تخشى عليه ان يصدم بحب امرأة سيئة و يكفر بالحب الذي يستمد منه الهامه و شاعريته
و ما كانت لتذكر لزوجها عن تلك الخواطر التي تجول برأسها لولا ماعودها اياه من مصارحة و مكاشفة و تحرر في الحديث مابينهما
*****
و لم يجل بخاطرها حينذاك انها تؤذي زوجها بذلك الحديث ، فهي و ان كانت تعطف على يوجين و تحبه حب شبيه بحب الأم لابنها ، الا ان حبها لزوجها و شريكها بالطبع اكبر و اعمق
و حين اكتشفت أن ذلك قد آذى زوجها في النهاية ، حسمت الأمر بدرس ليوجين الطفل و ان كان قاسيا بعض الشئ ، و لكن برقتها و حكمتها استطاعت ايضا ان تخفف من وقع تلك القسوة عليه ..،
لنجد يوجين ذلك الطفل ذو الـ18 ربيعا خارجا من بيتها وهو يعتقد بأن عمره الآن قد اصبح اقدم من عمر الأرض ! .. خارجا و هو يتمنى لها و لزوجها السعادة من كل قلبه ..
خارجا و هو يردد
(لم أعد بحاجة الى السعادة فالحياة أسمى من ذلك)
و ذاك حقا مايعتقد به كل فنان او شاعر .. حقيقي
فهو يعلم جيدا أن الحياة أسمى من مجرد فكرة عن السعادة
*****
اعجبني للغاية ذلك المقطع من الحوار الأخير فيما بين يوجين و كانديدا و مازال عالقا في ذهني الى الآن ، حين قالت له تلك الأخيرة :
ردد دائما : .. عندما اكون في الثلاثين ستكون هي في الخامسة و الأربعين .. و عندما أكون في الستين ستكون هي في الخامسة و السبعين ..
فقاطعها يوجين قائلا : و في سن المئة سنكون في نفس السن
#
*****
كان هناك ايضا (بيرجس) والد كانديدا ، ليكتمل بذاك الثلاثي النمطي اياه
الرأسمالي .. الاشتراكي او رجل الدين فكلاهما من المفروض عدو للرأسمالية من وجهة نظر برنارد شو على مايبدو ، و هم هنا ممثلين في شخص (موريل) .. و أخيرا ، الفنان يوجين ..
فكل منهم له وجهة نظر ورؤى مختلفة عن الآخر بالنسبة للحياة و الحب .. و كل منهم يرى في الآخر احمق .. مجنون
!
رأيت عدة محاكيات لها في أفلام الأبيض و الأسود أثرت على حكمي في البداية .. في تلك الأفلام عادة ما كان يتم اختذال شخصيتها في شكل عبثي مسطح .. ، و لكنها هنا عميقة .. جميلة .. فيلسوفة
***
(الخطيئة المقدسة)
انها شعار المرحلة :) ! قرأت تقنينا لها عن نفس الكاتب (جورج برنارد شو) من قبل في مسرحية
(Overruled)
و ساءني ما قرأت حينذاك ..، و الآن .. و ان لم يسيئني ما قرأت اليوم بنفس المقدار ، الا اننى مازلت متحفظة قليلا على بعض النقاط ، و التى على الرغم منها ايضا وجدت تلك الـ (كانديدا) رائعة في النهاية
! و على أية حال
...
...
كانديدا المرأة القوية الجميلة ، التي شيدت لزوجها قلعة شاركته فيها بكل وجدانها و مشاعرها و افكارها ..
...
و زوجها موريل (رجل الدين الإشتراكي!) القوي العصامي المشهور الـ.. الـ.. الـ.. ، و الذي على الرغم من كل ذلك .. هو الضعيف .. من دونها
...
و اخيرا .. هناك يوجين (الولد) المراهق و الشاعر ، الفنان .. الذي احبها حب عاصف كاد أن يهدم تلك القلعة الحصينة التي شيدها الزوجين و تشاركوها سنين طوال
..
لم تكن العقدة لتخلق ، وكان الأمر ليمر بسلام لولا ماباحت به كانديدا لزوجها موريل ،
فالزوج يثق بزوجته ثقة كبيرة ، ليس من السهل ابدا ان يكسرها طفلا كذاك القرد يوجين من وجهة نظره ، كانديدا ايضا لم تكن لتخون تلك الثقة ابدا ..
و لكنها نظرت الى الأمر من منحى آخر شاعري و نبيل من وجهة نظرها و هو ما عبرت عنه لزوجها .. فيوجين هو طفل ، شاعر مفتقد للحنان و الاهتمام و كانت فقط تخشى عليه ان يصدم بحب امرأة سيئة و يكفر بالحب الذي يستمد منه الهامه و شاعريته
و ما كانت لتذكر لزوجها عن تلك الخواطر التي تجول برأسها لولا ماعودها اياه من مصارحة و مكاشفة و تحرر في الحديث مابينهما
*****
و لم يجل بخاطرها حينذاك انها تؤذي زوجها بذلك الحديث ، فهي و ان كانت تعطف على يوجين و تحبه حب شبيه بحب الأم لابنها ، الا ان حبها لزوجها و شريكها بالطبع اكبر و اعمق
و حين اكتشفت أن ذلك قد آذى زوجها في النهاية ، حسمت الأمر بدرس ليوجين الطفل و ان كان قاسيا بعض الشئ ، و لكن برقتها و حكمتها استطاعت ايضا ان تخفف من وقع تلك القسوة عليه ..،
لنجد يوجين ذلك الطفل ذو الـ18 ربيعا خارجا من بيتها وهو يعتقد بأن عمره الآن قد اصبح اقدم من عمر الأرض ! .. خارجا و هو يتمنى لها و لزوجها السعادة من كل قلبه ..
خارجا و هو يردد
(لم أعد بحاجة الى السعادة فالحياة أسمى من ذلك)
و ذاك حقا مايعتقد به كل فنان او شاعر .. حقيقي
فهو يعلم جيدا أن الحياة أسمى من مجرد فكرة عن السعادة
*****
اعجبني للغاية ذلك المقطع من الحوار الأخير فيما بين يوجين و كانديدا و مازال عالقا في ذهني الى الآن ، حين قالت له تلك الأخيرة :
ردد دائما : .. عندما اكون في الثلاثين ستكون هي في الخامسة و الأربعين .. و عندما أكون في الستين ستكون هي في الخامسة و السبعين ..
فقاطعها يوجين قائلا : و في سن المئة سنكون في نفس السن
#
*****
كان هناك ايضا (بيرجس) والد كانديدا ، ليكتمل بذاك الثلاثي النمطي اياه
الرأسمالي .. الاشتراكي او رجل الدين فكلاهما من المفروض عدو للرأسمالية من وجهة نظر برنارد شو على مايبدو ، و هم هنا ممثلين في شخص (موريل) .. و أخيرا ، الفنان يوجين ..
فكل منهم له وجهة نظر ورؤى مختلفة عن الآخر بالنسبة للحياة و الحب .. و كل منهم يرى في الآخر احمق .. مجنون
!
January 7, 2012
- spooilers -
I cannot help myself but love this story. At first, it quite annoyed me and I was a little bit scared by its following. I thought, in some or another sequence, that it will end like Ibsen's piece of work. And I got scared because, however, I didn't want Candida to be separated from the lovely Morell.He was, for me, the only agreeable and dear character from this story and I have quite fancied with him - even though I cannot find a serious and real explanation for the matter. I have just loved the character, his personality, his being and his words - also, his love towards his wife that made me tremble with satisfaction and smile with content.
I have despised Eugene from the bottom of my heart and soul when I thought he would be able to ruin this beautiful relationship, the home of two human beings that loved and respected each other. To tell the truth, this is the first time I encounter such beautiful harmony and such a perfect and lovely atmosphere between two people and maybe, only maybe - it's just me and my fancy towards harmony and homely happiness that makes me think like this and regard the matter as it is. Or maybe, there is a stunning feeling that flows from this relationship between those two characters.
Coming back to Eugene, I must say I despised him, but in the end he did not look as fearsome and ugly as he looked until then. His boyish attitude was long gone by then and I suppose that was the thing that did it. I loved Morell because he was a man, whatever that may mean, but Eugene was just a boy, a poet that naturally understood things. But this boyish poet, was not a man and by thinking he was right in everything and being quite right in many matters, he didn't see one essential spot, and that is the fact that, whatever Candida was, whatever he saw in her, whatever he thought of her or she thought of herself or whatever much the suffering may be - she was to love her husband forever, to cherish and respect him and to be with him for all their remaining lives on Earth. It may be that Candida loved Eugene as well, but in quite a different matter than she loved Morell, because she was mature, she was a woman, not a girl and if Eugene would have come to her when she was younger, she would have thrown herself away in his arms. But, being a woman, a wife and a mother, she couldn't engage herself in other relationship but with her own husband - and that fact, i deeply loved and admired.
I cannot help myself but love this story. At first, it quite annoyed me and I was a little bit scared by its following. I thought, in some or another sequence, that it will end like Ibsen's piece of work. And I got scared because, however, I didn't want Candida to be separated from the lovely Morell.He was, for me, the only agreeable and dear character from this story and I have quite fancied with him - even though I cannot find a serious and real explanation for the matter. I have just loved the character, his personality, his being and his words - also, his love towards his wife that made me tremble with satisfaction and smile with content.
I have despised Eugene from the bottom of my heart and soul when I thought he would be able to ruin this beautiful relationship, the home of two human beings that loved and respected each other. To tell the truth, this is the first time I encounter such beautiful harmony and such a perfect and lovely atmosphere between two people and maybe, only maybe - it's just me and my fancy towards harmony and homely happiness that makes me think like this and regard the matter as it is. Or maybe, there is a stunning feeling that flows from this relationship between those two characters.
Coming back to Eugene, I must say I despised him, but in the end he did not look as fearsome and ugly as he looked until then. His boyish attitude was long gone by then and I suppose that was the thing that did it. I loved Morell because he was a man, whatever that may mean, but Eugene was just a boy, a poet that naturally understood things. But this boyish poet, was not a man and by thinking he was right in everything and being quite right in many matters, he didn't see one essential spot, and that is the fact that, whatever Candida was, whatever he saw in her, whatever he thought of her or she thought of herself or whatever much the suffering may be - she was to love her husband forever, to cherish and respect him and to be with him for all their remaining lives on Earth. It may be that Candida loved Eugene as well, but in quite a different matter than she loved Morell, because she was mature, she was a woman, not a girl and if Eugene would have come to her when she was younger, she would have thrown herself away in his arms. But, being a woman, a wife and a mother, she couldn't engage herself in other relationship but with her own husband - and that fact, i deeply loved and admired.
December 20, 2017
Reading this while in an advanced state of disillusionment with late capitalism made for a refreshing literary experience
April 14, 2018
فقد تعلّم أن يعيش بغير سعادة
November 19, 2015
A play that exposes Shaw's ideas about women and about how he viewed life in general.
Shaw on women:
1. Women belong to themselves, not to their men, which is a cool early feminist idea.
2. Women in marriage are more like mothers than partners, and men in marriage are like infantilized little boys. Which is kind of a creepy idea. And also an anti-feminist idea, because although it recognizes the "woman behind the great man", it describes a presumed duty on the part of the wife to "build" her man and be behind the scenes while doing so.
Shaw on life:
1. The poet must learn to love and then must renounce said love, renounce happiness, for the sake of freedom. In Shaw's childhood, he felt rejected by his mother, and always kept a wall of irony around his heart as a result. Whenever he carried on a flirtation with a woman, there was always a suggestion that he was only jokingly doing so.
The character of Marchbanks, the poet, is like young Shaw, who proudly and often proclaimed that he would never marry, even though he flitted from woman to woman in his infatuations. Also, Marchbanks is a third wheel in a marriage, who befriends the husband and carries on a flirtation with the wife, a role that Shaw often played in his bachelorhood.
Ironically, a few years after this play was written, Shaw got married to Charlotte Payne-Townshend, who was to fulfill a very motherly and protective role in his life, not to mention acting as his secretary and helping his writing career behind the scenes, and being his "enforcer" in financial matters. So Shaw was to later become Morell, the married man in the play.
Once you know something of Shaw's biography, this work stands as one of the most psychologically revealing of its author as any literary work.
Shaw on women:
1. Women belong to themselves, not to their men, which is a cool early feminist idea.
2. Women in marriage are more like mothers than partners, and men in marriage are like infantilized little boys. Which is kind of a creepy idea. And also an anti-feminist idea, because although it recognizes the "woman behind the great man", it describes a presumed duty on the part of the wife to "build" her man and be behind the scenes while doing so.
Shaw on life:
1. The poet must learn to love and then must renounce said love, renounce happiness, for the sake of freedom. In Shaw's childhood, he felt rejected by his mother, and always kept a wall of irony around his heart as a result. Whenever he carried on a flirtation with a woman, there was always a suggestion that he was only jokingly doing so.
The character of Marchbanks, the poet, is like young Shaw, who proudly and often proclaimed that he would never marry, even though he flitted from woman to woman in his infatuations. Also, Marchbanks is a third wheel in a marriage, who befriends the husband and carries on a flirtation with the wife, a role that Shaw often played in his bachelorhood.
Ironically, a few years after this play was written, Shaw got married to Charlotte Payne-Townshend, who was to fulfill a very motherly and protective role in his life, not to mention acting as his secretary and helping his writing career behind the scenes, and being his "enforcer" in financial matters. So Shaw was to later become Morell, the married man in the play.
Once you know something of Shaw's biography, this work stands as one of the most psychologically revealing of its author as any literary work.
September 10, 2018
لوحة فنية عميقة ورائعة تحتوى على ستة شخصيات فقط.
القس جيمس مورل الاشتراكي ذو الجاه والمال والشخصية القوية في عقده الرابع.
كانديدا زوجته الجميلة والذكية الرقيقة بشخصيتها القوية في العقد الثالث من العمر.
يوجين الشاعر المراهق متأجج المشاعر يعيش في احلامه.
مس كارنت سكرتيرة القس ومتيمة به بالسر.
والد كانديدا الرأسمالي البليد والجشع.
مساعد القس مورل - القس الشاب.
قد تبدو للوهلة الاولى المسرحية بسيطة ومطروقة بشكل مبتذل.
زوجة شابة وجميلة، زوج مشغول وشاب يتصيد في الماء العكر ويحاول استمالتها.
مثلث حب شهير يجمع مورل وكانديدا ويوجين.
أعجبتني كثيراً هذه المسرحبة ففيها تتجلى آراء وافكار برنارد شو وكرهه للراسمالية واراءه بخصوص الدين كثيرا".
نرى حب المرأة الذكية وحرصها على وضع كل شيء في مكانه الصحيح في الوقت الصحيح. الثقة المتبادلة وايضاً طيش الشباب الغير متروي.
برأيي ان اعمال برنارد شو يجب ان تُقرأ اكثر من مرة ففي كل مرة تكتشف جانب من سخريته واسقاطاته على واقع المجتمع في تلك الفترة.
فهنا نجد خطاب الرأسمالي والد كانديدا للقس كالتالي:
"يجب ان لا يأخذ الانسان كل مايقوله رجال الدين مأخذ الجد والا توقفت الدنيا عن الدوران...
لقد اصبح لك ولأمثالك قدرٌ خطير ولن يستطيع احد اسكاتكم الا اذا ملئو افواهكم بالمال.">/b<
ما اشبه اليوم بالأمس. هذا الاقتباس ينطبق حرفياً على تجار الدين في وقتنا الحاضر.
وختاماً هذه بعض الاقتباسات.
-اذا اردت حديثاً فريداً من نوعه فأخلو الى نفسك وتحدث اليها.
-ذلك مايفعله الشعراء يتحدثون الى انفسهم فتسمعهم الدنيا كلها.
"كم انت اسير التقاليد يامن تدعي التحرر منها "
March 19, 2021
A fabulous parody of the comedy of manners, this little play packs a punch with an unusually progressive (though far from perfect) feminist perspective and a deep exploration into the nature of domestic relationships of the time. With absurd drama and misunderstandings, it was a joy to read.
February 24, 2024
I remain baffled by George Bernard Shaw's Candida. It's a play I love, and this particular performance from L.A. Theatre Works has two exceptional performances -- Jobeth Williams as Candida & Tom Amandes as her husband, Reverend Morell -- yet I am never quite sure what it is that Shaw is driving at with this play, and every time I see it staged or hear a staging of it I come away feeling something different about the play.
Perhaps, though, it is this uncertainty in me that makes the play so wonderful. There is so much to say, so much room for discussion, so many feelings that it conjures, and each time I engage with it my own feelings change. I suppose it's why I always find myself going back to it, and wishing that I had acted in it while I was a fitting age to do so. Still, it's nowhere near my favourite Shaw, even if it continues to give me confusing pleasure.
Perhaps, though, it is this uncertainty in me that makes the play so wonderful. There is so much to say, so much room for discussion, so many feelings that it conjures, and each time I engage with it my own feelings change. I suppose it's why I always find myself going back to it, and wishing that I had acted in it while I was a fitting age to do so. Still, it's nowhere near my favourite Shaw, even if it continues to give me confusing pleasure.
October 19, 2015
I had to read it for class, obviously, or else I don't think I would have ever picked it up. I'm not into drama, you see.
But, this wasn't the best of this genre but neither was it disappointing. It was alright. I liked the shrewd yet caring and kind character of Candida. In fact, I liked Morell's character as well. I didn't like Eugene one bit though. He was so sappy and dreamy and felt more like a self-proclaimed poet rather than a real one.
But I would say this isn't the best work of Shaw as I liked 'Man and Superman' more (read this one for class as well), it was more vivid and the setting was vast compared to this. But this suffices the purpose, I guess. Its also not a direct comment upon socialism, just a vague idea about it is presented. It has more to do with Feminism, I felt. But my professors had something else to say. Never mind, it was an alright read and I recommend it only if you want to learn literature. This isn't leisure reading stuff.
But, this wasn't the best of this genre but neither was it disappointing. It was alright. I liked the shrewd yet caring and kind character of Candida. In fact, I liked Morell's character as well. I didn't like Eugene one bit though. He was so sappy and dreamy and felt more like a self-proclaimed poet rather than a real one.
But I would say this isn't the best work of Shaw as I liked 'Man and Superman' more (read this one for class as well), it was more vivid and the setting was vast compared to this. But this suffices the purpose, I guess. Its also not a direct comment upon socialism, just a vague idea about it is presented. It has more to do with Feminism, I felt. But my professors had something else to say. Never mind, it was an alright read and I recommend it only if you want to learn literature. This isn't leisure reading stuff.
March 22, 2009
Good, but not great. This play is surprisingly shallow for Shaw. It is a nice story about loving relationships, but only one of the characters is challenged in any way and the whole play feels a little slight.
I guess I was just expecting more.
I guess I was just expecting more.
June 25, 2010
Facile, antiquated, repulsive.
December 18, 2012
I found this absurdly funny. This is the sort of thing that made me want to be an English major.
January 12, 2014
Excellent! There is much more detail of character expression than I am used to.
December 14, 2017
Very original play. Looks into the inner workings of a marriage through a strange love triangle (a bit of a love square even).
July 17, 2008
(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)
The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classics" for the first time, then write reports on whether they deserve the label
Book #19: Candida, by George Bernard Shaw (1898)
The story in a nutshell:
As one of many "comedies of manners" from the Victorian- and Edwardian-era playwright George Bernard Shaw, the actual storyline of today's book under review is much slighter than normal; it is not much more than a breezy 50-page play about a middle-class couple living in the suburban edge of London at the turn of the 20th century, a liberal activist minister and his smart-as-a-tack wife (the "Candida" of the play's title), as well as the young moon-eyed artist they know who has fallen in love with Candida himself. The actual plotline, then, is not much more than that of this minister husband and artist wooer arguing humorously for an hour over which of them loves Candida more, and of what type of man she obviously most needs in her life; Candida herself finally puts an end to the argument by patiently explaining that she doesn't exactly need a man at all, and that the two of them are pretty much morons. Seriously, that's about the entirety of Candida just from a plot standpoint; the main reason to still read and enjoy this script, then, is mostly for the sparkling wordplay and attention to language Shaw brings to the story, as well as its razor-sharp look at the issues and details making up day-to-day life for the British middle-class during these years.
The argument for it being a classic:
You can't even mention "classic literature" without bringing up Shaw, his fans claim; this was an artist, after all, who both wrote and published new material literally from the 1880s to 1940s, painting an indelible portrait of what was at the time the most literary society on the planet, right during the years that novels and plays were at their most popular with mainstream society in general. By the end of his life, Shaw was considered a literary superhero by most, to this day still the only person in history to win both a Nobel Prize and an Oscar; that makes a whole ton of his old work worth going back and revisiting, argue his fans, and not only that but also spread out evenly over the course of his remarkable 60-year career. Take 1898's Candida, for example; although not as polished, say, as a late-career classic like Saint Joan, nor as popular as something like Pygmalion (itself adapted into the insanely popular Broadway musical My Fair Lady), it nonetheless was one of the first really big hits of Shaw's career, as well as a great record of what the times were actually like for an average middle-class citizen during the end of the Victorian Age. As such, then, its fans say, Candida rightly deserves to still be read and enjoyed on a regular basis to this day.
The argument against:
Of course, as we've all learned over the course of this "CCLaP 100" essay series so far, although Victorian and Edwardian literature still continues to be legible and readable to modern eyes, that's a long way from being entertaining or simply not tedious; and critics will argue that Shaw's work is especially guilty of clunky aging, precisely because he wrote about the issues and pumped out the kinds of light, frothy stories that were so popular with contemporary audiences at the time. In fact, you could almost view Shaw as a brilliant television writer more than anything else, in a time when the television industry didn't actually exist; he did crank out over 60 plays over the course of his career, after all, most of which last no more than an hour or so, most of which deal with the same slight plots and family trivialities of a typical B-level network drama on the air right now. If you take a cold, hard look at Shaw's work, critics say, you'll see that they're mostly valuable anymore as historical documents, as records of the times and of what the average citizen of those times found important, a big part of why he was so popular to begin with; the plays themselves, though, are badly dated relics of the Victorian and Edwardian times from which they came, the exact thing a modern show is satirizing anymore whenever you see one of the characters affect a fake stagey British accent and yell, "I say, Lord Wiggelbottom, what a surprise to see you here, old chap!" Shaw's plays are important, the argument goes, just not worth most people these days taking the time to sit down and actually read.
My verdict:
I have to admit, today I very quickly fall on the side of Shaw's critics, and in fact we can take the printed book version of Candida itself as strong evidence; I find it very telling that of the 140-page manuscript, only 52 of those pages are needed to print the actual play, a whopping 88 pages instead devoted to notes about the play, Shaw's preface to the play, interviews about the play, letters Shaw wrote about the play, etc etc. Because it's definitely true -- there's barely anything to Shaw's actual plays themselves, certainly not the strong three-act structure loaded with suspense and drama like we expect anymore from our live theatre, with their 60-volume cumulative effect being much more important these days than any of the individual volumes themselves. (Want even more evidence? Check out Shaw's Wikipedia bio, and notice that no one's yet bothered creating separate entries for over half his plays, and this from a website that includes detailed plot recaps for every episode of every television show in human history.) I agree that the cumulative effect is important, I want there to be no mistake -- I agree that Shaw is one of the most important figures in the history of the English-language arts and letters, and I agree that there is just a ton of information to be mined from his work concerning real life in the British Empire during both its Industrial-Age height and its eventual downfall. But man, let me admit this as well -- sheesh, was Candida a freaking chore to actually get through. ("I say, Lord Wiggelbottom, what a surprise to see you here, old chap!") Perhaps some of his later, weightier, more mature work (which I definitely plan on tackling in the future) will turn out to be more worth the effort; for now, though, I reluctantly conclude that what is more entertaining for most audience audience members would be an interesting book about Shaw and his work, not the work itself.
Is it a classic? No
The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classics" for the first time, then write reports on whether they deserve the label
Book #19: Candida, by George Bernard Shaw (1898)
The story in a nutshell:
As one of many "comedies of manners" from the Victorian- and Edwardian-era playwright George Bernard Shaw, the actual storyline of today's book under review is much slighter than normal; it is not much more than a breezy 50-page play about a middle-class couple living in the suburban edge of London at the turn of the 20th century, a liberal activist minister and his smart-as-a-tack wife (the "Candida" of the play's title), as well as the young moon-eyed artist they know who has fallen in love with Candida himself. The actual plotline, then, is not much more than that of this minister husband and artist wooer arguing humorously for an hour over which of them loves Candida more, and of what type of man she obviously most needs in her life; Candida herself finally puts an end to the argument by patiently explaining that she doesn't exactly need a man at all, and that the two of them are pretty much morons. Seriously, that's about the entirety of Candida just from a plot standpoint; the main reason to still read and enjoy this script, then, is mostly for the sparkling wordplay and attention to language Shaw brings to the story, as well as its razor-sharp look at the issues and details making up day-to-day life for the British middle-class during these years.
The argument for it being a classic:
You can't even mention "classic literature" without bringing up Shaw, his fans claim; this was an artist, after all, who both wrote and published new material literally from the 1880s to 1940s, painting an indelible portrait of what was at the time the most literary society on the planet, right during the years that novels and plays were at their most popular with mainstream society in general. By the end of his life, Shaw was considered a literary superhero by most, to this day still the only person in history to win both a Nobel Prize and an Oscar; that makes a whole ton of his old work worth going back and revisiting, argue his fans, and not only that but also spread out evenly over the course of his remarkable 60-year career. Take 1898's Candida, for example; although not as polished, say, as a late-career classic like Saint Joan, nor as popular as something like Pygmalion (itself adapted into the insanely popular Broadway musical My Fair Lady), it nonetheless was one of the first really big hits of Shaw's career, as well as a great record of what the times were actually like for an average middle-class citizen during the end of the Victorian Age. As such, then, its fans say, Candida rightly deserves to still be read and enjoyed on a regular basis to this day.
The argument against:
Of course, as we've all learned over the course of this "CCLaP 100" essay series so far, although Victorian and Edwardian literature still continues to be legible and readable to modern eyes, that's a long way from being entertaining or simply not tedious; and critics will argue that Shaw's work is especially guilty of clunky aging, precisely because he wrote about the issues and pumped out the kinds of light, frothy stories that were so popular with contemporary audiences at the time. In fact, you could almost view Shaw as a brilliant television writer more than anything else, in a time when the television industry didn't actually exist; he did crank out over 60 plays over the course of his career, after all, most of which last no more than an hour or so, most of which deal with the same slight plots and family trivialities of a typical B-level network drama on the air right now. If you take a cold, hard look at Shaw's work, critics say, you'll see that they're mostly valuable anymore as historical documents, as records of the times and of what the average citizen of those times found important, a big part of why he was so popular to begin with; the plays themselves, though, are badly dated relics of the Victorian and Edwardian times from which they came, the exact thing a modern show is satirizing anymore whenever you see one of the characters affect a fake stagey British accent and yell, "I say, Lord Wiggelbottom, what a surprise to see you here, old chap!" Shaw's plays are important, the argument goes, just not worth most people these days taking the time to sit down and actually read.
My verdict:
I have to admit, today I very quickly fall on the side of Shaw's critics, and in fact we can take the printed book version of Candida itself as strong evidence; I find it very telling that of the 140-page manuscript, only 52 of those pages are needed to print the actual play, a whopping 88 pages instead devoted to notes about the play, Shaw's preface to the play, interviews about the play, letters Shaw wrote about the play, etc etc. Because it's definitely true -- there's barely anything to Shaw's actual plays themselves, certainly not the strong three-act structure loaded with suspense and drama like we expect anymore from our live theatre, with their 60-volume cumulative effect being much more important these days than any of the individual volumes themselves. (Want even more evidence? Check out Shaw's Wikipedia bio, and notice that no one's yet bothered creating separate entries for over half his plays, and this from a website that includes detailed plot recaps for every episode of every television show in human history.) I agree that the cumulative effect is important, I want there to be no mistake -- I agree that Shaw is one of the most important figures in the history of the English-language arts and letters, and I agree that there is just a ton of information to be mined from his work concerning real life in the British Empire during both its Industrial-Age height and its eventual downfall. But man, let me admit this as well -- sheesh, was Candida a freaking chore to actually get through. ("I say, Lord Wiggelbottom, what a surprise to see you here, old chap!") Perhaps some of his later, weightier, more mature work (which I definitely plan on tackling in the future) will turn out to be more worth the effort; for now, though, I reluctantly conclude that what is more entertaining for most audience audience members would be an interesting book about Shaw and his work, not the work itself.
Is it a classic? No
April 26, 2024
Deze George Bernard Shaw verdient zijn drie sterren niet door de tekening van de 2 mannenfiguren die strijden om de liefde van Candida. Het zijn extreme karikaturen, die weliswaar best geestig contrasteren, maar allebei zo onvolwassen en bang: de ene is door het vele liefde krijgen niet in staat om liefde te geven, de andere een overgevoelige dweperige puber.
De derde ster komt van de vrouw, het titelpersonage, wijs en liefhebbend, ontelbare malen superieur aan alle mannen, een prachtig personage. Spijtig dat ze zo weinig aan bod komt.
Maar Shaw is en blijft een zalige feminist.
De derde ster komt van de vrouw, het titelpersonage, wijs en liefhebbend, ontelbare malen superieur aan alle mannen, een prachtig personage. Spijtig dat ze zo weinig aan bod komt.
Maar Shaw is en blijft een zalige feminist.
February 7, 2024
At the tip of the love triangle, Candida is torn between Marchbanks’ poetic affections and her husband’s somewhat naïve intellectualism. All are richly drawn portraits, expressing themselves eloquently and with sharp wit. To brutally paraphrase a quote I can’t find anymore: when Shaw’s plays were criticised for being “all talk”, he replied, “yes and a Rembrandt is all paint.” And it is exactly so, several lines of argument weave a tapestry of human emotion.
September 5, 2022
A domestic play in three acts. a love triagle involving Candida; an active, vivid and vibrant woman. Married to James Mavor Morell, an intelligent intellectual clergyman. and a very young boy named Eugene Marchbanks a poet who defies Candida's husband claiming that he loves her more which leads to a short clash between the two men. Candida is forced to choose one of them and she chose her husband as he is emotionally "weaker".
Burgess, Candida's father had a quarrel with his son-in-low and they truly to settle it once and for all. so they talked about business, religion and civil rights like fair wages, child labor..... things get a bit complicated when the reader realises that even the typpewriter Proserpine (or Prosssy) loves Mr. Morell.
the scene where Candida put herself in Auction for the highest bidder of the two rivals wag the climax her husband offered her his strengths while the shy young Eugene offered his insecurities.
An honest man feels that he must pay Heaven for every hour of happiness with a good spell of hard, unselfish work to make others happy. We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it.
-----------------------
if you want original conversations, you'd better go and talk to yourself.
-----------------------
That is what all poets do: they talk to themselves out loud; and the world overhears them
-----------------------
Burgess, Candida's father had a quarrel with his son-in-low and they truly to settle it once and for all. so they talked about business, religion and civil rights like fair wages, child labor..... things get a bit complicated when the reader realises that even the typpewriter Proserpine (or Prosssy) loves Mr. Morell.
the scene where Candida put herself in Auction for the highest bidder of the two rivals wag the climax her husband offered her his strengths while the shy young Eugene offered his insecurities.
An honest man feels that he must pay Heaven for every hour of happiness with a good spell of hard, unselfish work to make others happy. We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it.
-----------------------
if you want original conversations, you'd better go and talk to yourself.
-----------------------
That is what all poets do: they talk to themselves out loud; and the world overhears them
-----------------------
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews