The Uncommon-Common Metaphor in Shaw's Dramatic Criticism

Author(s): Martha Hadsel

Source: The Shaw Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (September, 1980), pp. 119-129
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40682612 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 05:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Shaw
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Uncommon-CommonMetaphorin
Shaw's DramaticCriticism
Martha HadseP

In one of hisfeuilletonsfortheSaturday Review,BernardShawcom-

pared two of England's best-known actresses,Janet Achurchand
ElizabethRobins,to GreatWesternlocomotives. He appliedtheanal-
ogyto underscoretheirunsuitability forrolesin "an ordinaryfashion-
able play,"observingthat"afterall,one does notwanta GreatWestern
locomotive tocarryone'safternoon teaupstairs."2Startlingand amus-
ing, the absurd combination of trainsand tea unmistakably conveys
Shaw'sappraisalofthepowerful stagepersonalities ofthetwowomen
and leaves an indelibleimpressionupon the reader'smind. Shaw
fashionedmany such imaginativemetaphorsfromcommonplace
materialsduringtheperiodfromJanuary,1895,to May,1898,when
he wrotefortheSaturday Review. Throughthem,he articulated many
of his thoughtsabout nineteenth centurydrama,bothforplaygoers
and forthoseless familiarwiththestage.
From the timehe enteredjournalismunder the pseudonymof
Cornodi Bassetto,Shawshowedthisconcernforhisaudience.As he
explainsin his prefaceto LondonMusic,he "purposelyvulgarized
musicalcriticism,whichwasthenrefinedand academicto thepointof
being unreadable and oftennonsensical."He feltsuch articleswere
"pretentious twaddle" (p. 29). To appeal to the"bicycleclubsand the
polytechnics" who read TheStar,Shawused some humorbuthe pre-
sentedhisideasmostly ina straightforward mannerwithrelatively few
of
figures speech.
The metaphorsShawdid add to themusiccriticism clearlyantici-
pated the skillthathe developed more fullyin his dramaticcriticism.
For example,Shaw'switflashesin one earlypiece (3 January1889)
when he describesthe aptitudesof the AlbertHall Choral Society
beforeSirJosephBarnbyhad becomeconductor:
It could hiss, it could growl,it could choke, buzz, gasp, seethe, and whistleuntilthe
AlbertHall was likethe King'sCross Metropolitanstation,withfourtrainsin,all letting
off steam, and an artillerywagon coming fullgallop up the Gray's Inn Road, whilst
somewhere at the heart of the hurly-burly All We like Sheep were being imperfectly
kept from going too much astrayby Dr. Stainer thunderingat the organ.
Another,appearingJanuary25, 1889,exhibits toselect
hisearlyability
thevividand apt comparison:forShawtheperfectfortissimo should

'Martha Hadsel is AssistantProfessorof Englishat the Wilkes-BarreCampus of The

PennsylvaniaState University.
2Our Theatresin theNinettes, (London: Constable and company, lyaz;, u, i*ö. cita-
tions in my text are to thisedition.

119

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
be likean avalanchethundering and roaringupon him,sweepinghim
away"like a featherwithits mere wind."Equallywitty, vivid,and
expandedcomparisonsappear elsewherein the musiccriticism, but
Shawturnsto metaphormoreoftenin his dramaticcriticism to add
sparkleand clarityto his remarkson the theater.
Exactnessin communicating his theatricalexperiencewas one of
Shaw'sconcernsin writing criticism.Explainingin hisprefacetoΡ lays
Unpleasant howhe "emergedfromobscurity" as a critic,he said,"AllI
had todo wastoopen mynormaleyes,and withmyutmostliterary skill
putthecase exactlyas itstruckme,ordescribethethingexactlyas I saw
it... ."3Oftenhe useda metaphortoclarify hisfeelings ratherthanhis
perceptions. In one suchfigure,forexample,he pictured conventional
society ina pillory"as a collectivefoolwithwhomwehavelostpatience"
(I, 234); in anotherhe calledartificial systems of morality "dangerous
engines"that"explodewhentheyare workedat highpressurewithout
safety valves"(II, 170);and ina thirdhe describeda groupofnewplays
as "merelyreshufflings of a tatteredand thumbedpack of old stage
cards"(I, 187). He expressedregretthatShakespearehad to be an
apprenticein the "shop" of the Elizabethans(III, 318), and he
explainedthata foreigner is cut offfromShakespeare"artificially by
thechangeof language"in a translation just as "a screen of colored
glasswillshutoffcertainraysfroma camera"(III, 344).Throughsuch
images,Shawclearlyindicatedexactlyhowhe feltaboutwhathe saw.
Shawtookspecialcarethatall hisreaders,bothliterary-minded and
otherwise,would understandexactlywhathe meantwhen writing
aboutcriticsin generaland hisexperienceas a criticin particular. To
helpassurethis,he used metaphorsdrawnfromcommonexperience.
For instance,by comparingfourof his figures,we can clearlysee
Shaw'schangingattitudetowardtheroleofthecritic.In earlySaturday
Reviewessays(13 April1895and 7 December1895),he usedanalogies
of a bootmaker and a general,respectively. "Criticisms," he said,"are
likeboots:thelow-priced ones are scamped,mechanical, and without
individuality; the high-pricedones are sound, highlyfinished,and
madebyhandtothemeasureoftheirsubject"(I, 87); and criticism also
maybe "a barbarous,murderous,demoralizingcavalrybusinessof
cutting downhelplessfugitives" (1,263). Later(22 February1896),the
experiencedcriticappears"sulky"butstillislike"a skilledworkman" in
thesimile"as sulkyovera newdevelopmentof thedramaas a skilled
workmanovera new machineor process"(II, 48). Stilllater(10 July
1897),however,Shaw'sattitudechangeddrastically. The critics attend
performances "as waitersattendcivicbanquets,withthishorribledif-
ference,thattheyare compelledto eat all thedishesand drainall the
winestotheverydregs,whethertheylikethemor not,so thattheymay

3TheComplete
Prefacesof BernardShaw (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1965), p. 717.

120

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
advise the guestsas to whichtheyhad betterorder" (III, 184). No
longerin completecontrolof thesituation,thecritichas becomean
abusedservant.In otheressays,Shawcomparedhimself toa youngwar
correspondent watching thedestruction ofcityslums(III, 129),a clock
thatalwaysstrikestwelvetimes"an hourbeforenoon"(II, 241),a goat
"tetheredin the littlecircleof croppedand trampledgrass[Shaw's
equivalenttothecritic'smileradiusaroundtheStrand]thatmakesthe
meadowashamed,"and a man,fighting a windmill, who is knocked
downeverytimehe getsup (III, 384).These metaphors clearlyindicate
thefrustration eventoreadersinnocentoftheater
Shawfeltas a critic,
criticism.
Frustration also appearsin stronger tonesinothermetaphors, espe-
ciallywhenthesubjectisthetheateraudience,whichShawwastrying to
educateto theNew Drama.His toneofcensureis unmistakable when
he describesan audience unappreciative of the playwright who had
triedtogivethempleasure.If theplaywright fails,Shawdeclared,the
audienceis "athisthroatmercilessly beforehe can recoverhimself(I,
94). Peoplewillalso beata workofarttheydislike"withanystickthey
can layholdof (II, 27), and thesixpenny and shillingplaygoerin the
galleryis likea pedestrianwhocursesyoubecauseyoudid notringthe
bellwhenyoupassedhimon yourbicycle, notbecausehe wasunaware
or in dangerbut because it is the law (II, 207). He condemnedthe
typicalOscar Wildeaudience,each personof whichcame to theplay
likean artist"withthebackground ofa laughreadysketchedon hisor
her features"(I, 11). The strongest attackof all, inevitably, was that
againstthe censor,who representedtraditionalaudience values. In
explainingwhythe now-forgotten CharlesE. D. Ward wrotean in-
feriorplayratherthanthebetterplayhe couldhave produced,Shaw
blamedtheLordChamberlain's reader,E. F. SmythPiggot,sayingthat
becausethecensorwouldhavestrangled a wellwritten playatbirththe
authorchoseabortionratherthaninfanticide (I, 37). Violentdeathis
notmaterialforwit.In fact,noneof thesemetaphorsexhibitsthewit
we have come to expectwhenreadingShaw'scriticism.
Anothergroup of analogiesin the dramaticcriticism seems more
Dickensianthan Shavianin tone,the imagescreatedby the figures
resembling vignettes ofEnglishlifefroma novelbyDickens.4In such
comparisons, Shaw showedhis readersa childpeeringintoa confec-
tioner'sshop window(III, 277), a mischievous youngster thrusting"a
turnip-headed bogie"inourpath(II, 190),schoolboys cheeringforthe
sakeofcheering(II, 199),a childbeingcoaxedintoamusement"inthe

4E. D. Mackernessin "Corno Inglese: Noteson theTexture of George Bernard Shaw's

"
Musical Criticism Renaissanceand ModernEssays,éd. G. R. Hibbard (New York: Barnes
and Noble, 1966), draws attentionto theirsimilarity.He also comments on the "apt
analogies which are found everywherethroughoutShaw's musical writings"(pp. 154-
155).

121

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 veryactofsetting up a yellofrageand agony"(1,9), classesofboysand
girlsmaking faces attheirSunday-school teachers(1,58-59),and a little
girlexplainingwhatherdoll meanswhenitsqueaks(I, 188).To some
of thesepetitdramas,Shawadded hisownwit.Thus Sir HenryIrving
playeda scene in Shakespeare'sRichard III "as ifhe werea Hounds-
ditchsalesmancheatinga factorygirl over a pair of second-hand
stockings" (II, 291); LewisWallerdeliveredhislines"withtheautoma-
ticgravity of a BromptonCemeteryclergyman repeatingthe burial
serviceforthe thousandthtime"(I, 254); and Ian Robertsonas the
GhostbeckonedHamlet"likea beadle summoninga timidcandidate
forthepostofjuniorfootmantothepresenceoftheLord Mayor"(III,
204). Althoughthe imagesare reminiscent of Dickens,the dash of
Shavianwitgivesthesemetaphorstheirown peculiarflavor.
Despitetheentertainment dimensioncrucialto each column,Shaw
believedin theseriouspurposeof hisdramaticcriticism. He saw the
criticas a gladiatorwho Fightsthe readers'battles,who saysthings
"whichmanywouldliketo say,butdare not,and indeed forwantof
skillcouldnoteveniftheydurst."However,toShawgoodcriticism did
morethanjustcondemnor praise.Ifthecriticwasgood,hisskillwould
be reflectedin the "well-turned" phrasesof his essays,phrasesthat
"ticklethosewhomtheyshock"and makethecritica courtjesteras well
as a confessor.5 It is thiswitthatadds thatextrasparkleto manyofhis
metaphors.6
One ofthewaysShaw"tickled"hisreader'sfancywasgivingfamiliar
imagesa new twistwithan amusingresult.That is notto say he was
aboveusingan old clichéin an old way.He did "look thegifthorse
carefully in themouth"(II, 279), hanga moralon a peg (I, 258), and
comment aboutthat"illwindwhichblowsnobodyanygood" (III, 59).
Perhapsin a deliberateattemptto mimicElizabethansyntax,he wrote
thispurplepatch:"Yetonce in a bluemoonor so therewanderson to
thestagesomehappyfairwhoseeyesare lodestarsand whosetongue's
sweetair'smoretunablethanlarkto shepherd'sear" (I, 25). And he
could use a poorlymixedmetaphorsuch as "actingwillno more go
downwithout plenty ofsentimentsmearedalloveritthana picturewill
without plentyofvarnish"(III, 59). (One hasvisionsofthetheatergoer
swallowing a largeoil painting.)Buttheseare notrepresentative ofthe
bulkof his figuresof speech.As RichardM. OhmannnotesinShaw:
TheStyle andtheMan,"one of Shaw'sfavorite tricksis totakethecliché
and reshapeit to his own use."7The old "skeletonin the closet"is
combinedwith"holdingup the mirrorto nature"to become "the
relentlessholdingup of themirrorto natureas seen underIbsenrays

^Prefaces,p. 717.
6Fred Mayne has writtenan extensive analysis of Shaw's wit,Tiie,Witand Satire of
BernardShaw (New York: St. Martin'sPress, 1967), whichdeals mostlywiththe dramas.
7(MiddIetown,Conn.: Wesleyan UniversityPress, 1962), p. 60.

122

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that pierce our mostsecretcupboardsand reveal the grin of the
skeletonthere"(II, 241). The familiarprotective "watchdog"is mar-
ried to the "barkingdog thatneverbites,"and the resultis ". . . the
skilledcriticmustactas thewatchdogof art,and beginto barkvigor-
ously.Unfortunately, he can onlybark;it is the managerwho must
bite"(1,214). Stealingsomeone'sthunderand ridingthewhirlwind are
mixedina Valkyrian portrayal ofJanetAchurch,who"stealsAntony's
thunderand Shakespeare'sthunderand Ibsen'sthunderand herown
thunderso thatshe mayridethewhirlwind fortheevening"(III, 80).
AlloftheseshowShaw'screativity inusingmaterialthatwouldremain
drab in anotherwriter'shand; however,the mostcausticuse of trite
figuresmaybe hiscommentaboutAmericanactressMaryAnderson:
"The worldwhichonce sentMrs.Siddonsback to theprovincesas a
failureprostrated itselflikea doormattokissthefeetofOur Mary"(II,
88). Shaw once commentedthatthe badnessof dramaticcriticism is
checkedbythetalentofthecriticwhichcreepsin"inspiteofhimself."8
That talentinShawmagically transformed tritefiguresintofreshones.
Whenhe used a metaphorto accentuatehis praiseforsomeoneor
something,such passagesalso demonstratedShaw's concernabout
keepingthereaders'interest.Insteadof selectinga flowery figureof
speechwhichcouldconveyinsincerity, Shawchosean imagetosurprise
and shockthereader,sometimes intolaughter.One wouldnotexpect
waror violencetobe thebasisofa metaphorina passageofpraise,yet
thatis whatShawoftenutilized.Ratherthanmakea literary compar-
ison withwhichhis readersmightnot be familiar,he decribesa
battlescenein praisingHenryArthur Jones'sTheTriumph ofthePhilis-
tines:thecomedyis"nottheusualshamattackofthestagemoralist: itis
courageous,uncompromising, made withsharp weapons,and left
withoutthe slightestattemptto run away at the end" (I, 123). In
praisingEdmundYates,one ofhiseditors,he said Yates"did notrun
awayfromhisownswordforfearofcutting hisfingerswithit"and "did
not beg the tributehe could compel"(II, 174). Strangelythe most
violentmetaphors - and themostwitty ones- are associatedwiththe
manShawmostadmired:Ibsen.KatePhillips,portraying Gina inThe
WildDuck,ispraisedfora speechwhich"wenthomerightup tothehilt
intoour midriffs" Eyolfiscomparedtotorture,
(III, 141).Little withthe
subscriptions toitpouringinso fastthat"therackis nowready,and the
executionersare practicing so thatno pang maymissa moan of its
utmostexcruciation"(II, 240). And some of Shaw's colleagues"still
devotedlykeepknocking theirheadsagainsttheNorwegianstonewall
[Ibsen]" (III, 6). The powerof the metaphoricalimagein each case

wasmadein a speechas guestof honorat theLondonCriticsCircle

This statement
October11, 1929.The speechispublishedinShawonTheatre,
annualluncheon, ed. E. J.
West(New York:Hill and Wang,1958),p. 201.

123

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
emphasizesthecourageor strength of thepersonpraisedbyShaw.
commonobjectssuchas thelocomotive
Similarly, mentionedearlier,
a tugboat,and a canal lock seem incongruouswithpraise,but are
surprisingly apt in thecontext.The unexpectedcomparisonof Miss
Achurchand MissRobinstoa locomotive emphasisinShaw's
addswitty
statement quotedin myopeningparagraph.The pictureof Bernard
Gould,steeringEstherPalliseradroitly "amongthesmallershipping,"
(1,22) reinforcesthecontrast
betweenGouldandothermembersofthe
castofThyrza Fleming.Gouldobviouslywastheone memberofthecast
reallyworking.Eventherustycanal lockseemsappropriatein Shaw's
praiseof MissAchurchforher rangeof voiceinLittleEyolfwiththe
highestnote"a creakliketheopeningofa rustycanal lock"(II, 261).
The vividness and witofthemetaphors added byShawmakehispraise
memorable.
In one passage,condemninga productionofJuliusCaesarat Her
Majesty'sTheatre while,conversely,praisingthe music of Shake-
speare'slines,Shaw has woven his comparisonsso tightlyinto the
commentsthattakingthemout wouldresultin a meaninglesspile of
rubble.Extendedoverthreesentencestotalling morethana hundred
words,the metaphorcarriesthe fullmeaningof thepassage:
When we come to those unrivalledgrandiose passages in whichShakespear turnson
the fullorgan, we want to hear the sixteen-footpipes boomingor, failingthem(as we
oftenmust,since so fewactorsare naturallyequipped withthem),the ennobled tone,
and the tempo suddenly steadied withthe majestyof deeper purpose. You have, too,
those momentswhen the verse,instead of opening up the depths of sound, risesto its
mostbrilliantclangor,and the lines ring like a thousand trumpets.If we cannot have
theseeffects,or ifwe can only have genteel drawingroom arrangementsof them,we
cannot have Shakespear; and thisis what is mainlythe matterat Her Majesty's:there
are neithertrumpetsnor pedal pipes there. (Ill, 301)
Removingthe metaphorwould clearlybe as fatalas removingthe
musicfromShakespeare'slines,notonlybecausethemeaningwould
failbut also because the lifeof the passage- the wit- would be
missing.
AlthoughShawdid laud thefewwhomhe feltweredeserving, most
ofhisdramaticcriticism condemnedratherthanpraised.As has been
9
pointedout manytimes,Shaw'sstancewasone ofopposition and his
thrusts
againstthosewhomhe perceivedas theatrical were
wrongdoers
in
givenspecialpower many cases of
bywittyfigures speech.

9Amongthose who consider thischaracteristicof Shaw's criticismare R. J. Kaufmann

in his introductionto G. B. Shaw: A CollectionofCriticalEssays(Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 1-2; BertoltBrechtin "Ovation forShaw,"an essay published in
the Kaufmann collection, pp. 15-16; Edmund Fuller, GeorgeBernardShaw: Cntic of
WesternMorale (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), pp. 9-13; Ohmann, pp.
73-106; Hilary Spurling, "The Critic'sCritic" in The Geniusof Shaw: A Symposium, ed.
Michael Holroyd (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), pp. 129-34; and
Mayne,pp. 3, 102-3. A differentview,thatemphasizingShaw's purpose as "champion of
a cause" is given by Alan P. Barr in VictorianStage Pulpiteer:BernardShaw's Crusade
(Athens: The Universityof Georgia Press, 1973).

124

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Duringhisyearsas a dramacritic, Shawseemedmostofall toenjoy
belittlinginadequateactorsand actresses inthevariousproductions he
reviewed.Sometimeshis unfavorableremarksweredirect.At other
times,he used witbutitsbitewas mild.For example,thewitis nearly
non-existent in Shaw'swarningto Sarah Bernhardtthattheaudience
will accept only "first-rate actingdown on the counter,withouta
moment'scredit"(I, 162); in hisobservationthatArthurCecil'slines
were"aboutas characteristic andhumanas theinstructions on theback
of a telegramform"(I, 107); and in his commentsthatMr. Waller's
performanceas Brutuswas at best "a water-color" (III, 300). The
readerswouldbe amusedwhentheyreadthata "whitewigand painted
wrinkles"wouldnotturnthe"quicksilver" in GilbertHare's legsinto
"chalkstones" (III, 291),thatSirJohnston Forbes-Robertson as Romeo
"laidout Parisafterkilling himas carefullyas ifhe werefoldingup his
bestsuitof clothes"(I, 202), and thatWilliamMorris,portraying an
Archbishop, presented"hisownpersonto theaudiencelikea lantern
withthelightblownout"(II, 213). Forthoseinvolved,thestingproba-
bly hurt;but for amused readersthe metaphorsprobablyseemed
relativelymild. On the otherhand, Shaw sometimesused sharp
ridiculein condemningbad acting.Thus, a Parisianactor's"peculiar
mechanicalcadence" was learned"as brainlessly as a costermonger
learnshis citycry"(III, 174). Sarah Bernhardtneeded only"a mere
head ofsteam... to produceBernhardtian explosionswiththerequi-
site regularity" (I, 147) and she read a line in Alfredde Musset's
Lorenzaccio as ifitwerethesentimental messageinsidea fortune cookie
(III, 175). Ellen Terryand Madame Rejane were like "twoathletes
throwingthe hammerten feet"(III, 109), and John Hare, whose
pacingincomedywasconsideredtoofastbyShaw,pickedup a cue "as
ifitwerea cricketballtobe smartly fielded"(I, 28 1).The barkingdog
definitely bitin theseinstances.
Some of the wittiest metaphorsin passagesabout thespiansdrew
uponShaw'sexperiences as thesonofa musicianand as a formermusic
critic.In one ofthemheridiculedSarahBernhardt, oftenthevictim of
his sharpestjibes, forhavinga rangeof onlyan octaveand a halfon
whichsheplayed"suchpretty canzonetsand stirring marches"(1,152);
and inanotherhe saidsheshould"add a completesetofstringstoher
lyre"(I, 162).He comparedotheractorstomusicians:Olga Nethersole
touchednothing"withoutfirstpoisingher hand above it like ... a
pianist'sfingers descendingon a chord"(1,128); CharlotteGranvilleas
the Queen in Hamletwas like "a fashionablemodernmandolinist"
playingHaydn'ssonatas(III, 204); and WilsonBarrettcould no more
playOthelloproperly than"soundthebottomC on a violincello [a note
thatdoes not exist]"(III, 148). Of all, his favoriteinstrument for
metaphorremainedtheorgan.SirJohnstonForbes-Robertson's voice
was"an organwithonlyone stopon it"(I, 17);SarahBernhardt, like"a
sentimental New Englandvillagerwithan Americanorgan"10always

125

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
keptthevoixceleste stoppulledout (I, 137); and MissAchurchdanced
"on the keyboardof a great organ withall the stops pulled out"
(III, 78). One feelsthatShaw had funcreatingthesejuxtapositions
becausetheycombinedhis twoloves: theaterand music.
Equallywittyamong metaphorsassociatedwithactingis a group
dealingwiththe sea, relatedeitherto disasteror to rescue.Three
describecatastrophes:MissTerrysailed "the Lyceumship intothe
shallowsofSardoodledom"(III, 105)11;twoactresseswereswampedin
a teardeluge(I, 79),and pathossuddenlyrosetosubmergea character
in "an ocean of grief1(I, 75). In othermetaphors,Miss Achurchis
commendedforhavingborneherunnamedfellowactor"witha strong
hand througha troubledocean of forgetfulness, unpreparedness,
inexpertness and generalignominyand confusion"(I, 233); and Mr.
Gouldis consoledbeause "all he could do was to towthewreckof his
partintoharborwithout a catastrophe" (I, 244). In one of Shaw'suses
ofirony,treatment ofcastaways newlyrescuedbecomesan appropriate
metaphorwhenDame Madge Kendal is toldone shouldnotfeedthe
starving Londonplaygoers a fullmealatonce;ingivingthem"morein
the firstten minutesthantheyhave had in the last fiveyears"she
caused the"poor wretches"to becomehysterical (II, 157). Similarly,
theaudienceata performance ofCastebyT. W. Robertsonshowedthe
eagernesswithwhich"an ocean castaway,suckinghisbootlacesin an
agonyof thirstin a sublimedesertof saltwater,would pounceon a
spoonfulof flatsalutarisand thinkit nectar'(III, 166). Once again
Shawtookan imageguaranteedtointerest thereader- shipwreck and
-
rescue and fromitcreatedmetaphorsthat uniquelyare his.
ThroughmetaphorShawalsoexcoriatedcontemporary playwrights
iftheirproductions did notagree withhis ideas aboutdrama.As he
saidin hisapologyprefacing OurTheatres intheNineties, ". . . as a ruleI
setup myownstandardofwhatthedramashouldbe and howitshould
be presented;and I usedall myarttomakeeverydeviationinaimingat
thisstandard,everyrecalcitrance in approachingit,everyrefusalto
it
accept seem ridiculousand old-fashioned."12 One wayhe ridiculed
wasthroughhismetaphors. SometimesShawspecifically criticized one

'""American" sometimesis used by Shaw as a derogatoryterm. For example, in The

Millionairess, he talksof "stale American syntheticcheese" (The Bodley Head Bernard
Shaw, VI, 918); in Geneva,he describesAmerican democracyas "mob law, lynchinglaw,
gangsterlaw" (VII, 120); in in GoodKingCharles'sGoldenDays the Protestantswillbe sent
"to hell, or to the American plantations,whichevertheyprefer"(VII, 251); and in The
DeviVsDiscipleBurgoyne would not dream of "hanging any gentleman by an American
clock" (II, 138). ArthurH. Nethercothas writtenan article,"What Shaw ReallyThought
of Americans,"The Shaw Review,III (May 1960), 2-8, dealing withthis topic.
1' "Sardoodledom" is a termcoined Shaw in an
by essay so titled(I, 133-40). It refersto
VictorienSardou, who wrote well-made plays.
i2OurTheatres,p. v.

126

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 aspectofa play:MichaelandHisLostAngelbyHenryArthur Jonesdid
nothaveas muchan endingas "a sloppingup oftheremainsofthetwo
poorcreatures"(II, 17),andj. ComynsCarrinKingArthur draggedSir
HenryIrving"downfromtheheightoftheloftiest passageinhisacting
totheabyssofthelowestdepthofthedialogue"becausehe ignoredthe
modernemancipatedattitudetowardwomenin one of thescenes(I,
16). Shawalso condemnedsomeplaysofthepast,comparingthoseof
the Elizabethansother than Shakespeareto a dust heap whichis
thrown"indiscriminately intothe'destructor' "
despiteitsvariety(II,
183). He dislikedcertainproductionsof Shakespearebecause the
performers did notappreciatethemusicofhislines.One had tolisten
to Shakespeare'smusic"as one mightlistento a symphony of Beeth-
oven'swithall the partsplayedon thebones,the big drum,and the
Jew'sharp"(I, 204); oriftherewasone goodactor,Shakespearebegan
to "stiruneasilyand shew signsof quickening"untilothersin the
productiontookup the"word"and struckhimdead (I, 26).
Mostoften,though,Shawfoundfaultwiththelowlevelofcontem-
porarydramaand here,too,he employedthestriking metaphor.For
Shaw,mostnewplaysaimedat a vulgardreamand even thenmissed
theirmark(II, 58), and the newcrop of playsseemed"deliberately
selectedforproductionbecauseof the veryabjectnessand venality
whichwitheredthem,harvestless, almostas soon as theywereabove
ground"(I, 274). Dramasthatborrowedweaklyfromothersources
particularly annoyedShaw.EdwardRosein UndertheRedRobewrote
"exactlyas he mightcollectminiaturesand snuffboxes"(II, 227);
G. StuartOgilvieinTheSinofSt.Huldaused themethodof"bringing a
reapingmachinetogleana cropfroma fieldaftertheharvest"(II, 99),
and EustonLeighand CyrilClarein writing TheDuchessofCoolgardie
werelikea manwho,afternoticingthatpeople"furtively treasureup
and carryabouta withered rosepetalor two"decidedto"opena shop
forthesaleoffadedflowers" (II, 204).To Shaw,suchwriters had taken
the easywayout,just as had thosewho wrote"thewell-madeplay."
SydneyGrundy'simagination was"stretched and tortured... on the
Procrustean framework [themythic image,foundin Bullfinch, would
"
even be familiarto childrenin Shaw'sday] of 'the well-madeplay'
(I, 4), and characters
lackedindividuality insucha "mechanicalrabbit
play"(II, 107).Obviouslynoneoftheseplaywrights couldmeasureup
to Shaw's favorite,Ibsen,who had a moralconsciousnessthattran-
scendedbyfar"thecommonhuckstering conception oflifeas a tradein
happinessin whichsorrowsand tearsrepresentthebad bargainsand
joys and happinessthegood ones" (III, 126) and whocreatedin his
audience"thetasteforglimpsesintotheengineroomunderthedecks
of society"(III, 161). The disdainShaw feltformostof his contem-
porariespermeatestheimageshe used to describetheirwork.
ConfrontingShaw's metaphors,one can quicklydiscernhis in-
genuityat adaptinghisfiguresto hisaudience.A similaraptitudecan

127

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
be observedin his allusionsto classical,Biblical,and contemporary
literature. He talksof Laocoon,Troy,and theParables;he speaksof
the AncientMarinerand of Don Quixote, all of whom would be
generallyknownto readersof Shaw's day. Mostof all, he refersto
Dickens.In "Dickensas ShavianMetaphor,"MartinQuinn pointsto
the prevalenceof such allusionsand the respectShaw had forthe
novelist,statingthat"As an habitualself-dramatizer Shaw enjoyed
bringing Dickensintotheactas an irrefutable
authority, a touchstone,
and - in essence- a metaphor."13
That Shaw tooksuch pleasureis evidentin his manyallusionsto
Dickens's charactersin the dramaticcriticism.MartinChuzzlewit,
David Copperfield,Pickwick,Dolly Varden, the ArtfulDodger,
Pecksniff, and manyotherfavorites fromthe novelsprovidedready
comparisons ifShawwantedto makea point.Sam Weller'swordsare
quoted:Shawfindshimselfrepeating, "You rayther wantsomebodyto
look arteryou, sir, ven yourjudgmentgoes out a wisitin',"when
Comyns Carr appearsbeforetheaudience afterSardou's DeliaHarding
(I, 97). In a borrowing from Dickens'sSimon Tappertit, "Tappertitian"
servesas an adjective:the "Tappertitianvulgarityand infamy"of
Guinevere'sgrovelingbeforeArthurin Carr'sKingArthur causes the
playgoer's to
"gorge" rise(I, 15),and Ogilvie has a "rather Tappertitian
opening"in TheSin ofSt. Hulda whenPrinceOtho makesa haughty
noblecleanhisbootspublicly(II, 100).Appearingmostoftenofallare
theCrummleses.AugustinDaly mustbe told thathe stands"on the
brinkof the twentieth centuryin London and not withMr. Vincent
Crummies at Portsmouth in the early Dickensdays" (I, 163); the
undesirableoccurrenceof all charactersspeakingexactlyalikeis "the
logicaloutcomeof imitation, and of thecommonacademicsystems as
at
taught Conservatoires by and Mr. Vincent Crummies" (II, 39); a
swordplaybetweentwocharacters inUndertheRed Robe is "quiteinthe
mannerofthecombatbetweenthetwoMasterCrummleses" (II, 244);
FrancesIvor deliversa speech "in the traditionalMrs. Crummies
Manner"(III, 150); and Sir HenryIrvingas KingArthurgoes "sol-
emnlythrougha Crummiesbroadswordcombatwithgreatbeautyof
deportment ina costumedesignedbyBurne-Jones" (III, 193).Because
ofthefamiliarity ofhisreaderswithDickens,choosingthesecharacters
enabledShawtohavea recognizableas wellas witty metaphoreasilyat
hand.
Shaw's mostextensiveuse of a figureof speech combinesboth
metaphorand classicalallusionto unifyan entirecriticism, thaton
John Förster and GeorgeHenryLewes's Dramatic Essays.Starting with
theeternaltorture ofSisyphus(anothermythfamiliar fromBullfinch),
he constructed hisopeningparagraphon thefoundation ofthelegend

i3ThtShaw Review,XVIII (May 1975), 44-56.

128

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
bycomparinghis laborsas a criticto thoseof Sisyphus:
. . . everyweekI rollmyheavystonetothetopofthehill;and everyweekI finditatthe
bottomagain.To thepublicthetumbling downof thestoneis thepointofthewhole
business:theyliketosee itplungingandboundingand racingina flying cloudofdust,
blackening theeyesofa beautiful
actresshereand catching
an eminent actor-
manager
inthewindthere,flattening outdramatists, theatres
demolishing andgenerallytaking
a greatdealon itself, itssize.Buttheworstofit(frommypointofview)is
considering
thatwhenit is all over I am theonlypersonwhois a pennytheworse. . . nothing
remainsof mytoyavalanchebutthestoneat myfeetto be rolledup againbeforethe
fatigueof thelastheaveis outof mybones.(II, 159-60)
Quite unexpectedly, the metaphorappearsagain in the middleof a
paragraph on Lewes and wesee thatcriticrollinghisownstoneup the
hill,"dissemblingitshugeweight, and apparently kickingitat random
hitherand thither in purewantonness" In
(II, 161). a masterful touch,
Shawconcludedhisarticlewith"howstaleitall seems!howhopeless!
howheavilythestoneof Sisyphusgoes up along thistrackin thehot
weather!"(II, 165). Thus he managedto getprotracted and contrast-
ing use out a the
metaphor ordinary writer would extend foronlyone
sentence.
"Ordinary,""usual,""average,""common"- theseadjectivescer-
tainlydo notdescribeShawas prosestylist, buttheydo suittheimages
of his metaphors.As critiche wiselyelectedto glean his figurative
materialsfromthe "average"experienceof the "ordinary"man,the
"common"bodyof knowledgeamonghis potentialreaders.Because
thisperceptionworked,Shaw'stheatrical columnsnotonlywerebetter
comprehendedby contemporaries have also enduredbeyond
his but
his lifetime.

NOTICE
Dan H. Laurencehascompileda brieflistof"Errataand Addenda"for
Shaw:AnExhibit,hiscatalogueof thenow-legendary exhibitionat the
HumanitiesResearchCenter,The University of Texas at Austin,in
1977-8.The editorofTheShawReviewwillbe pleasedtosupplya copy
ofthelisttoanyreaderwhosendshima stamped,addressedenvelope.

129

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions