What do you think?
Rate this book
Mrs. Warren's Profession
Modern parallels abound in the plight of Cambridge - educated mathematics wiz Vivie warren, who discovers that her comfortable upbringing was financed in unspeakable ways. shaw pits a clever heroine against a memorable gallery of rogues in this superbly inteligent - and still shoking - comedy, banned for eight years on the English stage.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 1898
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 311 reviews
March 24, 2018
Getting Biblical about this, should the sins of the fathers be visited upon the children unto the tenth generation? Does this apply to mothers too? Or shall we be a bit more modern and forgiving about it? The daughter in this play took the hard Biblical line and applied it to her mother, cutting her off from all contact when she found out that her extremely privileged youth and expensive education as a lawyer had been paid for by her mother's hard work first on her back and secondly running houses full of girls who also laid down to work.
She didn't, however, offer to pay her mother back.
Hypocrite.
Tremendously entertaining read featuring lots of good-natured people and one or two who weren't. It puts the pros of prostitution - self-employment, self-determination and high earnings mostly - against the cons - social suicide if you are found out and paternity of a child might be difficult to identify, chief among them.
At the time of writing, 1898, this was a shocking, distasteful story. Now whether or not it's shocking depends on who the prostitute is and her exact position in the world of whoredom.
A friend's daughter who had been working in a secretarial position in Hong Kong, turned up on the internet in the missionary position and whether or not she took private clients was kind of irrelevant after that. The family was shocked, horrified and ashamed but did not in any way cut their daughter off, but she attempted suicide anyway.
If we hear of a woman being a street prostitute to support her drug habit, we feel differently than if she had been doing it to support her children. And for women a little further up the scale, the call girls, escorts, part-time whores, there is a sort of good-luck-to-her attitude mixed with a bit of disgust as to why she couldn't find herself a more conventional job.
For those at the top of the whoredom tree, the girlfriend harems of the late Hugh Hefner and his like, there is often fame! Look at The Girls Next Door - Holly, Kendra and the rest, moved on from their $1,000 a week 'pocket money' and sexual obligations twice a week! (See Bunny Tales for details of their job descriptions!)
Mind, this disparity in reaction to prostitution has always existed at the top of society. The working-class girls were socially-unacceptable whores, but the aristocratic ones, working at the very pinnacle of society, were called 'courtesans' and the King's 'favourite' and other such euphemisms and much lauded for their beauty and connections. Now they are called 'celebrities" and "WAGS" (wives and girlfriends of footballers) and even 'trophy wives'.
The main difference between those days and now is that then social opprobrium was the likely result on people discovering you were a whore, whereas now, its more likely people will sidle up to you and say 'what's it really like, do you uh, enjoy it?' and want to know the sleazy, details! It was probably the same then but manners didn't allow them to say it.
Rewritten March 24th 2018
Original review June 28th 2011
She didn't, however, offer to pay her mother back.
Hypocrite.
Tremendously entertaining read featuring lots of good-natured people and one or two who weren't. It puts the pros of prostitution - self-employment, self-determination and high earnings mostly - against the cons - social suicide if you are found out and paternity of a child might be difficult to identify, chief among them.
At the time of writing, 1898, this was a shocking, distasteful story. Now whether or not it's shocking depends on who the prostitute is and her exact position in the world of whoredom.
A friend's daughter who had been working in a secretarial position in Hong Kong, turned up on the internet in the missionary position and whether or not she took private clients was kind of irrelevant after that. The family was shocked, horrified and ashamed but did not in any way cut their daughter off, but she attempted suicide anyway.
If we hear of a woman being a street prostitute to support her drug habit, we feel differently than if she had been doing it to support her children. And for women a little further up the scale, the call girls, escorts, part-time whores, there is a sort of good-luck-to-her attitude mixed with a bit of disgust as to why she couldn't find herself a more conventional job.
For those at the top of the whoredom tree, the girlfriend harems of the late Hugh Hefner and his like, there is often fame! Look at The Girls Next Door - Holly, Kendra and the rest, moved on from their $1,000 a week 'pocket money' and sexual obligations twice a week! (See Bunny Tales for details of their job descriptions!)
Mind, this disparity in reaction to prostitution has always existed at the top of society. The working-class girls were socially-unacceptable whores, but the aristocratic ones, working at the very pinnacle of society, were called 'courtesans' and the King's 'favourite' and other such euphemisms and much lauded for their beauty and connections. Now they are called 'celebrities" and "WAGS" (wives and girlfriends of footballers) and even 'trophy wives'.
The main difference between those days and now is that then social opprobrium was the likely result on people discovering you were a whore, whereas now, its more likely people will sidle up to you and say 'what's it really like, do you uh, enjoy it?' and want to know the sleazy, details! It was probably the same then but manners didn't allow them to say it.
Rewritten March 24th 2018
Original review June 28th 2011
July 19, 2019
Mrs. Warren’s Profession (1883) was first collected in Plays Pleasant and Unpleasant, where Shaw classifies it as one of his “unpleasant” plays. And, boy, is Shaw ever right.
Partly, this is because of the theme of the play: women are drawn into prostitution because of economic necessity, not because of a defect of moral character or the consequences of a disastrous love affair. This in itself is an uncomfortable truth for a Victorian audience, guaranteed to make ‘em squirm in their seats. Moreover, Shaw makes it even more difficult for the audience by refusing to manipulate their intellects by enlisting their sentiments. Both the women, the prostitute-turned-madam mother (Kitty Warren) and her sheltered, disapproving daughter (Vivie Warren), are hard-headed and unsympathetic, and both their male friends are rather sleazy characters, capable of flirting with both mother and daughter. Stop looking for honor and love here, Shaw tells us, and get back to the economic issue. That’s what’s important.
It is a noble experiment, and, although I think it could have used a little more heart, I found Mrs. Warren’s Profession both thought provoking and satisfying. I enjoyed reading it enough that I would like to see it performed.
Here are a few excerpts from Kitty’s defense of her life choice to her unsympathetic daughter Vivie:
But where can a woman get the money to save in any other business? Could y o u save out of four shillings a week and keep yourself dressed as well? Not you. Of course, if youre a plain woman and can’t earn anything more; or if you have a turn for music, or the stage, or newspaper-writing: thats different. But neither Liz nor I had any turn for such things at all: all we had was our appearance and our turn for pleasing men. Do you think we were such fools as to let other people trade in our good looks by employing us as shopgirls, or barmaids, or waitresses, when we could trade in them ourselves and get all the profits instead of starvation wages? Not likely. . .
What is any respectable girl brought up to do but to catch some rich man’s fancy and get the benefit of his money by marrying him?--as if a marriage ceremony could make any difference in the right or wrong of the thing! Oh, the hypocrisy of the world makes me sick! Liz and I had to work and save and calculate just like other people; elseways we should be as poor as any good-for-nothing drunken waster of a woman that thinks her luck will last for ever. [With great energy] I despise such people: theyve no character; and if theres a thing I hate in a woman, it’s want of character. . .
Of course it’s worthwhile to a poor girl, if she can resist temptation and is good-looking and well conducted and sensible. It’s far better than any other employment open to her. I always thought that it oughtn’t to be. . . But it’s so, right or wrong; and a girl must make the best of it. . . I should have been a fool if I’d taken to anything else.
August 27, 2022
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them.
Mrs. Warren's Profession ~~ George Bernard Shaw
#7 of my 2018 Shaw Project
Shaw's Mrs Warren's Profession was banned for nearly 30 years by a Lord Chamberlain who condemned it for being "immoral and improper." It has lost none of its edginess these past 125 years.
Mrs Warren's Profession is a complex comedy - not your typical satire or farce, instead a character driven story focused on the relationship between Vivie and Mrs. Warren. Complex in the sense that any of the older men mentioned in the play could be her father ~~ it's a harsh reality that is brought to light with a comedic tone. Without ever mentioning the word "prostitution", Shaw's play is able to delve into the moral taboos and consequences of the profession.
Mrs. Warren is a dream role for any actress. She is light and comedic when needed, strong and emotional at others. She drives the play even when she is not appearing on stage. It's no wonder Uta Hagen, Cherry Jones, Elizabeth Ashley, Joan Plowright, Coral Browne and Lili Palmer have loved playing her.
Shaw here highlights a still taboo subject matter and does so brilliantly.
Mrs. Warren's Profession ~~ George Bernard Shaw
#7 of my 2018 Shaw Project
Shaw's Mrs Warren's Profession was banned for nearly 30 years by a Lord Chamberlain who condemned it for being "immoral and improper." It has lost none of its edginess these past 125 years.
Mrs Warren's Profession is a complex comedy - not your typical satire or farce, instead a character driven story focused on the relationship between Vivie and Mrs. Warren. Complex in the sense that any of the older men mentioned in the play could be her father ~~ it's a harsh reality that is brought to light with a comedic tone. Without ever mentioning the word "prostitution", Shaw's play is able to delve into the moral taboos and consequences of the profession.
Mrs. Warren is a dream role for any actress. She is light and comedic when needed, strong and emotional at others. She drives the play even when she is not appearing on stage. It's no wonder Uta Hagen, Cherry Jones, Elizabeth Ashley, Joan Plowright, Coral Browne and Lili Palmer have loved playing her.
Shaw here highlights a still taboo subject matter and does so brilliantly.
April 29, 2022
1893 Shaw play about how economic systems create prostitution. The play was banned for several years and Shaw with a wink published it in a collection of his "unpleasant" plays that point to Victorian hypocrisy. Vivie Warren has been given every economic advantage by her mother, Kitty. She gets an an elite private education, a law degree, and a prestigious position. Mother has had little contact with her daughter, but now wants to reunite with her. When they do get together, Kitty reveals she was not only a prostitute but ran a series of highly successful brothels in Europe.
Mom wants unconditional love and acceptance, and daughter disapproves. Apparently squirmy audiences, who always have assumed moral defects in sex workers and can't even talk about "the oldest profession" and what is now a trillion-dollar business --separating it out from marriage or even attempts to use money to procure short-term sex and/or long-term relationships, don't generally want to see this play.
But ultimately this is a play about women's liberation and a critique of the aspects of capitalism and patriarchy that force women into what can sometimes be a high-paying profession. One of many Shaw plays that feature strong, independent women. Makes me think of also Victorian Ibsen's Hedda Gabler and The Doll's House, also still important plays. I don't think this is one of Shaw's very best plays, but it is provocative and funny in poking fun at societal hypocrisy.
Mom wants unconditional love and acceptance, and daughter disapproves. Apparently squirmy audiences, who always have assumed moral defects in sex workers and can't even talk about "the oldest profession" and what is now a trillion-dollar business --separating it out from marriage or even attempts to use money to procure short-term sex and/or long-term relationships, don't generally want to see this play.
But ultimately this is a play about women's liberation and a critique of the aspects of capitalism and patriarchy that force women into what can sometimes be a high-paying profession. One of many Shaw plays that feature strong, independent women. Makes me think of also Victorian Ibsen's Hedda Gabler and The Doll's House, also still important plays. I don't think this is one of Shaw's very best plays, but it is provocative and funny in poking fun at societal hypocrisy.
May 17, 2010
George Bernard Shaw was ahead of his time, and this play was banned when it was written (1893).
It exposes the hypocrisy of a society that condemns those who are not chaste, but does little to assuage the poverty that leaves some women few alternatives to survive (similar territory to JB Priestly's "The Inspector Calls", set less than 20 years later). Equally controversially, it makes a strident case for women's emancipation in general, whilst retaining Shaw's peppering of acerbic wit (Wilde with a social conscience, perhaps?). It also has a very modern ending, i.e. ambiguous and probably not happy.
Intellectual, highly educated and fiercely independent twenty-something Vivie is an only child who was farmed out to families and tutors, and barely knows her enigmatic but apparently respectable mother.
She learns that her mother used to be a prostitute and then made more serious money from running several profitable brothels in mainland Europe. Most of the play is concerned with Vivie trying to come to terms with this and how it affects her feelings towards the mother who wants to be loved unconditionally.
Vivie wants to be sympathetic, but struggles, "People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they cant find them, make them".
The main relationships are between parents and children, rather than lovers. The troubled mother and daughter relationship is contrasted in a minor way with a slightly awkward but mildly comical father and son relationship (Frank Gardener, and his father, the vicar). Less comfortably, there are dubious undertones of quasi-incestuous attraction and I'm puzzled at Shaw's motives for that.
Nevertheless, Shaw pushes a powerful message in an entertaining way. The fact that Vivie is not a warm character toys with readers'/audience's sympathies in a way that only enhances his case.
It exposes the hypocrisy of a society that condemns those who are not chaste, but does little to assuage the poverty that leaves some women few alternatives to survive (similar territory to JB Priestly's "The Inspector Calls", set less than 20 years later). Equally controversially, it makes a strident case for women's emancipation in general, whilst retaining Shaw's peppering of acerbic wit (Wilde with a social conscience, perhaps?). It also has a very modern ending, i.e. ambiguous and probably not happy.
Intellectual, highly educated and fiercely independent twenty-something Vivie is an only child who was farmed out to families and tutors, and barely knows her enigmatic but apparently respectable mother.
She learns that her mother used to be a prostitute and then made more serious money from running several profitable brothels in mainland Europe. Most of the play is concerned with Vivie trying to come to terms with this and how it affects her feelings towards the mother who wants to be loved unconditionally.
Vivie wants to be sympathetic, but struggles, "People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they cant find them, make them".
The main relationships are between parents and children, rather than lovers. The troubled mother and daughter relationship is contrasted in a minor way with a slightly awkward but mildly comical father and son relationship (Frank Gardener, and his father, the vicar). Less comfortably, there are dubious undertones of quasi-incestuous attraction and I'm puzzled at Shaw's motives for that.
Nevertheless, Shaw pushes a powerful message in an entertaining way. The fact that Vivie is not a warm character toys with readers'/audience's sympathies in a way that only enhances his case.
May 6, 2015
Read a play
I know that this play is a classic and there are a lot of people who like it. It just didn't do it for me. I thought it was boring and pretentious, and I literally hated every single character in it. Basically the plot centers around a middle-aged Mrs. Warren and her young adult daughter, Vivie. Mrs. Warren, or Kitty as many gentlemen call her, was absent for much of Vivie's childhood, and Vivie grew up a bit resentful and very independent. She studied hard and went to college, and has kind of cut out a very nice life for herself. She has a boyfriend named Frank who is an egotistical prat and Vivie only tolerates him half the time. Mrs. Warren comes home with one of her gentleman "friends" who instantly decides he is going to marry Vivie. Vivie, being independent, aptly refuses, and Mr. Crofts (our snobbish and entitled gentleman caller) decides to tell Evie what her mother does for a living. (Hint: she beds men for lots of $$$)
Well, once its discovered that Mrs. Warren owns a brothel, Vivie cuts her off, even though the generous amount of money that has gathered from this profession over the years has paid for Vivie's education, and given her a very privileged life.
Can we say hypocrite?
I dunno. I understand and respect the profound statement this play made on the people who first saw it performed and continues to make today. There are a lot of interesting and humanistic issues at hand here. And I know that it certainly would have been extremely forward-thinking and cutting-edge for its time (turn-of-the-century Victorian England). It just bored me to tears, and I could not find myself caring about a single character in it. Their relationships with one another were really odd, and at times very contradictory. They all seemed to love each other AND hate each other in the same breath. I couldn't find many redeeming qualities in any of them, and ultimately, came to this conclusion:
May 19, 2022
My favorite Bernard Shaw play for one reason, Vivie.
The plot deftly explores some taboo subjects of the time through Mrs. Warren and her family and male friends back in England. Mrs. Warren’s former occupation was as a high end prostitute and her current occupation is as a madam of several brothels around Europe. Several of the men, former lovers of Mrs. Warren, are suitors for Vivie, Mrs. Warren’s adult daughter who did not inherit Mrs. Warren’s great looks. So it gets a little awkward except that Vivie falls for no one.
I will cut to the chase so as not to ruin the plot. While Mrs. Warren gets title billing, the play is really more about those around Mrs. Warren. Let me just say throughout the play that Vivie is continually giving every one a giant middle finger. There is not one person in the play who she does not, playfully or otherwise, insult. Yes she is witty and yes she can be cold. She isn’t omniscient and doesn’t pretend to be. Her character juxtaposed against her aging mother foreshadows a coming change to Victorian society. This play predates the UK women’s suffrage movement but when I envision Vivie a suffragette is who I see.
Shaw evokes a good deal of sympathy not only for Mrs. Warren but for those women who were victims of the economic and social injustices and inequalities that led many into the prostitution trap. But it is Vivie, stubborn, independent and perhaps at times ruthless by Victorian standards, who marches headlong into the 20th century needing nothing from men or her mother or at least she thinks so.
MRS WARREN [wildly] My God, what sort of woman are you?
VIVIE [coolly] The sort the world is mostly made of, I should hope. Otherwise I don't understand how it gets its business done. Come pull yourself together.
Later
FRANK. No use, Praddy. Viv is a little Philistine. She is indifferent to my romance, and insensible to my beauty.
VIVIE. Mr Praed: once for all, there is no beauty and no romance in life for me. Life is what it is; and I am prepared to take it as it is.
The plot deftly explores some taboo subjects of the time through Mrs. Warren and her family and male friends back in England. Mrs. Warren’s former occupation was as a high end prostitute and her current occupation is as a madam of several brothels around Europe. Several of the men, former lovers of Mrs. Warren, are suitors for Vivie, Mrs. Warren’s adult daughter who did not inherit Mrs. Warren’s great looks. So it gets a little awkward except that Vivie falls for no one.
I will cut to the chase so as not to ruin the plot. While Mrs. Warren gets title billing, the play is really more about those around Mrs. Warren. Let me just say throughout the play that Vivie is continually giving every one a giant middle finger. There is not one person in the play who she does not, playfully or otherwise, insult. Yes she is witty and yes she can be cold. She isn’t omniscient and doesn’t pretend to be. Her character juxtaposed against her aging mother foreshadows a coming change to Victorian society. This play predates the UK women’s suffrage movement but when I envision Vivie a suffragette is who I see.
Shaw evokes a good deal of sympathy not only for Mrs. Warren but for those women who were victims of the economic and social injustices and inequalities that led many into the prostitution trap. But it is Vivie, stubborn, independent and perhaps at times ruthless by Victorian standards, who marches headlong into the 20th century needing nothing from men or her mother or at least she thinks so.
MRS WARREN [wildly] My God, what sort of woman are you?
VIVIE [coolly] The sort the world is mostly made of, I should hope. Otherwise I don't understand how it gets its business done. Come pull yourself together.
Later
FRANK. No use, Praddy. Viv is a little Philistine. She is indifferent to my romance, and insensible to my beauty.
VIVIE. Mr Praed: once for all, there is no beauty and no romance in life for me. Life is what it is; and I am prepared to take it as it is.
January 26, 2018
The Oldest Profession
26 January 2018 – Kuala Lumpar
Fortunately I have discovered that there are a couple of versions of this play on Youtube, one of them having been viewed over twenty-five thousand times (I believe that it is a performance), so when I have a bit more time, since I am currently out and about in Kuala Lumpar at this present moment, I'll sit down and watch it, and maybe write a more detailed blog post of the play. However, at this present time I'll simply write this review based on the reading of the play, which isn't always the best (though if you have read the review on The Widower's Houses, you will note that Shaw actually wanted us to read the play as well as watching it performed).
Like a lot of his plays, Shaw opens this play with a prelude where he not only discussed some of the themes that arise from the play – that is prostitution – but also the problems that he had in attempting to stage it (and the hypocrisy thereof). He did manage to stage it in 1902 in a Gentleman's Club (no, not that type of club), which was the only way he could get around the censorship laws – that is a private production. Mind you, this type of censorship is nothing new, and even today you will have some form of censorship, even if it is only self imposed.
One of the problems that Shaw faced involved the content of the play. As he points out, a play can have a rape scene, but as long as it occurs within marriage, that was okay. However, he also points out that this form of censorship only applies to new plays, because once a play had been accepted, then it is always accepted – so plays such as Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus were fine, where as his plays certainly weren't. In a way this was all about Victorian purity, but what Shaw was getting at was that this so called Victorian purity covered up a whole series of sins.
The play is about a woman and her relationship with her daughter. The afore said Mrs Warren is, or should I say was, a prostitute. However since her younger days she has moved up the ranks and is not only considerably wealthy, but she is also a part owner of a chain of brothels across Europe. This leads to some complications because it turns out that Vivie, Mrs Warren's daughter, is in love with a guy who could quite well be her half-brother, (and his father happens to be a vicar). However, due to the nature of her profession, it is not always possible to determine who the real father actually is.
What Shaw is getting at here is that society treats the prostitute as the wrongdoer, and we even have some rather cruel words which are used to describe a woman of such a profession. However Shaw suggests that this is not the case, and in many instances women are forced into this job simply to make ends meet. In those days women were paid the same as immigrant workers happen to be paid today – you could say that they were the Victorian form of the immigrant worker. The idea was that women shouldn't be working, and respectable women would stay at home and serve the husband. Actually, it was a lot worse than it was in the fifties, since during this time the woman was the property of the husband, and the husband even had the right to beat his wife if she played up (as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb, not that that justifies such an action).
Yet, as he points out, this is one of those vices that really aren't going to go away, namely because of vested interests that are involved. There are an awful lot of powerful people who gain a benefit from prostitution, and thus not interested in changing the laws to protect women, or to even pay them a living wage. In a way it is similar where it comes to immigrant workers – they are cheap. As an American friend once told me, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stay in business unless you use immigrant workers. Okay, there is also the case of the minimum wage being an issue across the board these days, however the question that Shaw is addressing has to do with the system that forces women into brothels. He isn't condemning the woman – she is acting out of necessity, and this is the attitude that Shaw wants us to understand.
However, the problem is that the play is somewhat dated when we consider the situation in which we live now. In pretty much every state in Australia prostitution is now legal (or at least decriminalised) and there are strict health laws governing in industry. This doesn't really change much though, except opening up a profession to women who otherwise would not have entered it (most 'legal' prostitutes are university students). Sex slavery still exists, as do the women who are attempting to support a drug habit. It is just that this has pretty much gone further underground. In a way there is a reason why it is referred to as the 'world's oldest profession', and it is a profession that is going to be staying around for quite a while.
26 January 2018 – Kuala Lumpar
Fortunately I have discovered that there are a couple of versions of this play on Youtube, one of them having been viewed over twenty-five thousand times (I believe that it is a performance), so when I have a bit more time, since I am currently out and about in Kuala Lumpar at this present moment, I'll sit down and watch it, and maybe write a more detailed blog post of the play. However, at this present time I'll simply write this review based on the reading of the play, which isn't always the best (though if you have read the review on The Widower's Houses, you will note that Shaw actually wanted us to read the play as well as watching it performed).
Like a lot of his plays, Shaw opens this play with a prelude where he not only discussed some of the themes that arise from the play – that is prostitution – but also the problems that he had in attempting to stage it (and the hypocrisy thereof). He did manage to stage it in 1902 in a Gentleman's Club (no, not that type of club), which was the only way he could get around the censorship laws – that is a private production. Mind you, this type of censorship is nothing new, and even today you will have some form of censorship, even if it is only self imposed.
One of the problems that Shaw faced involved the content of the play. As he points out, a play can have a rape scene, but as long as it occurs within marriage, that was okay. However, he also points out that this form of censorship only applies to new plays, because once a play had been accepted, then it is always accepted – so plays such as Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus were fine, where as his plays certainly weren't. In a way this was all about Victorian purity, but what Shaw was getting at was that this so called Victorian purity covered up a whole series of sins.
The play is about a woman and her relationship with her daughter. The afore said Mrs Warren is, or should I say was, a prostitute. However since her younger days she has moved up the ranks and is not only considerably wealthy, but she is also a part owner of a chain of brothels across Europe. This leads to some complications because it turns out that Vivie, Mrs Warren's daughter, is in love with a guy who could quite well be her half-brother, (and his father happens to be a vicar). However, due to the nature of her profession, it is not always possible to determine who the real father actually is.
What Shaw is getting at here is that society treats the prostitute as the wrongdoer, and we even have some rather cruel words which are used to describe a woman of such a profession. However Shaw suggests that this is not the case, and in many instances women are forced into this job simply to make ends meet. In those days women were paid the same as immigrant workers happen to be paid today – you could say that they were the Victorian form of the immigrant worker. The idea was that women shouldn't be working, and respectable women would stay at home and serve the husband. Actually, it was a lot worse than it was in the fifties, since during this time the woman was the property of the husband, and the husband even had the right to beat his wife if she played up (as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb, not that that justifies such an action).
Yet, as he points out, this is one of those vices that really aren't going to go away, namely because of vested interests that are involved. There are an awful lot of powerful people who gain a benefit from prostitution, and thus not interested in changing the laws to protect women, or to even pay them a living wage. In a way it is similar where it comes to immigrant workers – they are cheap. As an American friend once told me, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stay in business unless you use immigrant workers. Okay, there is also the case of the minimum wage being an issue across the board these days, however the question that Shaw is addressing has to do with the system that forces women into brothels. He isn't condemning the woman – she is acting out of necessity, and this is the attitude that Shaw wants us to understand.
However, the problem is that the play is somewhat dated when we consider the situation in which we live now. In pretty much every state in Australia prostitution is now legal (or at least decriminalised) and there are strict health laws governing in industry. This doesn't really change much though, except opening up a profession to women who otherwise would not have entered it (most 'legal' prostitutes are university students). Sex slavery still exists, as do the women who are attempting to support a drug habit. It is just that this has pretty much gone further underground. In a way there is a reason why it is referred to as the 'world's oldest profession', and it is a profession that is going to be staying around for quite a while.
August 18, 2010
Of the Shaw I read in my short stint as a dramaturg, this was my favorite. It bears all his hallmarks: feisty women choosing between an artist and a businessman, a basic farcical British romance plot, a hypocritical priest, lots of quipping about philosophy, and attempts to make the characters vivid and surprising.
At the latter task, he succeeds more in this book than in any of the others, truly turning the form of the light comedy on its head and committing to Ibsenesque realism. He still captures neither the minutely precise psychology of Chekhov nor the solid (if predictable) comedy of Wilde, but he does present characters that are more visceral and true than elsewhere in his work.
The characters do not boast quite the same implacable self-awareness that often marks Shaw's puppet debates. Instead, they prove capable of incongruity, uncontrollable emotional responses, and pique. His standard cast of allegorical types seem to chafe at the philosophical bounds Shaw always sets, allowing them to rise above their role as argumentative stances, as they never do in Candida or Man and Superman.
Shaw is always at his best when he lets his imagination run away with him, when he ceases to be obsessively concerned with the message he's conveying, and begins to write fluidly, naturally, allowing the characters to take on the aspect of living. A sweeping pen often captures more, in nuance and paradox, than a precise one does in the endless detailing of careful construction.
Of course, there must first be something within the mind of the author to spill out, and here, Shaw gets as close as he will ever get to admitting a real, central conflict in his philosophies. He is not merely stating both sides in reasonable, forceful, hyperbole, as is usual, he lets arguments fall apart, lets them be unsure and imprecise, and it is in these strange, unshavian moments of unsurety that we get the most interesting insights.
That Shaw let his pen run so freely seems almost an oversight on his part, when compared with his works before and since, but I suspect it merely caught him at a moment of personal and philosophical fluidity, when he was too intrigued by the procession of thought to remember to be the Ridiculous and Overbearing Shaw.
If only he had recognized the use of this ambiguity and embraced it, we might not have had to deal with the unfortunate polarizing mess of the half-sarcastic, self-loving/self-loathing, self-obsessed, larger-than-life Shaw as he wended through his unusually long (and unfortunately long-winded) career.
At the latter task, he succeeds more in this book than in any of the others, truly turning the form of the light comedy on its head and committing to Ibsenesque realism. He still captures neither the minutely precise psychology of Chekhov nor the solid (if predictable) comedy of Wilde, but he does present characters that are more visceral and true than elsewhere in his work.
The characters do not boast quite the same implacable self-awareness that often marks Shaw's puppet debates. Instead, they prove capable of incongruity, uncontrollable emotional responses, and pique. His standard cast of allegorical types seem to chafe at the philosophical bounds Shaw always sets, allowing them to rise above their role as argumentative stances, as they never do in Candida or Man and Superman.
Shaw is always at his best when he lets his imagination run away with him, when he ceases to be obsessively concerned with the message he's conveying, and begins to write fluidly, naturally, allowing the characters to take on the aspect of living. A sweeping pen often captures more, in nuance and paradox, than a precise one does in the endless detailing of careful construction.
Of course, there must first be something within the mind of the author to spill out, and here, Shaw gets as close as he will ever get to admitting a real, central conflict in his philosophies. He is not merely stating both sides in reasonable, forceful, hyperbole, as is usual, he lets arguments fall apart, lets them be unsure and imprecise, and it is in these strange, unshavian moments of unsurety that we get the most interesting insights.
That Shaw let his pen run so freely seems almost an oversight on his part, when compared with his works before and since, but I suspect it merely caught him at a moment of personal and philosophical fluidity, when he was too intrigued by the procession of thought to remember to be the Ridiculous and Overbearing Shaw.
If only he had recognized the use of this ambiguity and embraced it, we might not have had to deal with the unfortunate polarizing mess of the half-sarcastic, self-loving/self-loathing, self-obsessed, larger-than-life Shaw as he wended through his unusually long (and unfortunately long-winded) career.
May 8, 2021
4 stars
A funny readable play with hard truths and biting critiques. Absolutely radical. I loved it, and I’m dying to read more Shaw after this one.
A funny readable play with hard truths and biting critiques. Absolutely radical. I loved it, and I’m dying to read more Shaw after this one.
September 12, 2016
We get a more vivid picture of Shaw's style of social commentary-- again, there are no true protagonists and all characters are to blame (since they all belong in a certain spot in this aformentioned society). The men circle Mrs. Warren's daughter like sharks-- they are crazy post-Victorians who treat the "elephant in the room" (in this case, prostitution) as a mere triviality. It is not as witty as say, O. Wilde, but it exposes great truths in hyper-articulate strings of dialogue. I really enjoy these examples ("Widower's Houses," for instance) of the younger generation realizing and figuring out the macabre, uncaring strings of corruption in the society they were born into.
October 22, 2016
Shaw may or may not have become my favourite playwriter!
Very forward for its time, it deals with issues that are taboo even to this day, let alone the 19th century.
Very forward for its time, it deals with issues that are taboo even to this day, let alone the 19th century.
November 7, 2023
“Women have to pretend to feel a great deal that they don’t feel.”
January 31, 2015
Yet again a powerful play by Shaw wherein he makes an attempt to contradict the society’s norms and people’s hypocrisy towards it .
In ‘Mrs. Warren’s Profession’ Shaw shows how a mother’s profession turns a daughter’s life upside down.
Vivie (the daughter) is a highly educated woman, who wants to lead her life independently according to her own terms. She strongly believes in- simple living and high thinking, where as her mother Mrs Warren wants Vivie to flaunt her beauty and get herself a husband.
But as soon as Vivie rejects to marry one of her mother’s business partner grudgingly he reveals her mother true profession. Vivie becomes furious and questions her mothers’ choice of profession. Mrs Warren gives her own reasons and the circumstances, which were responsible for it. Vivie, obliges her mothers reasoning, but as soon as she comes to know her mother is still running the business even though they have enough money for themselves and also is responsible for destroying the life of so many girls she decides to disown her own mother though her mother claims that, till now what ever luxury Vivie had it was all from her profession.
Surly there arises a lot of question while reading this play. But whether to support Vivie’s decision or to sympathise with Mrs Warren, who had lots of hope from her one and only daughter is left to us readers.
In ‘Mrs. Warren’s Profession’ Shaw shows how a mother’s profession turns a daughter’s life upside down.
Vivie (the daughter) is a highly educated woman, who wants to lead her life independently according to her own terms. She strongly believes in- simple living and high thinking, where as her mother Mrs Warren wants Vivie to flaunt her beauty and get herself a husband.
But as soon as Vivie rejects to marry one of her mother’s business partner grudgingly he reveals her mother true profession. Vivie becomes furious and questions her mothers’ choice of profession. Mrs Warren gives her own reasons and the circumstances, which were responsible for it. Vivie, obliges her mothers reasoning, but as soon as she comes to know her mother is still running the business even though they have enough money for themselves and also is responsible for destroying the life of so many girls she decides to disown her own mother though her mother claims that, till now what ever luxury Vivie had it was all from her profession.
Surly there arises a lot of question while reading this play. But whether to support Vivie’s decision or to sympathise with Mrs Warren, who had lots of hope from her one and only daughter is left to us readers.
Read
May 5, 2013Typical Shaw! Amazing in its incisive insight into the bourgeoisie's hypocritical pretensions to moral goodness. Vivie Warren is a university educated young woman. She is unaware of the fact that her mother Mrs. Warren's profession was prostitution and that she is now the owner of several successfully running brothel houses. When she realizes the "shocking" truth, she boldly disowns her mother and her wealth. She wants to lead the life of an honest hardworking woman. What she fails to see is that her "honesty" and "goodness" are values she got through her mother's prostitution. In other words without the so called immorality there is no morality. Upper class values of truth, honesty, morality will not exist unless there exists crime, dishonesty and immorality. They are interrelated and we "educated" rich will forever be disgraced inwardly because we owe all of ideas of beauty and goodness to the downtrodden. Shaw beautifully puts forward this view through his play..i am not going to quote some of his brilliant dialogues here cos i want you guys to read it.
December 17, 2022
st joan + pnp marriage market
October 18, 2021
Adam Driver was in this play as Frank on Broadway in 2010! Quite a change from his performances in Girls and Star Wars. Can you imagine him saying "Kissums?"
To be honest I didn't really understand the play. It doesn't help that almost 15 pages in this edition of 80 starts with a very preachy "Author's Apology". I get that Mrs. Warren was very successful in her business and her daughter disapproved. What I didn't understand was
The mother is much more fun to be around than her daughter. All that "grind, grind, grind" didn't do much for her personality or her character in the play.
Currently available for free for Kindle on Amazon.
To be honest I didn't really understand the play. It doesn't help that almost 15 pages in this edition of 80 starts with a very preachy "Author's Apology". I get that Mrs. Warren was very successful in her business and her daughter disapproved. What I didn't understand was
The mother is much more fun to be around than her daughter. All that "grind, grind, grind" didn't do much for her personality or her character in the play.
Currently available for free for Kindle on Amazon.
December 28, 2023
This is one of my favourite plays by one of my favourite playwrights -- George Bernard Shaw -- so you may wonder why I am not giving this the full five stars. Answer: this is a review of both the play and the audio performance of the play, and there are just enough flaws in the performances (particularly Shirley Knight's on again-off again accent, and Basil Langton's grating performance as Reverend Gardner) to lower this performance in my estimation.
That said, Mrs. Warren's Profession is one of Shaw's tightest works. It is oddly short for Shaw, and his brevity makes his wit particularly cutting, while throwing a bullseye dart at the the center of the board that makes what he wants to talk about plain: the lack of opportunity for women in Victorian England and the stigma attached to those who do what they feel must be done to not only make ends meet but to flourish (as well as questioning the very idea of all of us being forced to just make ends meet). Yet despite all his heavy and important thought, Mrs. Warren's Profession remains funny and light and entertaining.
Add to all that the fact that it was banned in England for nearly a decade after it was first staged, and Mrs. Warren's Profession is a play that is dear to my jaded old heart. I remain on the lookout for a recorded stage version that does it absolute justice, but L.A. Theatre Works comes awfully close.
That said, Mrs. Warren's Profession is one of Shaw's tightest works. It is oddly short for Shaw, and his brevity makes his wit particularly cutting, while throwing a bullseye dart at the the center of the board that makes what he wants to talk about plain: the lack of opportunity for women in Victorian England and the stigma attached to those who do what they feel must be done to not only make ends meet but to flourish (as well as questioning the very idea of all of us being forced to just make ends meet). Yet despite all his heavy and important thought, Mrs. Warren's Profession remains funny and light and entertaining.
Add to all that the fact that it was banned in England for nearly a decade after it was first staged, and Mrs. Warren's Profession is a play that is dear to my jaded old heart. I remain on the lookout for a recorded stage version that does it absolute justice, but L.A. Theatre Works comes awfully close.
May 10, 2010
Rereading Mrs Warren’s Profession after several years, the surprise was how little we would need to change it to play it in modern dress. A daughter, having consumed an expensive education, discovers that her natural mother is a vulgarian working on the fringes of society, and decides to ostracise her from then on. In variation, it is the same theme as Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, which did the same thing thirty years earlier with a son and his ex-criminal benefactor. We could repeat the cycle with all those bankers’ sons, who were happy to receive the benefits as long as the prosecutors politely ignored Daddy's activities.
George Bernard Shaw’s genius is in extracting the main points without muddying the waters, and that is presumably how he came to fall foul of the censors in England and America. Traditionally, children in literature may support erring parents only as long as they make it clear that it is because of filial duty, and women may benefit from breaking social taboos, as long as they die in the last act. (Verdi had this down pat in La Traviata.) Shaw even explicitly rejects the weasel option of claiming that prostitution is merely a question of governance. Medically test the workers (but not the customers) and the objections disappear.
Shaw declines all the easy options and presents the matter squarely: No weeping, no invoking merciful deities, no plausible deniability. At the end, Mrs Warren marches off into the sunset to engage in another fulfilling and profitable workday. The daughter continues to enjoy the benefits of an excellent private education. Customers continue to puchase the services offered by Mrs Warren’s international chain of bordellos.
Shaw makes it completely clear that the daughter entirely approves her mother’s youthful decision to join her older sister in running a running a "private hotel", as the only decently paid “profession” open to poor young women with no talent in singing, dancing or hosting talk shows. She merely thinks her mother a fool not to have done as the propertied classes have traditionally done (and the older sister did), and retired into respectability as soon as the ill-gotten fortune is large enough to found a dynasty.
Ultimately, the issue as Shaw presents it is: Why is it acceptable to make a fortune out of factories or call centres, but not bordellos, when the real harm in both cases is to the ill-used, underpaid employees, in the case of "legitimate" businesses lulled into stupid self-congratulation at their superior “morality”?
George Bernard Shaw’s genius is in extracting the main points without muddying the waters, and that is presumably how he came to fall foul of the censors in England and America. Traditionally, children in literature may support erring parents only as long as they make it clear that it is because of filial duty, and women may benefit from breaking social taboos, as long as they die in the last act. (Verdi had this down pat in La Traviata.) Shaw even explicitly rejects the weasel option of claiming that prostitution is merely a question of governance. Medically test the workers (but not the customers) and the objections disappear.
Shaw declines all the easy options and presents the matter squarely: No weeping, no invoking merciful deities, no plausible deniability. At the end, Mrs Warren marches off into the sunset to engage in another fulfilling and profitable workday. The daughter continues to enjoy the benefits of an excellent private education. Customers continue to puchase the services offered by Mrs Warren’s international chain of bordellos.
Shaw makes it completely clear that the daughter entirely approves her mother’s youthful decision to join her older sister in running a running a "private hotel", as the only decently paid “profession” open to poor young women with no talent in singing, dancing or hosting talk shows. She merely thinks her mother a fool not to have done as the propertied classes have traditionally done (and the older sister did), and retired into respectability as soon as the ill-gotten fortune is large enough to found a dynasty.
Ultimately, the issue as Shaw presents it is: Why is it acceptable to make a fortune out of factories or call centres, but not bordellos, when the real harm in both cases is to the ill-used, underpaid employees, in the case of "legitimate" businesses lulled into stupid self-congratulation at their superior “morality”?
“SIR GEORGE CROFTS. Do you remember your Crofts scholarship at Newnham? Well, that was founded by my brother the M.P. He gets his 22 per cent out of a factory with 600 girls in it, and not one of them getting wages enough to live on. . . If you’re going to pick and choose your acquaintances on moral principles, you’d better clear out of this country, unless you want to cut yourself out of all decent society. – Mrs Warren’s Profession, George Bernard Shaw (1893)”
March 12, 2013
I thought of Shaw's play last week when reading
Populärmusik från Vittula
, Mikael Niemi's fine memoir of life in the extreme north of Sweden. In Mrs Warren, the action proceeds at a rather sedate pace. After an hour or two, it gradually becomes clear that Mrs Warren is a former prostitute who's turned respectable, and that the girl her son is keen on is in fact his half-sister. Tears, raised voices, shocked expressions all round.
People in Pajala are better at this kind of thing. When Matti turns sixteen, his father tells him that there are some important things he needs to know. "Oh shit, not the birds and the bees!" thinks Matti, who's already got some rather embarrassing sexual experience after being half-raped by a beautiful in-law at a wedding party. But his father has a different agenda in mind. He calmly tells Matti that his father - Matti's grandfather - put it around a bit when he was young, and three girls in the town are consequently off limits. Matti absorbs the new information and is disappointed; one of his newly revealed cousins is in a parallel class at school and quite hot. Oh well.
Now that's the way to do it.
People in Pajala are better at this kind of thing. When Matti turns sixteen, his father tells him that there are some important things he needs to know. "Oh shit, not the birds and the bees!" thinks Matti, who's already got some rather embarrassing sexual experience after being half-raped by a beautiful in-law at a wedding party. But his father has a different agenda in mind. He calmly tells Matti that his father - Matti's grandfather - put it around a bit when he was young, and three girls in the town are consequently off limits. Matti absorbs the new information and is disappointed; one of his newly revealed cousins is in a parallel class at school and quite hot. Oh well.
Now that's the way to do it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 6, 2015
This play of Shaw's was controversial when it was first performed.
A young woman, who has been well brought up and expensively educated by her well-to-do mother, finds out that her mother was a prostitute, then a madam. Mrs. Warren defends herself by telling her daughter that, given her limited opportunities, prostitution was the best option available to her. Society, by offering only starvation or the slavery of marriage to poor young women, conspired to make it so.
This play is thought-provoking still, but it has less of the Shavian wit than one who has read his other plays would expect.
The preface, however, is well worth the price of admission. It's an expose of the double standards of censors and theater critics.
A young woman, who has been well brought up and expensively educated by her well-to-do mother, finds out that her mother was a prostitute, then a madam. Mrs. Warren defends herself by telling her daughter that, given her limited opportunities, prostitution was the best option available to her. Society, by offering only starvation or the slavery of marriage to poor young women, conspired to make it so.
This play is thought-provoking still, but it has less of the Shavian wit than one who has read his other plays would expect.
The preface, however, is well worth the price of admission. It's an expose of the double standards of censors and theater critics.
January 15, 2017
February 1, 2014:
I read this play for the Modern British Drama class I'm taking at the university I attend. I found this one to be pretty interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more if Shaw's work.
January 14, 2017:
Re-reading this play 3 years later, to help my boyfriend get happily through a class where this is required reading. Found it strikingly similar to Widower's Houses in terms of the overall takeaway, despite the main characters of each having different stances at the end of each play. I found that I had forgotten how this play ends, so it was nice to refresh myself on it.
I read this play for the Modern British Drama class I'm taking at the university I attend. I found this one to be pretty interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more if Shaw's work.
January 14, 2017:
Re-reading this play 3 years later, to help my boyfriend get happily through a class where this is required reading. Found it strikingly similar to Widower's Houses in terms of the overall takeaway, despite the main characters of each having different stances at the end of each play. I found that I had forgotten how this play ends, so it was nice to refresh myself on it.
April 17, 2017
"I'm not a fool in the ordinary sense, only in the scriptural sense of doing all the things the wise man declare to be folly, after trying them himself in the most extensive scale."
A young lady, well-learned has trouble coming to terms by the means in which she earned her education and living. A mother, well-meaning is estranged from her daughter over her profession...
Charming and witty. A very fine work!
A young lady, well-learned has trouble coming to terms by the means in which she earned her education and living. A mother, well-meaning is estranged from her daughter over her profession...
Charming and witty. A very fine work!
December 14, 2020
Despre “Profesiunea doamnei Warren” se vorbește în genere ca despre o piesă care afirmă cu un curaj brutal adevăruri cu privire la prostituție. Acesta e desigur aspectul care a izbit în primul rând pe contemporani, care a provocat și interdicția cenzurii și scandal. Este cert că în asexuata atmosferă literară victoriana, o scriere in care unul dintre personaje este patroană de case de toleranță și încearcă să-și justifice profesia a avut un efect exploziv. Dar nu se remarcă îndeajuns nodul piesei - raporturile dintre Vivie si mama ei. Prostituția e o plagă a capitalismului și principala justificare de care se prevalează proxeneta Warren este ca pensionarele ei se bucura de condiții mai bune decât muncitoarele industriale pândite de foame si tuberculoza. “Profesiunea doamnei Warren” este un fel de reluare a “Casei de păpuși”. Campionul ibsenismului si-a plăsmuit o Noră proprie. Vivie e un personaj specific shawian prin onestitate și curajul gândirii, prin patosul adevărului si nevoia de a-l traduce in acțiune.
Spre deosebire de Nora, personajul lui Shaw nu evoluează de la stadiul de “păpușa” la cel de femeie conștientă. Vivie e arătată de la început sigura de sine, echilibrata, energica. Evoluția ei ține de dobândirea unei certitudini care ii va impune sa acționeze. La începutul piesei, repulsia pe care Vivie o simte față de cercul mamei sale începe să se transforme în suspiciune. Explicația din actul al doilea dintre cele două femei, model de dinamică dramatică,intervertește rolurile. La început Vivie îi notifică aproape mamei sale ruptura. Îi cere cu asprime să-și clarifice situația: “Cine ești dumneata? Ce ești dumneata?” După ce a încercat zadarnic s-o câștige cu lacrimi, doamna Warren redevine ceea ce este, femeia care i-a parvenit prin calcul și duritate și impune lui Vivie, susținând morala parvenirii, demonstrându-i că, pentru a învinge în viață, calea pe care ales-o ea e mai puțin crudă decât cea a proprietarului fabricii de ceruză în care sa tuberculizat sora ei. Pentru prima oară apare astfel într-o piesă de Shaw un fel de nietzscheanism simplificat. Dar morala parvenirii, elogiul învingătorului în societate au aici mai mult rolul de a servi, indirect, la critica generală a capitalismului. Vivie e sedusa o clipa. Atitudinea față de mama ei devine admirativa, tulburată, puțin umilă . “Cred că acum eu nu o să mai pot dormi” spune ea la sfârșitul explicației. Dar atracția aceasta nu tine mult. Află că doamna Warren continua să-și administreze întreprinderile mănoase . “Să renunți la o afacere care în anii cei mai răi aduce 35 la sută venit!” exclama indignat Crofts, asociatul doamnei. Și, din vorbele lui Crofts, Vivie isi da seama ca in toata existenta ei de pana atunci a profitat de pe urma “hotelurilor” celor doi asociati. “ De aci vin banii pentru educația dumitale și pentru rochia pe care o ai pe dumneata.” Vivie Warren e făcută din alt material decât doctorul Trench. Rupe cu desăvârșire cu mediul mamei ei și cu sursele ei de venituri, nu se lasă înduplecată nici de lacrimi, nici de blesteme.
Astfel, recâștigându-și liberatatea, Vivie porneste singura inainte. Solutia ibseniana a piesei e în acord cu convingerile lui Shaw cu privire la egalitate și independența femei. Dar mai departe drumul izolat al Viviei nu poate duce. Socialistul George Bernard Shaw cuprinde nu mai are iluziile individualiste ale lui Ibsen sunt cu privire la eficacitatea acțiuni individuale, nu crede, ca doctorul Stockmann, că “omul care ramane singur e cel mai puternic om de pe lume”. Drumul izolat al Viviei nu schimba nimic in societate. De aceea nu vom mai regasi asemenea solutii in teatrul lui Shaw.
Spre deosebire de Nora, personajul lui Shaw nu evoluează de la stadiul de “păpușa” la cel de femeie conștientă. Vivie e arătată de la început sigura de sine, echilibrata, energica. Evoluția ei ține de dobândirea unei certitudini care ii va impune sa acționeze. La începutul piesei, repulsia pe care Vivie o simte față de cercul mamei sale începe să se transforme în suspiciune. Explicația din actul al doilea dintre cele două femei, model de dinamică dramatică,intervertește rolurile. La început Vivie îi notifică aproape mamei sale ruptura. Îi cere cu asprime să-și clarifice situația: “Cine ești dumneata? Ce ești dumneata?” După ce a încercat zadarnic s-o câștige cu lacrimi, doamna Warren redevine ceea ce este, femeia care i-a parvenit prin calcul și duritate și impune lui Vivie, susținând morala parvenirii, demonstrându-i că, pentru a învinge în viață, calea pe care ales-o ea e mai puțin crudă decât cea a proprietarului fabricii de ceruză în care sa tuberculizat sora ei. Pentru prima oară apare astfel într-o piesă de Shaw un fel de nietzscheanism simplificat. Dar morala parvenirii, elogiul învingătorului în societate au aici mai mult rolul de a servi, indirect, la critica generală a capitalismului. Vivie e sedusa o clipa. Atitudinea față de mama ei devine admirativa, tulburată, puțin umilă . “Cred că acum eu nu o să mai pot dormi” spune ea la sfârșitul explicației. Dar atracția aceasta nu tine mult. Află că doamna Warren continua să-și administreze întreprinderile mănoase . “Să renunți la o afacere care în anii cei mai răi aduce 35 la sută venit!” exclama indignat Crofts, asociatul doamnei. Și, din vorbele lui Crofts, Vivie isi da seama ca in toata existenta ei de pana atunci a profitat de pe urma “hotelurilor” celor doi asociati. “ De aci vin banii pentru educația dumitale și pentru rochia pe care o ai pe dumneata.” Vivie Warren e făcută din alt material decât doctorul Trench. Rupe cu desăvârșire cu mediul mamei ei și cu sursele ei de venituri, nu se lasă înduplecată nici de lacrimi, nici de blesteme.
Astfel, recâștigându-și liberatatea, Vivie porneste singura inainte. Solutia ibseniana a piesei e în acord cu convingerile lui Shaw cu privire la egalitate și independența femei. Dar mai departe drumul izolat al Viviei nu poate duce. Socialistul George Bernard Shaw cuprinde nu mai are iluziile individualiste ale lui Ibsen sunt cu privire la eficacitatea acțiuni individuale, nu crede, ca doctorul Stockmann, că “omul care ramane singur e cel mai puternic om de pe lume”. Drumul izolat al Viviei nu schimba nimic in societate. De aceea nu vom mai regasi asemenea solutii in teatrul lui Shaw.
December 27, 2020
ACT 1
- Vivie is a "modern woman" that benefits from the money that her mother has. Therefore, she looks down on her "low class" mother and her career and such, forgetting the privilege she benefits from.
- Additionally, she remains rather hypocritical as under Capitalism (uwu), she also sells her labour and hence her body very easily? See: how her Mother pays her 50 dollars to take an exam
- Mrs Warren is afraid of Praed: perhaps because Praed as an artist and such represents idealism and a more hopeful view of the world than the pragmatic, ruthless one that Mrs Warren both holds and perpetuates.
- Frank really reveals the pragmatic view of love and marriage that his society has.
- The stupidity of Frank's father then serves to show 1) how moral authority in the play is perverse as well, truly imbuing the text with a sense of lawlessness and 2) how those who are of a higher social class may not be people of higher intelligence or moral character
ACT 2
- I don't understand why Frank flirts with Mrs Warren when he doesn't want her. Perhaps he's just a fun-loving guy. Who knows? Not me.
- It's quite ridiculous that the youth are ridiculing the older generation when they are in fact just as silly and materialistic.
- Vivie really reveals the extent of her pragmatism here when expectations are subverted - we assume that Vivie is in love with Frank, but she really just thinks of him as a fool.
- I think the part where Mrs Warren goes all "here's why sex work is okay actually" really speaks for itself. Uwu sex work was the only way in which women could achieve economic independence.
- "But if you lack those talents, she says, your best opportunity (if you are good-looking) is sex work. As a waitress or shopgirl, a woman lets someone else profit off her good looks instead of profiting from them herself." ~ LitCharts. This idea feels vaguely socialist though perhaps it just reminds me of the means of production thing when in fact it's quite different O_o
- Nya nya the world is sexist, to exist as a woman is to be exploited. Sad!
ACT 3
- Because of the transcatoinal way in which women are treated, Crofts expects Vivie to love him out of materialism alone. Sadliy, she's not like that, but his assumption still exists and he doesn't realise that she dislikes him until quite some time has passed. It reminds me of Collins' proposal to Elizabeth, except much less humorous.
- Oh no I'm Vivie I've been living off the money fo exploited women :(
- I think the point here is that Mrs Warren has grown from being a simple sex worker that does what she needs to to survive and gain financial independence to the owner of a brothel, a middleman that exploits the girls that come to her. The capitalism is coming from inside the house!
- Vivie's scholarship also comes from exploitative origins. Here, Shaw really starts to show the ubiquity of exploitation under capitalism.
ACT 4
- Praed's claim that he can expose Vivie to beauty and romance seems silly now that the world has been revealed to be so incredibly ?? political? Practical. Etc.
- Lmao not Mrs Warren trying to buy Vivie's loyalty as a daughter like... quite unsubtle actuall
- Vivie is a "modern woman" that benefits from the money that her mother has. Therefore, she looks down on her "low class" mother and her career and such, forgetting the privilege she benefits from.
- Additionally, she remains rather hypocritical as under Capitalism (uwu), she also sells her labour and hence her body very easily? See: how her Mother pays her 50 dollars to take an exam
- Mrs Warren is afraid of Praed: perhaps because Praed as an artist and such represents idealism and a more hopeful view of the world than the pragmatic, ruthless one that Mrs Warren both holds and perpetuates.
- Frank really reveals the pragmatic view of love and marriage that his society has.
- The stupidity of Frank's father then serves to show 1) how moral authority in the play is perverse as well, truly imbuing the text with a sense of lawlessness and 2) how those who are of a higher social class may not be people of higher intelligence or moral character
ACT 2
- I don't understand why Frank flirts with Mrs Warren when he doesn't want her. Perhaps he's just a fun-loving guy. Who knows? Not me.
- It's quite ridiculous that the youth are ridiculing the older generation when they are in fact just as silly and materialistic.
- Vivie really reveals the extent of her pragmatism here when expectations are subverted - we assume that Vivie is in love with Frank, but she really just thinks of him as a fool.
- I think the part where Mrs Warren goes all "here's why sex work is okay actually" really speaks for itself. Uwu sex work was the only way in which women could achieve economic independence.
- "But if you lack those talents, she says, your best opportunity (if you are good-looking) is sex work. As a waitress or shopgirl, a woman lets someone else profit off her good looks instead of profiting from them herself." ~ LitCharts. This idea feels vaguely socialist though perhaps it just reminds me of the means of production thing when in fact it's quite different O_o
- Nya nya the world is sexist, to exist as a woman is to be exploited. Sad!
ACT 3
- Because of the transcatoinal way in which women are treated, Crofts expects Vivie to love him out of materialism alone. Sadliy, she's not like that, but his assumption still exists and he doesn't realise that she dislikes him until quite some time has passed. It reminds me of Collins' proposal to Elizabeth, except much less humorous.
- Oh no I'm Vivie I've been living off the money fo exploited women :(
- I think the point here is that Mrs Warren has grown from being a simple sex worker that does what she needs to to survive and gain financial independence to the owner of a brothel, a middleman that exploits the girls that come to her. The capitalism is coming from inside the house!
- Vivie's scholarship also comes from exploitative origins. Here, Shaw really starts to show the ubiquity of exploitation under capitalism.
ACT 4
- Praed's claim that he can expose Vivie to beauty and romance seems silly now that the world has been revealed to be so incredibly ?? political? Practical. Etc.
- Lmao not Mrs Warren trying to buy Vivie's loyalty as a daughter like... quite unsubtle actuall
Read
April 2, 2024Pretty good — I was getting pretty tired of the sermons directed at the audience interspersed with cheap twists, but by the end he finally manges to pull out some real ambivalence. I guess Shaw was a contemporary of Nietzsche's, and it shows, although in a way that rather brings Nietzsche down to earth a little than elevates Shaw at all.
I dunno. I did kind of like this, although it left me with a queasy feeling that it has a "key" in some manifesto somewhere that will cause it to lose all interest once revealed.
You know what's better than flitting from sermon to sermon before settling in an arguably ambiguous place? Irony. I was like a parched man in a desert as regards irony here. Good lord.
I dunno. I did kind of like this, although it left me with a queasy feeling that it has a "key" in some manifesto somewhere that will cause it to lose all interest once revealed.
You know what's better than flitting from sermon to sermon before settling in an arguably ambiguous place? Irony. I was like a parched man in a desert as regards irony here. Good lord.
November 29, 2022
We went and saw a production of this with Caroline Quentin when we were in Bath. I was enjoying it so much I bought an early edition during the interval. I'm really glad I did. There were production photos from the 1904 (?) production which were great. The introduction by the author was SO good. It has so many wonderful points and the essay was worth purchasing the book for on it's own.
I simply adore Mrs Warren's speech about women's work. Definitely one of the best pieces of writing I've seen/read. The rest of the play is very funny. The only thing that seemed confusing to me as a modern reader was why the daughter got so angry when she discovered her mother hadn't changed her profession, when she seemed so sympathetic in the previous scene. But it was still an enjoyable play.
I simply adore Mrs Warren's speech about women's work. Definitely one of the best pieces of writing I've seen/read. The rest of the play is very funny. The only thing that seemed confusing to me as a modern reader was why the daughter got so angry when she discovered her mother hadn't changed her profession, when she seemed so sympathetic in the previous scene. But it was still an enjoyable play.
February 5, 2022
This is a tough one to rate because the writing was excellent and this would certainly be a good production as intended, but the immorality and message throughout is something I cannot get behind.
October 29, 2023
çok sarmadı ve bir yere bağlanmadı..
Displaying 1 - 30 of 311 reviews