Pygmalion First Impression.

I found Act 1 of Pygmalion to be very funny, it had a Hard Days Night feel to it. I can picture everyone feeding off each other with quick jabs and sarcastic tones.  I love conversation and Act 1 was great.

Without ever having read or seen this play it seems that it is going to try and make a statement on language and class. It appears to be that those in the higher classes even middle class people look down on lower classes. It was clear that Higgins wants little to do with someone he sees as below him when he first refused to buy a flower from the girl but later just tossed her money.

The use of language also appears to be something that will play a large part of the play as it moves forward. When we first meet the flower girl she is using a dialect that the other characters do not understand. She has to change her speech to speak to them. Also where she comes from seems to be looked down on.

Higgins is described in Act 2 as someone who is, “careless about himself and other peoples feelings.” That seems to be a common way to portray someone from a higher class. It is easy to make them look like snobbish pigs with no regard for anyone else’s feeling. It will be interesting to see where the play goes from here and finding out what commentary Shaw is making on society from that time.

The Simple Way is Always the Best Way

As I was reading the essay by Orwell I thought about my British Lit class. One of the issues we discuss in class is the acceptance of the English language by the so called civilized world.  We have learned that the English language was considered barbaric and only to be used by the uneducated. It took champions like Chaucer to gain acceptance of the language from the rest of Europe not only as a spoken language but written as well.

I was fascinated by Orwell's argument that the English language was in decline. How can a language still growing be in decline? A language that just 600 years ago was largely unknown and rarely used has grown to be the most widely spoken language in the world. There is almost no where in the world that a person can go and be unable to find someone or more likely many people who do not speak English, however I do understand what he is trying to say.

When people attempt to write sometimes they will use overly complicated words that they do not understand or predictable phrases that require no effort on the part of the writer. He argues that some writers will attempt to use Greek or Latin based words where simple English words would work. I agree with him in this argument. When I write it can come across as overly simplistic with some seeing it as not at the correct intellectual level for a university student and perhaps they are correct.

I decided to go back to school for so many reasons and  becoming a better writer is at the top of that list but until I become an expert in this language I think I will stick with Orwell’s advice from the end of his essay, “(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.”

Too Chose or Not to Chose

I was struck by the following statement from page 452 in the "What is Feminist Criticism" essay, "if from the male perspective it seems fluid to the point of being chaotic, that is the fault of the male perspective." The statement gave me pause more than anything I have read in recent memory and caused me to reevaluate "Wuthering Heights" in a way I had not done before. Perhaps the reason I could not connect with this piece of work is because of the feminist perspective it was written from.

I have to admit that my reading taste tends to lean towards male writers and that is something I intend to correct from this point forward. I see now that I have created a box around my literary experience and have grown comfortable in that box. I can never expect myself to be truly educated unless I am willing to see the world from other perspectives.

I had a hard time following this novel at several points throughout the story; it was so difficult at times that I felt like throwing it against the wall or even worse throwing it in the trash. After reading the first essay I see now that it was not only written from a female perspective, it used female language. As Julie Kristeva is quoted on page 452, "feminine language is "semiotic," not "symbolic"." This story is written different from anything I have ever read before.

I must also admit that when I read this novel I tried to find meaning in Heathcliff and did not give much thought to Catherine and what Bronte was saying though her. After reading Pykett's essay I see it from another perspective. On page 472 she writes, " In short, Catherine's story vividly illustrates the fact that no matter how powerful and ruling her personality, a woman, as defined in nineteenth-century ideologies of gender and the family, must always cede definition and control to others and she is always, at least potentially, a victim."  By reading this book and the accompanying critical essays I not only see the novel different I understand that I need to reexamine many things I have read. I look forward to that challenge.