Meggie's Last Blog (YAY)

Freddy: [opening the door for her] Are you walking across the Park, Miss Doolittle? If so—
Liza: Walk! Not bloody likely. [Sensation]. I am going in a taxi. [She goes out].

Liza’s line in Act III shows Liza’s obliviousness to her to her own situation, as she speaks without class, yet still expects to take a taxi like a wealthy aristocrat. Despite her embarrassing speech just moments earlier, in which she reveals her father to be a drunkard— a society no-no, since the policy among the well-bred on these matters seemed to be don’t ask, don’t tell—she cannot fathom walking like an “average Joe.” Rather, she seems to believe her fresh, attractive appearance and (unbeknownst to her) incomplete transformation make her too good to appease the charmed Freddy. Ironically, she declines his innocent offer using the word “bloody,” which is frowned upon in the upper echelons of society. Obviously, she is still in awe that a taxi is even an available means of transportation for her, as she declares that she is “going in a taxi” with “sensation.” However, she does not understand that her previous secret-spilling and use of the word “bloody” would be frowned upon at all, showing that she is not truly ready to be of the taxi-class. First, a true society girl would not interrupt someone who was speaking to her. On top of that, her disregard for his kind offer is very rude, for even if she did not want to pursue anything romantic with him, the polite thing to do would be to allow him one walk home. Her words as she departs reveal not only that her transformation is not complete, but also her own obliviousness that it has not been completed. She desperately wants to be the type of woman who can take a taxi wherever she goes, but has not yet learned the societal subtleties that go along with that “privilege.” Liza’s line shows that her polished outward appearance does not reflect the lack of change within her.

Blog #11: Doolittle's Needs vs. Character

DOOLITTLE. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I dont eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything...I'm playing straight with you. I aint pretending to be deserving. I'm undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. (46)

Alfred Doolittle's views on Victorian class structure present the social condition of a poor man who does not strive for the rewarded pretensions of "middle class morality." His words appear at first to succumb to the very vices a man of his stature would espouse: greed, gluttony, drink, etc. But then he begins to describe pleasures any man would enjoy: activities to exercise his intellect, lift his spirits...but laments that they are just as or if not more difficult to obtain than his "deserving" counterparts. Because they are from time to time graced with the charity of a higher society that deems them deserving, these men are given a subsidy in life that a man like Doolittle doesn't receive, though they face similar financial troubles.

Doolittle, like any other man, aspires to the same life they do, but is put at a disadvantage because he has to work harder for it...all because he doesn't fit a mandated description of "deserving." What can he do? Doolittle is honest about his faults but the woman who receives "money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband" might not admit that she's been given too much. Doolittle puts forth conviction in his interests--he is who he is, and how can he help that? He argues that he will continue to be undeserving because he is upfront about himself, and what he receives (or doesn't) as a result is unfair because "middle class morality" controls the variable of an easier life: a nebulous construction of personal character as opposed to an inculpable financial plight. His statement implies that society should equate the undeserving and deserving on the basis of a man's concrete needs, not his character (which seems to hold no bearing on his wealth...look at Professor Higgins)--echoing Shaw's own socialist views and acting as his mouthpiece for social criticism.

Act 2, page 38

In response to Pickering's genuine concern for Liza's wellbeing, Higgins displays his ironically selfish appreciation for women.

Pickering worries that Higgins will take advantage of Liza's low status and desire to be taught, and he therefore tells him, "I shall feel responsible for that girl. I hope it's understood that no advantage is to be taken of her position."

Higgins' response initially indicates that he respects Liza. He says, "What! That thing! Sacred, I assure you." Because Pickering's line ended with "her position," it seems that the phrase "that thing" refers to it. Because her position is a thing, it is not disrespectful to label it as such, especially because after doing so, he calls it sacred. But as Higgins continues to speak, it becomes clear that "that thing" did not refer to the thing of "her position," but instead to the living person of Liza herself.

After calling the "thing" sacred, he, according to the stage directions, "ris[es] to explain" this claim. After doing so, he says, "You see, she'll be a pupil; and teaching would be impossible unless pupils were sacred." Because this is an explanation for why that thing is sacred, it must connect the two words. But his logic does not connect "her position" to sacredness. It labels her as a pupil and connects pupils to sacredness. Thus, this explanation proves that "that thing" actually refers to the first object in Pickering's line: that girl.

How is it that he both objectifies Liza and labels this object as sacred? The same sentence that connects sacredness to both Liza and the thing (and thus the two latter to each other) also explains how such connections can exist simultaneously. Teaching requires the existence of (the object of) a pupil. Pupils thus enable his profession and, according to him, therefore have value. This appreciation thus comes only from self-respect.

Shaw uses a pun to deepen this irony. Higgins begins by saying, "you see," and then uses a word for student that doubles as the part of the eye responsible for seeing: pupil. The pupil of the eye is inanimate--a "thing"--and yet, it is that which allows the eye to see. This represents how Higgins sees Liza as a thing and highlights that despite apparently being an object, she allows him to teach.

Pygmalion Blog

Page 99

LIZA. So you are a motor bus: all bounce and go, and no consideration for anyone . . .

In this passage, Liza’s comparison of Higgins to a motor bus runs deeper than the fact that buses come and go. Literally, a bus has several uses; most importantly, as a means of public transportation. Higgins, like a bus, picks Liza up from a lower class and, through helping her to master language, brings her to a higher status. But what he doesn’t understand is that one location does not substitute for another. Give a person a far enough destination and it becomes extremely difficult to return. By taking Liza and thrusting her into a completely different environment, he changes everything she knows and is used to. She is no longer a mere flower girl now that she has gained awareness of being a “lady,” and she knows this. Higgins, however, has no consideration for the consequences of his actions and therefore cannot comprehend Liza’s fear and uncertainty. On one hand, he does become emotionally attached to Liza, but without first understanding the consequences of “eating an orange and throwing the peel away,” he can never win her affections. To put it simply, he’s like a bus that picked Liza up in the middle of Compton, exposed her to the luxury of Beverly Hills, brought her back, and now expects her to make the trek from the ghetto by herself. In a Givenchy dress. And heels.

Blog 11

Mrs. Higgins: "She's a triumph of your art and of her dressmaker's; but if you suppose for a moment that she doesn't give herself away in every sentence she utters, you must be perfectly cracked about her." (page 64)

This passage is said by Mrs. Higgins and suggests that Mr. Higgins cannot fully change Liza. It is not how she looks or speaks; it is the things she says that give her away. Higgins was successful in making her look like a duchess, but he cannot truly make her become one. He taught her how to speak perfectly, but this is only an external quality. A common theme of the play is how Higgins gets obsessed with his “art” and forgets that Eliza is actually a real person. She is not an inanimate object; it is much more difficult to change how and what someone thinks than it is to change their appearance. He also admits to Mrs. Higgins that he is “inventing new Elizas” (65). He is molding her into whoever he wants her to be, and this diminishes her identity. Because it takes a lot of time to train someone’s brain to think in a different way, deep down she will still be Eliza Dolittle the flower girl. Liza can look and speak like a duchess, but Higgins cannot change her past. This play shows that appearance can be used to hide the truth and that what we see can deceive us. Similarly, Higgins is sometimes blind to the fact that what he is creating is not real, but artificial. The fact that even Higgins is fooled by is own creation emphasizes the power of external appearances in society.

"You see, we're all savages, more or less. We're supposed to be civilized and cultured – to know all about poetry and philosophy and art and science, and so on; but how many of us know even the meanings of these names? (to Miss Hill) What do you know of poetry? (to Mrs Hill) What do you know of science? (Indicating Freddy) What does he know of art or science or anything else? What the devil do you imagine I know of philosophy?

This passage concretes the author’s claim that all people are essentially equal. For example, Eliza transforms from a flower girl into an aristocrat; in much the same fashion, Higgins is raised as an aristocrat but has the manners of the lower class. Shaw emphasizes this point by the use of “we.” By using “we” instead of “I”, Higgins equivaltes himself to Miss Hill, Mrs Hill, and Freddy – and the rest of society. Furthermore, Higgins overuses rhetorical questioning to reiterate his claims, not only by introducing question after question but also by addressing different people. This passage also undermines the importance of socially defined intelligence, encompassing superficial knowledge of science, art, and philosophy.

Act 3, Line 179

“MRS. HIGGINS. You certainly are a pretty pair of babies, playing with your live doll."

The single line demonstrates the direct correlation the play has with the myth, Pygmalion. Higgins sculpts Eliza, re-shaping her speech and her dress to pass her as something she is not. Eliza is a pawn in Higgins and Pickering’s game; she is the subject of their bet. What Mrs. Higgins sees that the men do not is the humanity of Eliza. She sees the young girl who, when Higgins and Pickering have completed their experiment, will be left with nothing except a better pronunciation of vowels. The selfish pride that Higgins has is similar to the pride Pygmalion feels as an artist. While Pygmalion (creepily) played with a non-living doll, Higgins adjusts a real woman—a woman who he does not see as a woman but a project. Mrs. Higgins sees the problematic situation keenly. She watches the Pygmalion myth before her, and how this story cannot conclude with the same joy because the woman is real, not a sculpture of fantasy.