But what about Higgins? It is almost as if Shaw left out Higgins's past and future. When we first meet Higgins, he is the same man that he will remain when the play ends. The only person we know of in his family is his mother. We meet a pupil of his, but any solid information regarding his past and up bringing is left out. This causes Higgins to be stagnant in his life. He can not develop his character because there is past life experiences to base them on.
Though one may argue that Higgins's has grow to care about Eliza, this small feat is nothing compared to Eliza's grand transformation and struggle to overcome societal views. Higgins did not reach any catharsis or change dramatically. He remained the same, antisocial professor that Shaw introduce in Act I, and his final words give nothing into what he will do next, only what Eliza will do. This causes a challenge within the reader to decide why they believe Higgins is the man he is.
This is totally new idea to me. It seems like a coincidence at first, but your logic (or at least the presence and/or semblance of logic) convinces me that this idea has substance. It almost seems as if it's some grand philosophy about life. Then I think that it looks too big to not be the obvious, main theme of Pygmalion. Then I remember that Shaw is supposedly a subversive rebel to standards. Now, as I type this, I think I see flaws in my view of your idea. What if the lack of history only means that the character development isn't that obvious, rather than a lack of one. Perhaps Higgins was Jack the Ripper, the serial killer of prostitutes. Maybe his time with Eliza made him change and not kill a young woman under his influence. Maybe I'm over thinking this, but your idea seems too big to go unnoticed. Good work, Tara.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I understand where you are coming from. I like your idea of the character development being less obvious and hidden deep within his actions. But this idea leaves me with one unanswered question: why is Eliza's development highly focused and HIggins's growth stripped of attention?
ReplyDeleteBut as you mentions, Shaw is "a subversive rebel to standards" and this point could answer that question. To prove the validity of your point, evidence can be found in Act I, when the characters are first introduce. Eliza is introduced first. Shaw presents her as a loud, outgoing flower girl. She captivates all the readers attention by her dramatized outbursts and annoying pleads. Higgins on the contrary, is introduced later on, but his entrance is mellow and quiet. This can represent the way Shaw will present their development.
Eliza's character development is loud and obvious, and cannot be ignored similar to her obnoxious cries from Act I. But Higgins growth lies deep within his notebook. One could simply miss his growth because it is overshadowed by a more dramatized character. Great idea!
Tara I think the indirect question you are trying to solve is who the main character really is? To a reader, one might think that Higgins is the main character, but to Shaw his intentions might have been for the reader to focus solely on Eliza. This can explain the ending that so many people have a problem with. Forcing all the attention on Eliza will create the allusion that Eliza is the main character and Higgins is who she plays off of. Higgins was supposed to be her FOIL character. Higgins was supposed to be someone to help the story progress, but not a person to be happy in the end of the story.
ReplyDeleteShaw might have created Higgins to highlight Eliza’s transformation. The fact that Higgins does not change magnifies the fact that Eliza has. The purpose of making Higgins show affection towards Eliza is to keep the story realistic. To have someone live in your home for months and you not develop a liking towards them seems to me impossible. If you did not like them then you would have thrown them out weeks ago or not have let them inside your home to begin with.
As for the end of the story I think Shaw is trying to tell the reader that Higgins will remain the same and go on doing what he has been doing his whole life. He will go on critiquing people on their speech and trying to improve his own so he feels superior.
Alex, I just want to say that I love your thought about Higgins being Jack the Ripper. When I read that not only did I laugh but now that I really think about it, it could be possible.
Brielle, I see your point. Its difficult to determine which character is the main protagonist. I want to place Higgins as the main character because the story is moved by his actions and great controversy surrounds his morals. But Shaw does not give enough supporting details for him.
ReplyDeleteAs I emphasized before, Shaw clearly establishes Eliza's character, giving details into her past and future. But what many of us forget to think about it the name of the play. "Pygmalion" comes from a story of a sculptor who falls in love with his piece, but in the end, the statue sees herself as superior to her master, wanting little to do with the pathetic artist.
If we look at Eliza as being this statue and Higgins as the sculptor, it is easier to determine the importance of each character. I believe the two character’s share equal importance. Higgins creates Eliza, and without him, she would not exist. In addition, her character’s role supports Higgins, because without her, Higgins would have no significance. This parallels the relationship in "Pygmalion". Without the artist the statue cannot exist, but if did not create her, the artist would have no one to love. Thus, I believe it would be accurate to say that there are two main protagonists who support each other.