The Love of a True Family Member

The subject of family from our King Lear packet really caught my interest. This was partially because I cannot stand to write another word about Pygmalion, and partially because it really made me question the true definition of “family.” I eventually came to the conclusion that no one can assign a definite meaning to the word. It can only be left to one’s interpretation.  That being said, I can only share what I consider to be my definition of family.

                While I agree with the basic idea of family consisting of blood relatives, I do believe that there is a more personal level to it. Many “families” are what one may consider broken. The mother, or father may be unknown to the children, a sibling may be hated. Would the unknown parent still be considered “family” to the child? Would the sibling still consider the other to be their brother or sister?  Some may say “yes.” I personally feel that I would be unable to call anyone that I do not love, “family.” I am not saying that I do not consider my blood relatives as my family, in my case I love them all; however, I also have friends that I consider “family.” These are only the closest of my friends that understand my worst traits, but still choose to continue our friendships. It may sound a bit cliché, but I believe that the true definition of family is those who will continue to love and be there for you unconditionally, regardless of your faults.

Serendipitous Shaw

As I reread Shaw's Pygmalion for the upcoming essay, I came to notice the numerous occasions of pure happenstance that I believe attribute to the play's comedic effect. Instances which normally would not take place, without some form of divine intervention, seem to occur daily in this story. For example Pickering and Higgins just happen to come across each other, while sheltering themselves from the rain on each one's way to meet the other. This chance meeting might drive some readers crazy, but I interpret it as part of Shaw's humor. The second example occurs outside the scope of the story. The readers are told of it through Mr. Doolittle, has he recounts how he came to know Eliza was at Higgins's house. Mr. Doolittle just happens to run into the boy Eliza had sent to retrieve her luggage. When one stops and thinks of how unlikely this is to actually happen, they start to see the genius that is Shaw's humor. Again Shaw dabbles with serendipity when he reunites the main characters from the first scene several months later in Mrs. Higgins' house. All these circumstantial events are meant to enhance the comedic value of the play, and serve to add a little whimsy to an already funny play. Some readers may become frustrated with the all too coincidental way the story pans out, believing (and rightfully so) that this sort of occurrence would never transpire in the real world, and could only happen in a play. The fortuitous way in which the play begins and ends, causes some readers to feel unattached, as the story is too circumstantial to be true. But, I believe Shaw deliberately included the numerous coincidences with the intent to create a scenario that was so far-fetched, that it became funny. When reading Pygmalion, I find myself muttering "of course that happens" countless times and chuckling along at each eccentric twist. At the stories end, Mr. Doolittle was a rich member of the working upper-class. This is a blatant twist in the storyline intended soley to increase the comedic effect of the story. I believe Pygmalion is hysterical, mainly because most of the story is improbable!

Higgins, The Abuser?

In reading, one is permitted to interpret the words as they please, but when one watches something on television or in a play, his or her interpretations have no room to expand for the directors make one see the show or play as they imagined it to be perceived. When reading Pygmalion, one may find Higgins’ wit and sarcasm to be comical. This is because the person may read the lines in a lighthearted way and understand the character’s threats as mere mockery. However, in viewing Pygmalion on screen, Higgins’ once passive comments become intensified causing him to be perceived as mentally abusive.

Eliza, yearning for a better lifestyle, puts all her trust in Higgins, a complete stranger, but all he does is ridicule and manipulate her for his advantage. From the moment Eliza met Higgins, he degraded her as he mocked her speech. While reading the play, one may overlook his bullying; however, the actors’ portrayal of the characters amplifies Higgins’ cruelty. Readers may laugh at Eliza’s screeched “oo”s and “ahh”s, but viewers examine this as fear and cries for help. Eliza does not comprehend Higgins’ possibly sarcastic comments and takes them literally. Higgins is aware of this. As oppose to ceasing his mockery, he continues with his sadistic ways. The only form of affection Eliza receives in Higgins’ household is from Mrs. Pearce and Mr. Pickering, who addresses Eliza in a respectful manner. Aside from Mr. Pickering and Mrs. Pearce’s mild support, Eliza is confined to a household where she is unwanted other than for the purpose of winning a bet. When one views Pygmalion in a play setting, his or her perception of the characters change causing them to no longer see Higgins as a comical protagonist, but a heartless, selfish, batterer. 

To be alone, or lonely in a relationship

      In opposition to what others think, I feel Freddy's obsession with Eliza is charming. The fact that he peers through Eliza's window, stalking her, is somewhat disturbing. But, give the guy a break, he's in love. I believe Freddy's infatuation with Eliza is more of an innocent and childlike crush, as opposed to him being an deranged stalker.
      It is understable why he is infatuated with Eliza. The two women in the opening scene abuse their feminine position, and manipulate Freddy into getting them a cab. One even calls him a "selfish pig." Every woman in Freddy's life is demanding and disrespectful towards him, that is, until Eliza comes into his life. Her kindness and compassion led him to be attracted to her.
     Freddy and Eliza's relationship is sad. The one tragic thing about Freddy's feelings for Eliza is that his love for her is unrequited. In my opinion, Eliza is in love with Higgins, whether she realizes it or not. In the end she settles for Freddy because she states, "maybe he'd make me happier than my betters that bully me and don't want me." Instead of being with someone who she truly desires, Eliza chooses Freddy who cherishes her more than she loves him. Is it better to be alone, wanting the person you desire, or to settle for being with the person who desires you?

No History, No Future

When the reader looks at Eliza, one is able to dig deep into her character, inquiring how she became who she was and who she is. Shaw mentions her mother, introduces her father as a character and gives details into her past. In addition, one sees her develop from a incapable pauper to an intelligent woman. The play contains her history and creates a future for her, enabling the reader to truly delve into her character.

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.

Higgin's Softer Side

Whether or not you enjoy the character of Higgins, there is something about him that draws me to him. From his demeaning insults towards Eliza, to his rude remarks about certain individuals, Higgins is very consistent with his negative attitude about life. Though he does make an attempts in Act III to be kind, his statements about his mother come off as harsh and forced. As a result, it could be implied that the professor projects his compassion through pessimistic mannerisms.

However, in Act IV, Shaw begins to portray Higgins differently. At the end of the act, when Eliza comes into confrontation with him, Higgins is offended by the argument. A person with no emotions towards Eliza would not engage in the argument, let alone feel hurt when they realizes that Eliza is truly angered. Higgins does not react the way I expected. He even admits to Eliza that he never gets upset over people.

This scenes shows a softer side to Higgins. Yes, he does insult Eliza but the way he displays his anger is a new emotion not seen in his character. Higgins shows true human emotions, becoming sulky and distraught over Eliza's feelings about him. In addition, after she ran away, Higgins calls the police and runs to his mother's house, worried for her. Though many may argue that Higgins is a heartless man, I believe there is compassion within his heart. Though he never admits it, I believe Higgins truly loves Eliza, whether it is in a father/daughter relationship, or a man/woman relationship.

Suicide and Humor

While reading Act IV of Pygmalion again, I remember why this story makes me feel so uncomfortable. The original acts of violence are humerous and light-hearted. Nothing seems particularly malicious about anyone's actions; yet, here I am again in Act IV and feeling completly different. Why the sudden change?

I think I have it figured out. It's all this talk of suicide. Because Eliza is truly frightened, she threatens suicide, and at first - this is all this is - a threat; however, the second time she threatens suicide is with Freddy. Someone who she has (supposedly) confidence with. Since Eliza threatens suicide and actually means it, can I truly find this play still funny?

Bunny Suicides and Happy Tree Friends are cartoonish figures who commit suicide, and often times we laugh. South Park has often poked fun at suicide, and murdering Kenny is still hysterical after 10+ years. I am all for hysterical acts of violence. But Eliza is different, her suicide threatening is far more real. She's a three dimensional character who I can relate to. She's neither cartoonish nor unrealistic. Because she feels displaced in society, she truly thinks about suicide. As a result, I think the story has crossed the humerous line and entered into some tragic and sadistic.