How does bernard shaw satirise
How does bernard shaw satiriseWhen Bernard Shaw was writing 'Arms and the Man' in 1893-1894, Romantic ideals concerning love and war were still widely accepted and considered normal; an attitude that did not change, even with Bernard Shaw's efforts to the contrary, until the dreadful losses of the First World War. Shaw, a socialist, was greatly influenced by Henrik Ibsen who "took social themes, treated them realistically and condemned the crushing effects of society." Shaw continued in this vein, using his humour and wit to criticise "injustice, hypocrisy and self-interest." In 'Arms and the Man' Shaw attacks these ideals of love in a number of ways. He grossly exaggerates (exaggeration being the most important part of these romantic ideas), but does so to an even greater extent than normal. He gives stark comparisons between his perceived reality and that of the majority of the population, and does so among the characters, the plot and the situation. He also makes a mockery of these ideals by eventually allowing the characters to realise for themselves the absurdity of their attitudes. Yet, strangely, perhaps because he realised that his play still had to be acceptable to a wide audience, he seems to allow Romantic ideas to re-emerge at the end.
During the Romantic period exaggeration of things such as love was common, and was, in fact, the basis of the Romantic culture. In ‘Arms and the Man’ there an even greater extent of exaggeration than was common. The characters, the situations and to some extent the plot are all exaggerated in some way. Of the main characters, Sergius, Raina, and Bluntschli, only Bluntschli is not of a highly romantic bearing, and even he might be considered slightly exaggerated in the opposite way.
Sergius is described by Shaw as “a tall, romantically handsome man, with the physical hardihood, the high spirit and the susceptible imagination of an untamed mountaineer chieftain. . . The result is precisely what the advent of nineteenth century thought first produced in England: to wit, Byronism.” Byronsim is derived from the word byronic, which is used to describe someone who is “energetic, melodramatic and romantically good-looking,” the characteristics of the poet Lord Byron. Byron was a controversial romantic, who was a superb poet (in some people’s opinion) but led a scandalous life. Sergius is also good-looking, or believes himself to be, and it is revealed that he is also leading a rather scandalous attachment to Louka. He is certainly melodramatic, as he “posts himself with conscious dignity against the steps” and “with old measured emphasis, folding his arms,” says, “I never apologise!” However, he knows that he is acting the part of a romantic hero because it is expected of him, not because he is a romantic hero and knows that it is all a disguise, and even realises that he “feels the need for some relief after it” This “it” is the concept of the “higher love”.
Sergius and Raina believe, or want to believe, that they are in love to a greater extent than any couple have been before, and therefore their love is superior. They believe that the higher love means that they are spiritually as well as physically attracted to each other. They both realise that it is acted; “the noble attitude and the thrilling voice,” along with Sergius’ view that it is “a very fatiguing thing to keep up for any length of time.” However, they both still seem to believe that it is true love. Raina believes that her relationship with him is the “one really beautiful and noble part of” her life, while Sergius says that he “loves another woman (Raina), as high above you (Louka) as heaven is above earth.” Shaw exaggerates the actions of the two characters, as well as the fact that they are obviously not in love. He does this best by introducing the affairs between Raina and Bluntschli, and Sergius and Louka.
Raina is obviously attracted to Bluntschli, from the very moment when she gives him her portrait to remember her by, to the moment when she informs her family that she was kind to her “chocolate cream soldier.” She tries to disguise it, and tries to make him believe that she loves Sergius. Meanwhile Sergius, although still trying to sustain the appearance of being in love with Raina, is obviously attracted to Louka. Although Louka is not one of the main characters, she still plays a very important part because she is the only person, apart from Bluntschli and perhaps Nicola, who is not an advocate of the ‘higher love.’ Shaw introduces her in order to make comparisons with the Romantic ideas, just as he does with Bluntschli. She is portrayed as a servant girl who acts above her station, and has great ambitions for herself. Although this side of her character is Romantic, even to the extent of wishing to become the Emperor of Russia, she still holds no illusions about love. She knows the difference between “the sort of manner you and she (Sergius and Raina) put on before one another and the real manner.” She has common sense, and Shaw contrasts this with Sergius’ obvious lack of it. She suggests that they “stand back where we can’t be seen” whilst Sergius is trying to make a Romantic gesture and “make love” with her. Sergius then makes a ridiculous statement, which highlights the absurdity of the concept of the higher love: “I may be worthless enough to betray the higher love; but do not you insult it.” Sergius, who actually believes in the higher love has insulted it by betraying it, where as Louka, who knows that it does not exist and is trying to prevent this betrayal, is blamed for insulting it.
Although Louka believes that she should not be a servant, it is revealed that Nicola, who appears to be almost the opposite type of person to Louka, was the one who “made a women” out of her. Nicola knows that if he acts like a servant, and is shrewd whilst doing it, he can progress through life. Louka accuses him of having “the soul of a servant”, where as it seems that he does not like what he does, but knows that if he does it well enough, he will soon be able to move onward, and set up his shop. Louka does not consider anything rationally, apart from love.
The rest of the family, whom again do not have large roles, are still very important. Paul is not an especially intelligent man, but this seems to add to his charm. He is bluff but not too worried about possessions or money, except when he feels obliged to give the impression that they are important. Catherine, on the other hand, would “be a very splendid specimen of the wife of a mountain farmer, but is determined to be a Viennese lady.” She is the epitome of a romantic woman trying to be a lady. This image is increased by the comic situation of the house in Bulgaria. Shaw wrote the whole play without reference to a place, and this was only filled in after the play had been finished. Therefore the actual place does not greatly effect the plot, but it adds humour to the situation. Shaw contrasts the less developed home of the Petkoffs with the more developed home of Bluntschli, and does this by introducing things such as the electric bell, the stairs and the library, which are of obvious pride to the Petkoffs, but are considered mundane by Bluntschli, however much he tries to hide it.
This obvious contrast between romantic ideas and realistic ideas is not only confined to possessions. (In saying this, in the final twist in the plot, it is revealed that Bluntschli actually does have possessions, which had just been inherited from his fathers hotel chain, and he is willing to use these to bribe the Petkoffs.) The contrast is obviously extended to love. Bluntschli is realistic about it, and does not hold any illusions about it. Raina, even after Bluntschli has revealed her “thrilling voice and noble attitude” and one would imagine succeeded in persuading her of reality, still perseveres until the very end, and one would imagine, even after that. This is not very surprising. However, what is more surprising is that Bluntschli seems to concede to the “higher love” and at the same time dispel all the impressions that had been built up of him. After being shocked by Louka’s admission that she had told Sergius of Bluntschli’s visit, he seems to lose completely his self control, which up until then had seemed impossible. He rambles on, and admits, without meaning to, that he considered Raina’s childish behaviour was a result of her being a child. When he is told otherwise, it becomes obvious that he was actually in love with her, but did not wish to be so with a girl of seventeen. He then abandons all his principles, and admits that he also was a romantic fool, before appealing to Raina as the “chocolate cream soldier,” and telling her that he has always been her “infatuated admirer.” ‘Infatuated’ means love, but foolish love, and this seems to sum up all the romantic ideals of love. Therefore it is all the more surprising to hear Bluntschli say this. Perhaps Shaw introduced this last twist in tail as a sign of his resignation to the fact that romanticism was actually unavoidable. I think that it was a sign of exasperation, as he believed that everyone, however realistic they seemed to be, always turned out to be a fraud, just a romanticism itself is a fraud.
A very important part of the plot is the concept of the “chocolate cream soldier.” This is typical Romanticism: over exaggeration and a focus on one very unimportant part of the person’s character. To Raina, Bluntschli is not a “consummate soldier” or “Bourgeois to his boots” but is a “chocolate cream soldier.” She finds this much more attractive than the Sergius, who is portrayed as her “ideal hero.” Shaw contrasts Bluntschli’s realistic attitude, with Raina’s impression of him, with Sergius’ romantic heroism: Sergius accuses Bluntschli of “enjoying the privilege of being received into her own room, late at night….” Bluntschli then puts a more realistic view on things: “yes, you blockhead, she received me with a pistol at her head…I’d have blown her brains out if she’s uttered a cry.” Whereupon Raina replies “How dare you, how dare you!”
“Arms and the Man” is undeniably a sentimental burlesque, although it is definitely negative. It owes it success to a wise policy of “rejecting romance by statement rather than by example.” Shaw set out to try and highlight the absurdity of the romantic ideals, and I believe he has succeeded in doing this, through contrast, exaggeration and simplicity. One of the main satirical ideas of the play is that of the “higher love” and he seems to succeed in dispelling the notion of existence, right up until the very end, when he almost seems to allow an element of it back into the plot. Lord Byron wrote:
“In her first passion woman loves her lover,
In all the other all she loves is love.”
However, Shaw seems to disagree with this, just as he disagreed with Lord Byron himself, in making Sergius a model of him. Instead, in Raina’s case especially, in her first passion all she loved was the sense of the higher love, whilst in her second love, she loved the person, be it the chocolate cream soldier or Bluntschli. I believe, that whilst Shaw allowed Romanticism to re-enter the plot at the end, possibly because he realised it’s inevitability, he still succeeded in persuading, through satirical means, that “love…is a sham.”