Write a note on Shaw's art of characterisation?

Write a note on Shaw’s art of characterisation?

Ans.

The success of a dramatist largely depends upon his art of character delineation and dialogue writing. Shaw was a great character creator and delineator though his art of characterization was conditioned by his zeal for social reformation. He has enriched dramatic literature by creating a variety of characters drawn from all classes of people in our society. As regards variety and vividness, his character are not inferior to those of any of the English dramatist. They may be lacking in individual traits. They turn out to be very largely his mouthpieces rather than individual men and women as they are with Shakespeare and other great dramatists. But from this we should not draw the conclusion that none of the characters of Shaw are individual. Shaw writes in Wagner as a Revolutionist. “There is, only one way of dramatizing an idea that is by putting on the stage a human being possessed by idea.” Thus, Shaw’s characters express his views and ideas on different problems of life.

Shaw’s characters are living human beings. They are real. They are not imaginary creatures of dream land. They are actually those men and women who are found in our practical world. All of his characters represent different aspects of their creator. They always keep in their mind that they have been put on the stage to expound some theory working in their creator’s mind. They appear to be readymade characters and we do not know more of them than they tell us themselves. There is hardly any development in his characters. This is why Shaw does not allow any considerable period of time between his acts. Shaw’s chief characters are either static or subjected to one violent and final revolution. Shaw’s characters may appear living in the beginning of the play but as the story develops they degenerate into Shaw’s instruments of propaganda or ‘talking machines’. King Magnus in The Apple cart and Captain. Bluntschli are evidently living human beings, but at the same time it cannot be denied that they express Shaw’s views against the untrammelled democratic government and the romantic ideal of love and war respectively.

But it is wrong to say that all Shaw’s characters are their author’s mouthpieces. In the earlier and more important plays many characters have their own individual personalities. In this connection C. E. M. Joad writes: “The statement that all Shaw’s characters voice the opinions of their author in the sense in which it is true, is a truism; of course, everything that a character says comes out of his creator’s mind. Yet the charge has some relevance to the characters in the later plays who, it must be admitted are shadowy.”

A. C. Ward also differ from the other critics that hold the view that Shaw’s characters are merely their author’s mouthpieces. This complaint”, he says, “cannot be upheld if the sayings of Shaw’s characters are fairly weighed and balanced. In The Apple cart, is it King Magnus or the Prime minister that is Shaw’s mouthpiece? Each presents his own case; and the two are irreconcilable.

Shaw has introduced a large variety of characters in his plays. These characters belong to various classes and strata of society. In his plays we come across Kings. Queens, military officers of all ranks, servants. prostitutes, doctors etc. All his characters are not English or Irish; but are Bulgarian, Swiss and those belonging to other Europeans and other than European countries. Most of his characters are true representatives of their classes. King Magnus in the Apple cart represents good intentioned, wise monarch, Proteus stands for disloyal intriguing politicians. In Arms and the Man Captain Bluntschli represents the twentieth century realistic soldier, while Sergius symbolizes a romantic fool who lives in an imaginary world. Louka is the representative of those young and beautiful maid servants who aspire to attain higher position by fair and foul means Shaw is a successful writer of more than fifty plays but there are hardly any characters in his plays who are akin to one another.

Shaw has delineated many fine women characters. They are said to have been more remarkable in comparison to his male characters. Shaw being a rationalist has sketched his women in unsentimental and unromantic terms. Most of his women are unpleasant and have no sex appeal. Harrison says that, “their bodies are as dry and hard as their minds, and even where they run after men as in the case of Anne in Man and Superman, the pursuit has as much sex appeal as a time table. Whether such women ever existed. or whether in creating them Ibsen convinced Shaw they ought to exist as a counter-irritant to the romantic swooning, novel-reading females of our boyhood, is an open question.” The reality is that Shaw’s women lack in mystery, grace, divinity, allurement and charm. Cleopatra is his only female character that has been gifted with these attributes. Shaw has filled his women characters with preoccupation with the life force. His Raina, St. Joan, Candida, Cleopatra, etc. are some of the best women characters in English literature.

To sum up, Shaw’s portrayal of characters is masterly. His characters have acquired amazing variety and vitality. The large variety of his characters, their individualities and their liveliness are some of the traits that put their creator on the top of the list of the modern playwrights. They are actually embodiments of Shaw’s ideas.