To the irreverent - and which of us will claim entire exemption from that comfortable classification? - there is something very amusing in the attitude of the orthodox criticism toward Bernard Shaw. He so obviously disregards all the canons and unities and other things which every well-bred dramatist is bound to respect that his work is really unworthy of serious criticism (orthodox). Indeed he knows no more about the dramatic art than, according to his own story in "The Man of Destiny," Napoleon at Tavazzano knew of the Art of War. But both men were successes each in his way - the latter won victories And The former gained audiences, In the very teeth of the accepted theories of war And The theatre. Shaw does not know that it is unpardonable sin to have his characters make long speeches at one another, apparently thinking that this embargo applies only to long speeches which consist mainly of bombast and rhetoric. There never was an author who showed less predilection for a specific medium by which to accomplish his results. He recognized, early in his days, many things awry in the world and he assumed the task of mundane reformation with a confident spirit. it seems such a small job at twenty to set the times aright. He began as an Essayist, but who reads essays now-a-days? - he then turned novelist with no better success, For no one would read such preposterous stuff as he chose to emit. He only succeeded in proving that absolutely rational men and women - although he has created few of the latter - can be most extremely disagreeable to our conventional way of thinking.

---

Excerpted from Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw
All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.