Getting Married

by George Bernard Shaw

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Comedy, Love, Humor

212 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1908

About the author

George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.

An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.

In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.

He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.

Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.

Reviews

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 3 out of 5]

الزواج في حد ذاته امر محتمل
اذا اخذت الأمور ببساطة و لم تتوقع من وراءه شيئا كثيرا..و لكنه أمر لا يصمد امام التفكير..لذا كان من المهم حمل الشباب على الارتباط برباط الزواج..قبل ان يعرفوا حقيقة ماهم مقدمين عليه

لقد اوجزت و انجزت يا برنارد شو ..طول عمري باستحمل رغي السنين لاني باحب دماغك

الأول اقنعتنا ان الزواج أمر حتمي لابد منه..لكن لابد من ان نتعامل معه كالدواء المر..هيتشرب هيتشرب 💊؟
فأكثر الزيجات توفيقا هي القائمة على المال !!!! ا☆
هذا رأي برنادر الذي يتناقض مع رايه في ان الزواج لن يقوم على اساس سليم نظيف
الا اذا تحررت المراة من عبوديتها الاقتصادية الرجل..و
احب أقوله انها : اتحررت و بعدها صار الزواج نادرا في الغرب و ازداد الفشل و الكل ما زال بيشكي و بيبكي عادي
💦

في هذه المسرحية العجيبة ذات المنظر الواحد و الاسامي الاعجب المليئة المونولوجات الفكرية الطويلة
نجد ان شو يحث الغربيين على الاقتداء بالشريعة الإسلامية في التعدد بعد الحروب الكبري و موت نصف الرجال
صدق من قال
اذا كان ابسن هو الشرارة فإن"شو"هو النار نفسها🔥ا☆

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Question of Divorce
22 April 2020

This is one of those plays that I heard about a while ago and was quite interested in seeing what Shaw had to say about the institution of marriage. This is also one of those plays where he writes a treatise on the subject before actually launching into the play, and the thing that I love about Shaw is reading his thoughts in these preludes. Unfortunately, the collection of plays that I have of his don’t include the preludes, so I had to go further afield to find it, and I had actually printed it out, but it ended up getting stuck on a pile of papers that sat at the bottom of one of my closets until recently.

Look, this work is somewhat rather dated because things have changed significantly since 1908 when the play was written. For instance, the number of people getting married has dropped, and many people in the Western world are opting for domestic partnerships, in one sense because it is much cheaper than getting married, and also there is a belief that ending the relationship is much easier (spoiler alert – it isn’t). Another thing is the question of divorce, which was quite hard to get back when the play was written, but is much easier these days. In fact, these days, at least in Australia, we have what is called ‘no-fault’ divorce, which means that a divorce can be granted simply by agreement between the parties, though of course, that does not mean that it is any less simple, particularly when property, and children, come into the mix.

The play sort of follows these ideas, where the main characters are in a church where a wedding is going to happen, however, the couple that is getting married has been reading a pamphlet which shocks them into a reality that marriage will bring about a lot of problems, such as debt, and the fact that if the husband goes insane and starts murdering people, the wife will not be able to divorce him because becoming an insane murder is no grounds for divorce, at least it wasn’t back then.

Shaw does note that the whole question of marriage is a pretty complicated topic and that there really doesn’t seem to be much in the way of replacing it, though one does wonder what this whole idea actually is, and why it seems to be something that is encountered the world over – it isn’t just a Christain idea – it is embraced by the Christians because their holy text supports it, but many other cultures, both past and present, also have the concept of marriage.

I guess the biggest problem, and one that Shaw is writing about is the question of getting out of a bad marriage. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not really a fan of people getting divorced simply because the spark has gone out of the marriage. This, in a way, is a symptom of our disposable society. Also, I’m not a particularly big fan of the whole idea of ‘try before you buy’ mentality that seems to be about the place as well. In a way, it is commodifying marriage, but it is doing it in a way that is resulting in little change from what marriage was like back in Shaw’s day.

One of the biggest complaints that Shaw has here is the fact that the woman is the commodity. In fact, he considers marriage to be a form of legalised slavery – the woman becomes the property of the husband and becomes reliant upon the husband. In fact, back in those days, once a woman had married she was forbidden from earning an income and had to stay home as the housekeeper and the childminder. Mind you, this is particularly a middle-class thing, since the poor simply didn’t care about these social rules, and the wealthy were able to hire housekeepers anyway, and the thing with being wealthy was that in most cases you didn’t have to work anyway. So, these rules were pretty much rules for the middle class.

As I mentioned, things have changed dramatically, and sure, we still have instances of where you have one partner stay at home while the other works, but this seems to be becoming less the norm (I only know of a couple of people who have that arrangement, though that was the case with my parents, who by the way are well and truly retired). However, there is also the catch that where both parties work and have kids, it ends up being the case that childcare is so expensive that one partner probably shouldn’t bother working anyway, though a part of it does have to do with the fact that once the kids are at school, then the dynamics change.

However, moving on from the concept of modern secular marriage is little more than a contractual agreement between two consenting parties, the reason that for a time I had an issue with marriage was because of the way that it was portrayed in the church. Look, there are actually quite a lot of religions that use marriage as a form of control, and in fact, if you get involved in a cult the first thing that they will try to do (other than forcing you to break off relationships with your friends and family) is to get you married so that you are much more bound to the cult than otherwise. Yet, I’m not talking about cults but rather mainstream religion, though some friends have suggested that some of the evangelical churches out there are nothing more than cults.

You see, the issue I had with them was the way that he carried on about sex. Sure, I can sort of understand why they were doing it, but I don’t necessarily think that they went about it the right way. You see, they describe sex as this wonderful thing, but only in the confines of marriage. So, we have all these people getting married because, well, they want to have sex. Guess what, we also had a whole heap of these people end up getting divorced as well. Okay, I don’t quite know the reasons, and am not going to speculate, but it does make me wonder why a heap of my friends whom I went through youth group with, who were being taught that marriage is for life, ended up breaking up.

Yet, it also, in my mind, sort of suggests that there is something wrong with you if you don’t end up getting married. Look, I’m not talking about the incel culture, because that is certainly not a culture that I was ever involved with, it is just that the church would control who we would marry. So, they would give us a list of requirements, and of course no sex before marriage as well, and it turned out that the only girls that I seemed to actually get along well with didn’t go to church (and they didn’t particularly like me hanging around with them either). Look, these days I’m not particularly interested in atheists or agnostics, but the problem was that the girls that I liked didn’t like me, and the others were, well, just boring. However, looking back on the situation a part of me is glad that I didn’t end up marrying any of them, if the statistics are anything to go by.

I guess there is also this idea of happy families as well, but in my mind, that is a whopping great big lie. It really seemed to come about as a form not so much of control, but of belittling people who weren’t married. This was especially the case of the pastors who would preach about the gift of singleness, but not surprisingly were all married. Yeah, it really didn’t go down well with me, and no wonder I eventually starting to think that this whole marriage thing was a crock.

Not so much anymore, namely because I have moved away from that lot, and don’t really associate with many of them anymore. Look, in a way I still find that it is a bit of a farce, but the church I go to these days, the married people don’t actually behave as if they are superior to those who aren’t married, probably because there are an awful lot of single people at the church. Further, they don’t seem to be anywhere near as sex-obsessed as that other particular church.

This raises another thing that Shaw discusses, and that was that when Paul the Apostle was writing, the belief was that the end of the world was nigh, so people weren’t getting married, and in fact, Paul was suggesting that it was better for them not to get married. I guess this is also one of the reasons that they suggested that the Church had a communist set up, namely because what is the point of collecting stuff if the world is going to end, and you can’t take it with you. Mind you, I’m not entirely sure how well Shaw knew his Bible, because Paul does comment on how there were rich people in the church in Corinth that were flaunting their wealth, to the chagrin of the less wealthy. However, this hasn’t been the case, and it seems that the attitude these days is that he’ll come sometime, we just don’t know when, so we will just keep on doing what we have always been doing – getting married and having kids and all that.

This sort of brings me to the concept of polygamy, and polyandry – that is having multiple wives/husbands. Shaw suggests that this isn’t a good idea because the male/female split is roughly half and half. However, one interesting thing that he points out is that polygamy works better than polyandry, because pregnancy lasts for nine months about, and once your pregnant, you have to wait for that nine months to pass before you get pregnant again. However, polygamy means that you can get multiple women pregnant at once, which is a great way of building up an army of loyal followers. Yeah, I can sort of understand why Joseph Smith encouraged polygamy, and why there is a huge backlash against the Mormons at the time. Yet there also seems to be this idea of sexual selection, something that Darwin speculated upon. That is that a woman will want to breed with the best specimen of a man as possible, so as to produce the best children. However, I do feel that while this may work in theory, it doesn’t quite work in reality.

Well, it seems as if I’ve gone way off topic again, but I guess I wanted to talk about some of the issues that I see with marriage, particularly since what Shaw was writing about is vastly different. Okay, there are some that say that the family unit is one of the strongest units out there, and in part, I’d agree, however, what we in the Anglosphere tend to forget is that the family unit is much, much bigger than the nuclear family that we have grown up with. Then again, I do feel that there has been too much of a focus on promoting the family to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. However, that is another discussion for another day.

[بسام عبد العزيز · Rating 3 out of 5]

شو لا يكتب مسرحية و لكنه يكتب مقالة طويلة يناقش فيه مساوئ و مزايا الزواج.
و كأي مقالة الكاتب يعرض وجهات النظر المختلفة المؤيدة و المعارضة بخصوص موضوع المقالة..

لم يحاول شو أن يبدو متحيزا تجاه أيدولوجية معينة.. بل هو يحاول البحث في أفضل الطرق لإقامة علاقة زوجية سليمة..
مثلا شو يؤيد بشدة فكرة تعدد الزوجات.. بل و يعترف صراحة أنها فكرة إسلامية محببة جدا له..
كذلك شو لا يجد غضاضة أيضا في الطلاق.. و يجده الوسيلة المناسبة لحل الخلافات بين زوجين كارهين لبعضيهما..

بالطبع ذوو التوجه الإسلامي سيهللون فرحا بكلام شو.. و سيعتبرونه دليلا آخر على صحة الدين الإسلامي.. و خصوصا و هو يذكر النبي محمد كواحد من أعظم رجالات العالم..
لكن بعد قليل سنجد هذا التهليل سيهدأ و يخبو عندما نتابع أفكار شو..

شو مثلا يجده أمرا طبيعيا أن يكون عقد الزواج عقدا موقوتا.. أي لفترة معينة.. فهو كأي عقد لابد له من فترة زمنية يتم تنفيذه فيها.. ومن حق أطرافه بالطبع التجديد بعد انتهاء المدة..

شو أيضا لا يفرق بين التعددية النسائية و الذكورية.. بل و حتى المثلية.. فعقد الزواج قد يكون بين أي عدد من الأفراد بغض النظر عن الجنس..

شو كذلك يقرر أهمية الذمة المالية المستقلة لأطراف العقد.. فلا أحد يتحمل مسئولية أخطاء الآخر.. و الأهم هو حرية المرأة المطلقة في اختيار زوجها...


أفكار شو عن الزواج تبدو أفكار شديدة الاشتراكية.. أو "الفابية" بتعبير أدق.. و أنا لا أتفق مع الكثير منها..

التعددية مثلا مرفوضة عندي.. سواء للمرأة أو الرجل..
فكر العقد الموقوت أيضا مرفوضة عندي.. إنها تجعل الزواج مجرد دعارة قانونية..

لكن اأهم ما جاء في أفكار شو هو فكرة الحرية التامة في الاختيار بين الطرفين.. و كذلك المساواة بين الطرفين.. و هى الأفكار التي نفتقدها بشدة في مجتمعاتنا الشرقية ..

قراءة جيدة.. تحوى بعض الضحكات بين الحين و الآخر كما هو متوقع من شو..

[Ahmed Elmandooh · Rating 3 out of 5]

"هل تسرق ثمرة لفت من أحد أصحاب هذه الأرض المسروقة ؟"

المسرحيه مكونه من فصل واحد ومكان واحد وأحداث تاخذ وتيره واحده ، وموضوع واحد وهو الزواج.

استعرض الكاتب هنا خبرته وفلسفته في صورة ابطال المسرحيه ، فعبر عن الزواج في أوائل القرن العشرين في انجلترا ، وقد نرى الكثير منها يحدث هنا بعد مرور مائه عام !.

"اذ كنت انا أعلى مقاما من زوجك هنا ، فلا بد أن أكون أعلى منه مقاما في الجنه او النار"

مسرحيه عبقريه تخاطب العقل وتكشف بعض اجزاء الحقيقه وانصح بقراءتها.

الترجمه جيده جدا ، رسم الشخصيات لم يكن بالتساوي وهناك شخصيات كنت أنسى وجودها في زخم الأحداث ، النهايه مرضيه للغايه وقد ألمت بكل جوانب تلك القضيه المجتمعيه.

[Amal Shoeib · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here are the parts thaT i REALLY LOVED
"The stupidity is only apparent: the service was really only an honest attempt to make the best of a commercial contract of property and slavery by subjecting it to some religious restraint and elevating it by some touch of poetry. But the actual result is that when two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part. And though of course nobody expects them to do anything so impossible and so unwholesome, yet the law that regulates their relations, and the public opinion that regulates that law, is actually founded on the assumption that the marriage vow is not only feasible but beautiful and holy, and that if they are false to it, they deserve no sympathy and no relief."
AND


"The truth which people seem to overlook in this matter is that the marriage ceremony is quite useless as a magic spell for changing in an instant the nature of the relations of two human beings to one another. If a man marries a woman after three weeks acquaintance, and the day after meets a woman he has known for twenty years, he finds, sometimes to his own irrational surprise and his wife’s equally irrational indignation, that his wife is a stranger to him, and the other woman an old friend. Also, there is no hocus pocus that can possibly be devised with rings and veils and vows and benedictions that can fix either a man’s or woman’s affection for twenty minutes, much less twenty years. Even the most affectionate couples must have moments during which they are far more conscious of one another’s faults than of one another’s attractions. "
AND

"To a woman without property or marketable talent a husband is more necessary than a master to a dog. There is nothing more wounding to our sense of human dignity than the husband hunting that begins in every family when the daughters become marriageable; but it is inevitable under existing circumstances; and the parents who refuse to engage in it are bad parents, though they may be superior individuals. The cubs of a humane tigress would starve; and the daughters of women who cannot bring themselves to devote several years of their lives to the pursuit of sons-in-law often have to expatiate their mother’s squeamishness by life-long celibacy and indigence. To ask a young man his intentions when you know he has no intentions, but is unable to deny that he has paid attentions; to threaten an action for breach of promise of marriage; to pretend that your daughter is a musician when she has with the greatest difficulty been coached into playing three piano-forte pieces which she loathes; to use your own mature charms to attract men to the house when your daughters have no aptitude for that department of sport; to coach them, when they have, in the arts by which men can be led to compromise themselves; and to keep all the skeletons carefully locked up in the family cupboard until the prey is duly hunted down and bagged: all this is a mother’s duty today; and a very revolting duty it is: one that disposes of the conventional assumption that it is in the faithful discharge of her home duties that a woman finds her self-respect. The truth is that family life will never be decent, much less ennobling, until this central horror of the dependence of women on men is done away with. At present it reduces the difference between marriage and prostitution to the difference between Trade Unionism and unorganized casual labor: a huge difference, no doubt, as to order and comfort, but not a difference in kind."

AND

"We may expect, then, that marriages which are maintained by economic pressure alone will dissolve when that pressure is removed; and as all the parties to them will certainly not accept a celibate life, the law must sanction the dissolution in order to prevent a recurrence of the scandal "

AND FINALLY!!

"it is clear that no marriage is any longer indissoluble; and the sensible thing to do then is to grant divorce whenever it is desired, without asking why."

[Osman Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

أعجبتني طريقتها فهذه أول مرة أقرأ مسرحية
اسلوب شو رائع ولا يستطيع مثلي الثناء عليه
شو مثال رائع للكاتب الذي لا يهتم بما يعجب العوام بل يهتم بما يثقفهم ويشغل عقولهم.

طبعا كأغلب كتابات شو لم تخلو المسرحية من الثناء على نبي الاسلام سيدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وعلى عقيدته فكما نعلم جميعا ان برنارد شو كان يحب سيدنا محمد حبا كبيرا.

طبعا أختلف كثيرا مع افكار الزواج عندهم بحكم العقيدة ولكن فكر شو في هذا الزمن 1908 كان فكرا ثوريا وقد تحقق الأن ما كان يصبوا اليه في قوانين الزواج والطلاق عندهم.

أعجبتني

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was out there and out dated, but interesting nonetheless. The first 40% is an essay by Shaw about English marriage in the early 1900's, in which he is more pro-divorce (as an option) than he is anti-marriage and overall he's pro-equal rights for women. His arguments were well crafted and the comparison of marriage then and now made for interesting self banter.

The last 60% of the book is the play about marriage which was solid and witty. I imagine it would be fun to see it performed.

[Mahmoud EL Agamey · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحيه من فصل واحد قليله الاحداث جدا
تشبه جلسه تجمع مجموعه من الاصدقاء على القهوه
تتحدث عن موضوع الزواج فى المجتمع البريطانى عام 1908 من خلال مجموعه من الشخصيات ذوى ميول مختلفه
يتميز الكاتب بالعمق فى ايصال الفكره التى يريدها من المسرحيه

[Wessam Ahmed · Rating 1 out of 5]

مفهمتش هو عايز إيه بالظبط
مش عارفة العيب فيا ولا في الترجمة :) :)

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first play that I liked more for its preface than the actual play. In fact, I feel the play only hammers home too forcefully the points made in the preface, to the point where it is no longer entertainment, but a diatribe against marriage. All said, the points George Bernard Shaw makes are very eloquent and well argued and perhaps every couple intending to get married should read this. Less because he attacks marriage as an institution, but more because it encourages due consideration and time before committing.

There is truth to the premise that marriage will not change a person or the relations between two people, and that therefore everyone must realize, appreciate and embrace the 'normal pitch' that they operate at. That the passions of love, if they do not fade completely, do at least change over time and will not remain the same under marriage until death. That love is an appetite, that when gratified can be destroyed, and that its natural purpose transcends a process of law. That perhaps the primary reason we don't universally embrace polygyny or polyandry is the fact that men and women are born in about equal numbers and therefore the resistance arises from those likely to be most disadvantaged, the "mediocrities and inferiors." His argument is along the lines that a woman would likely want 1/16th of a great man, rather than only one man that is 1/16th as good a great man, but the objection would then arise from ordinary men, as the best men would monopolize all the women. Finally, that an important element to a successful marriage is that a woman is economically independent and has the right to divorce for no other reason than that she wants one.

[Corvinus Maximilus · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be a title of a rap song ; “Who has more wit than George Bernard Shaw?” Whenever I read him I start to fantasize meeting him, we sit sipping tea in an Irish cottage. Where I shall stare at him in awe and absorb his essence in a totally creepy and science fiction way. This play was written in 1908 but is still so relevant, it is a witty analysis on different views on what marriage is or should be. He examines different types of marriages why some are successful and others end in divorce, the characters he chose are funny and very clever. You will find that there is one with whom you identify with; be it Leo the silly-clever one or Mrs. George with her outrageous yet perhaps a tad right minded view on marriage. I personally felt a kinship with Miss Grantham; she questions marriage and what women get out of it, she isn’t sentimental about the subject. When faced with the question of love she retorts “Oh love! Have you no imagination?..” If you are planning on getting married; read this play. If you have questions about marriage; read this play. If you enjoy witty word play and hilarious characters; read this play.

[Fabio · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished reading this book on 6/26/13, the same day two rulings in favor of same-sex marriage were issued by the supreme court of the United States. The fact that it would be impossible to bring up the questions and opinions raised by this hundred-year-old book in a public forum today without being lynched by the so-called progressive and the superficially tolerant is simultaneously amusing and depressing.

[Khaled Al-Bahnsawy · Rating 4 out of 5]

رائعه برنارد شو مسرحية الاستعداد للزواج
يعرض فيها لرؤيته لقوانين الزواج والطلاق فى انجلترا فى اوائل القرن الماضى الذى يالا العجب هو نفس ما نناقشه فى وطننا العربى بعد اكثر من مائة عام

هواة الحلول لن يعجبوا بها فهى تستنغنى عن فكرة الحل على الاطلاق واستبدلت ذلك بالمناقشه فالمسرحية بكاملها عبارة عن عرض للافكار المختلفه والاراء المتباينه حول قضا��ا الزواج
مسرحية أفكار تخاطب العقل لا المشاعر
الخلاصة انها اعجبتنى كثيرا وارشحها باطمئنان لكل باحث عن الحقيقة

[أحمد · Rating 4 out of 5]

إنه عبقري يسيّر الحديث كيف يشاء، وكما يقول شو كما كُتب في مقدمة هذه المسرحية:

ما أنا بكاتب مسرحي عادي، أنا متخصص في المسرحيات المنافية للأخلاق والدين، وقد قامت شهرتي على صراعي الدائب لإرغام الجمهور على إعادة النظر في مقاييسه الخُلقية، وأنا أكتب المسرحية مستهدفًا عن عمد أن أجعل الأمّة تتحول إلى اعتناق آرائي في الأمور الجنسية والاجتماعية، وما من حافز آخر يحفزني إلى كتابة المسرحيات، فأنا ل�� أعتمد عليها لكسب قوتي!

[بثينة الدسوقي · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm reading it translated to arabic by Abdel halim Elbeshlawy in 1960
So far it seems to be a good play that discuss concepts of marriage in England in the year it was written,1908
But those concepts and thoughts were discussed through shaw opinions which were shoking at that time.

[Bassem · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked that George could make me feel that I'm in the real word when I was reading it :)
and I liked the end because it's so logical to our human nature ..because the marriage is like this
equation 1+1= 1 Not 2 this is the Deep human feeling of marriage ...

[Sebastián · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante texto de Shaw. Me gustó la propuesta y sigo con la idea de un agrado hacia el estilo del autor. Los personajes son interesantes y tiene mayor acción que "Pygmalion". Continuaré, en definitiva, leyendo a este autor. Sí debo acotar que el prefacio es muy...muy extenso.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reginald is one of the funnest characters I've ever read and played.

[Maii Selim · Rating 3 out of 5]

translation is very bad but i think that the original one is considering a fantastic approach to marrige

[Jani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting approach to marriage.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

definitely interesting lens to view 100-years-ago's society.

[محمد عبد الحافظ · Rating 2 out of 5]

مسرحية من فصل واحد و مشهد واحد، بتتكلم عن الزواج بصفة عامة في إنجلترا في أوائل القرن العشرين تقريباً، مش مثيرة و في نفس الوقت مش مملة، المكسب الوحيد هو فلسفة التغيير وعمق الفكرة.

[Tinquerbelle]

Shaw, George Bernard
The Complete Bernard Shaw Plays

In compilation only.

[Mahmoud Khaleil · Rating 3 out of 5]

يهاجم شو قوانين الزواج في انجلترا كالعادة في اغلب مسرحياته ويسخر من العرف الذي يجري عليه الناس ، فهذا هو الاسقف ألفريد بردجنورث يعتقد ان نظام الزواج هذا هو شئ من صنع الشيطان بصورته القائمة ، وان الناس ان عاجلا او آجلا سوف يضربون عنه ، وهو يحذر رؤساء الوزراء مغبة هذا الاضراب ، ويقول انه قد تحقق بالفعل بين الطبقات المالكة او الراقية ، وان الحكومة لا تجرؤ على التدخل، ويوافق الوزراء على وشك وقوع الاضراب العام الا انهم يتحاشون اجراء الاصلاحات التي تحول دون وقوعه مخافة ان يخسروا معركة الانتخابات القادمة ، يرى شو الزواج ليس الا مهربا او حيلة من الحيل لحصول على شئ ما متفق عليه بين الاثنين ، ولكن ولانه ليس كل شئ فالعلاقة الزوجية سرعان ما تفتر وتضعف دون انفصال فتستمر الحياة بينهما رغما عنهما ، ويرى ان الانسان لا يستطيع تحقيق الكمال في اي شئ ومن ثم وجب عليه الاستعانة بالحيل والحلول المؤقتة ولو الى حين ( ساخرا ) حتى لا ينقرض النسل مادامت هذه الشرائع قائمة ، رغم انه لم تقم علاقة زوجية واحدة يوما ما في بلد ما بهدف بقاء النوع والمحافظة على النسل ربما الحفاظ على الإرث نعم

[Mac · Rating 4 out of 5]

In "Getting Married," George Bernard Shaw takes on the institution of marriage. As usual, he makes some trenchant points alongside flimsy arguments. Various characters articulate different critiques of the traditional form of marriage as it existed in Victorian/Georgian Britain. For instance, one woman wishes she could have multiple husbands, each serving a different purpose. An Anglican clergyman suggests that marriage should not be a church sacrament, but rather a contract between two people, potentially of finite duration. And so on.

One novelty of "Getting Married" is that, though as long as a full-length play, it all takes place in one day, without any change of scene. Characters come and go in various combinations throughout. Shaw seems to have been very proud that he was able to recreate the classical unities described in Aristotle's Poetics. Even Shakespear (as Shaw insists on spelling the bard's name) couldn't do that!

It is also worth mentioning that, as in "The Doctor's Dilemma," Shaw has appended a preface nearly as long as the play itself. He certainly had a lot to say, and said it all a lot.

[Ashgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's not a play but rather a long essay where Bernard Shaw discusses his view of marriage, I must say for the time this was written in (1908) it must have been way ahead of its time and mostly many people highly disagreed to him, for me, in 2020, I do agree with quite few things he mentioned like woman's independence in marriage and the right for both parties to simply get divorce without the excessive religious complications. While I highly disagreed with his regard of marriage as merely " a contract" and suggesting that this contract may be agreed on being for a short period of time, I also disagreed with his great support of polygamy and considering it a great solution for the modern world! Still, great book.

[Rodolfo Borges · Rating 2 out of 5]

Shaw escreveu uma peça de teatro precedida por um ensaio para defender o afrouxamento das leis de divórcio no Reino Unido, que ele critica como mais rígidas do que em países como a França. A peça é dolorosamente redundante e o ensaio poderia ter sido escrito por um adolescente capaz de enxergar problemas estruturais para onde quer que olhe, menos em si mesmo. Um panfleto com algum valor político, e praticamente nada de literário.

[Shawn Aebi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The larger arc of the storyline is way oast dated. "I'm a Christian therefore I must be a Communist". (?). However, like nearly all Shaw the zingers are worth it and he does create some pause in the genuflection of marriage. Fortunately he doesn't sink to the dribble of Love as the guiding force. Marriage is obviously a secular business transaction between two parties willing to accept a modicum of risk. No Netflix series here.

[David R. Hinds · Rating 5 out of 5]

An astonishing treatise on the state of marriage.

Shaw's bravado to tackle this sensitive subject at the time he did proves his prowess as an essential writer. Thought provoking and brilliantly witty, he forced us to face the complex and ridiculous laws, juxtaposed to the social mores of a time long past. And, in doing so, he also forced us to question whether our modern mores and laws got it right.

[Asher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Entertaining enough play; not much to write home about.

The preface is an interesting one – Shaw is simultaneously progressive and curmudgeonly. He talks about how marriage is economic slavery for woman and yet has the occasional line that reads as sexist. It's especially interesting reading to know that no fault divorce would not be introduced in the UK until 2022, fully 112 years after Shaw advocates for it here.