بيوت الأرامل

by George Bernard Shaw, جورج برنارد شو

This is one of three plays Shaw published as Plays Unpleasant in 1898; they were termed "unpleasant" because they were intended, not to entertain their audiences—as traditional Victorian theatre was expected to—but to raise awareness of social problems and to censure exploitation of the laboring class by the unproductive rich. In this play, Dr. Harry Trench becomes disillusioned when he discovers how his fiancee's father, Mr. Sartorius, makes his money. However, it is soon revealed that Trench's own income is far from untainted.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Victorian, Literature, Fiction, Irish Literature

148 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1893

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

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Widower’s Houses (1892), the first of Shaw’s plays to be performed, was first published in the collection Plays Unpleasant. It is indeed an “unpleasant” play, for although it takes the form of a traditional comedy leading inevitably toward marriage, it makes the economic self interest that lies behind such match-making unusually clear and shows how both large and small fortunes may be—directly or indirectly—dependent upon the exploitation of the poor.

Failed novelist and successful music critic George Bernard Shaw had been thinking seriously about poverty and inequality since he joined the Fabian Society eight years before. No rabid Marxists, the Fabians believed in “gradualism,” that is, the incremental accomplishment of economic goals through the established political institutions of society (in this, they resembled the Democratic Socialists of America, of which Bernie Sanders is the most famous member.) He was also an early English promoter of Ibsen, admiring the way the Norwegian playwright explored questions of power, money and sexual equality within the traditional structure of the family. He wished to attempt something similar, and Widower’s Houses is the result.

The play begins—as any typical comedy might—with poor young doctor of good family Harry Trench who, while vacationing at Remagen on the banks of the Rhine, falls for the charming Blanche, daughter of rich businessman Sartorius. Everything seems promising until Trench discovers the source of Sartorius’ money: he is a slumlord, owner of some of the worst tenements in London.

The play is unpleasant because no one in the play—least of all Harry, our “hero”—shows himself to be untainted by money, or unmarked by the unearned privileges of class. (Blanche’s callous abuse of a her female servant lingers uncomfortably in the memory, darkening and enriching this theme of the play.) On the other hand, Shaw creates no cardboard villains here: Sartorius loves his daughter deeply, and our young people strive to be true to each other in an unjust, imperfect world where money is, after all, serious business indeed.

The play is not without flaws. The third act, for example, is too full of the dreary details of a complex economic deal, and, though Shaw attempts to lighten things with comic relief, the attempts are not successful. Still, the issues Widower’s Houses raises are important, and the flawed, sadder but wiser lovers offer us an “unpleasant” but realistic “comic” resolution.

[فايز غازي Fayez Ghazi · Rating 3 out of 5]

- بين ملاك الارض ومؤجريها طبقة مفعول بها الا هي "الفقراء" بأصنافهم.. اختار برنارد شو "الارامل" منهم كرمزية للتعبير عن من ليس لهم معيل ويبحثون عن الجنيهات بين الصخر.

- المسرحية تدور حول الإستغلال والرأسمالية المدمجة بالإقطاع في ذلك العصر، عن الحب والكرامة، عن السمو والدنائة، عن تغير المفاهيم واعادة صياغتها بواسطة الكلام. بمعظمها كانت جيدة.

- المشهد الأخير في المسرحية يكون زبدتها، ما النتيجة هنا؟ ترانش يقبل بلانش ويشترك في اللعبة! فيربح المرأة والمال، لم تعجبني هذه النهاية!...

- هذه المسرحية تظهر تأثر برناردشو بفلسفات العصر والأنظمة السياسية التي كانت قد بدأت تسود في حينها.

[Fabian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Dr. Stafford, my professor for "British Nobel Playwrights" class once said: "This is NOT his best." I am about to read a whole slew of Shaw, Beckett AND Pinter... and "Widower's Houses" is notable more than likely simply for being Shaw's first endeavor. The dialogue is presitcom; utilizing discourse which kind of bares the true, evil natures of all the protagonists is very effective. In 3 acts there are always present at least two distinct P.O.V.s exchanging, quite articulately, various ideas. The themes of money being perpetually tainted, of slum lordism and the insipid age-old views of the rich (as they get rich, oh yes, you get poor) are all explored. "Not his best" it is said-- so it probably only goes up from here.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slum Lords – A Necessary Evil?
6 January 2017

Shaw has an interesting comment at the beginning of this play: plays should be written so as more people can read them. This seems to fly against the idea that plays aren't meant to be read, but to be watched performed. Well, the reason he suggests this is that while one may get a lot from a play by watching it being performed, it should also be followed up with a reading to be able to get the most out of the play, which is one of the reasons why he published his plays to be read (and also included commentaries both before and after them). Mind you, one of the reasons he went down that track was due to plays only being able to be staged if permission was given by the government, and as such only certain plays could ever appear in the theatre.

This was one of the first plays that he had written (actually it is probably the first), and Shaw was never really one to stick with convention. Mind you, looking back from the 21st Century, and realising that he was one of the most popular playwrights throughout the twentieth century (until about the 1960s, when all of a suddenly they stopped performing them and simply switched back to Shakespeare), it is hard to believe that he faced the wrath of the censors in the early years, and certainly wasn't one to who would sell out simply to have his productions appear on stage.

The play is about a young man who makes an acquaintance with a young lady and her father while travelling through the Rhineland. They decide to get married, however the father puts a condition on it – they are only to get married if the man's relatives welcome the marriage, and as such he is asked to immediately write to them announcing the marriage, and when he receives a response to let him know. This suggest that there may be more to this father than meets the eye, but as is always the case, when the young are head-over heals in love then these dark secrets generally don't exist.

Like a lot of Shaw's plays this is a romantic comedy, but it is a romantic comedy which bites. The collection it is included in is called 'Plays Unpleasant', which suggests that these plays are designed to make us uncomfortable (well, Shaw actually tells us that as well). Also, they don't necessarily have the happy ending that many romantic comedies tend to have. This is certainly the case with this play because it turns out that while the father is quite wealthy, the reason he is wealthy is because he happens to be a slum lord. The reaction is almost like one discovers that one's fiancée's father is a drug lord. Then again, while the occupation was technically legal, it wasn't something that gentlemen of the period became involved in.

Shaw doesn't simply write him off as a villain though since he puts both sides of the argument to us. On one hand he is an evil man making his living off the suffering of others, and taking money from people whose only choice is a roof over their head, or food in their stomachs. Further, the methods he goes about collecting the money aren't the most noble and he even goes as far as dismissing one of his collectors for doing something nice for one of his tenants – fixing a problem – namely because it cost him money.

However, on the flip side of the argument is that he is providing a service, and a service that wouldn't always be available to people of little means. London has never been a cheap place to live, and the choice that many of the poor face is to live in these pigsties, or live on the street. The thing is that he provides them an option to live in a pig sty. So, why doesn't he actually provide a decent place for them to live? Well, the answer is two-fold: if he cleaned them up then he would be compelled to charge a higher rent (which sounds pretty dubious); and if he were to fix them up then they would simply destroy the place again which basically means throwing good money after bad (which sounds pretty discriminatory).

Well, I can sort of understand the first problem because once you offer suitable housing at a discount prince then suddenly you get people who can afford better places putting their hands up because, well, it is cheaper than what is otherwise available, and as such we come back to the first problem – no housing for the poor. As for the second problem, we could simply write that off by claiming discrimination, but as it turns out there is truth to that statement. Insurance companies that offer landlord insurance are forever paying out on claims where tenants destory a place. In fact one of the reasons that landlords request a bond is as an incentive for people not to trash the house (and believe me, I have seen rental properties trashed, as well as rental properties where landlords basically refuse to fix problems because, well, it is too expensive).

So who is right? Well that is a difficult question to answer because even though people should be able to have a roof over their heads, they don't always treat that privilege as a privilege. I knew somebody once who relied on public housing, and the government would go out of their way to make sure he had a roof over his head. Yet he was never happy with whatever they offered him. It either had stairs, was too far from the city, or full of junkies. Further, he never paid his rent, believing that this house was a right as opposed to a privilege. Oh, and it isn't as if he spent his money appropriately either – it usually ended up in the stomach of a pokie machine. Yet public housing isn't always the safest of places to live – and they certainly aren't pretty either. Take a trip through inner Melbourne and you will see these horrendous buildings sprouting out everywhere, and not surprisingly where these buildings are located are also where the jukies happen to be found.

In the end the government gets involved, and the problem is that when the government gets involved things end up worse than they were in the beginning. That may sound surprising coming from somebody like me, but this is the gist of the story, especially when you look back at the arguments posed earlier. The thing is that the government has heard of this problem and have decided to launch an investigation. In the end, it isn't the slum lords who suffer, it ends up being the poor. Then again, the poor have always been the punching bag of society, and whenever an investigation is launched into the conduct of the wealthy, the results always get deflected back to us.

[Lina AL Ojaili · Rating 3 out of 5]

انتقدالنظام الرأسمالي في بريطانياواستغلال طبقة ملاك العقار لحاجة المضطرين

[Mohamed samir msf · Rating 4 out of 5]

جورج برناردشو، كنت اسمع عنه فيما قبل ككل دارسى الفلسفة وعلم النفس، كنت اقرأ بعض افكاره التى تكتب فى الكتب الدراسيه وغيره.. الى ان وقع بيدى مجموعة من اعماله.
وبيوت الأرامل هى اولى ما قرأته ..
روايه او مسرحية ( لم تميل اكتمالا الى اي منهما ) عبقرية ليست فى لغتها على وجه الدقة وانما فى الفكرة ياعزيزى ، فى وقت كتابتها تعاظم دور ملاكى الأراضى والبيوت والمستثمرين والاغنياء بصفة خاصة ، وتبعه ازدياد ملحوظ بالفارق الاجتماعى الطبقى بين الاقل فى كل شئ،.. فكان الاستغلال سمة المرحلة، استغلال كل نفس ممحونة بحاجة من الحاجات الاساسية اللازمة لتسير امور الحياة من اجل خدمة مصالح الطبقات الاعلى والكيانات الاقتصادية العملاقة ... وهذا كله دون ان يتذكروا حاجة الطبقات الفقيرة ، الامهات البائسات ، الاولاد المرضى ، .
الرواية تاخذك الى عالم الاغنياء وكيف يفكرون .. على عكس ما كنت أظنه قبل قراتها بأن برنارد شو سيحيا بالاحداث وسط هؤلاء الأرامل الفقراء والضعفاء .. الى ان تركنا فى عالم الاغنياء نقرا ما يدور فى عقولهم من صفقات وتربح.. الى ان ياتى الكتاب الأزرق ! ويفضحهم وتفضحهم الحكومة وتجبرهم بطريق منا الى اعادة هيكلة ما يملكون... اما الحب .. فهنا له شق آخر ..
المسرحية بها بعض الملل ،خرجت عن السياق فى بعض أجزاء الحوار بين الشخصيات ،

[Hafsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحية خفيفة ظريفة تعكس واقع المجتمع الرأسمالي و تنتقده بشكل ضمني ..
مخالب الرأسمالية التي تنهب الفقراء و تزيد من غنى و فحش الارستقراطيين ..
اختلال التوازن الاخلاقي الاقتصادي و اختلال الحياة في المجتمع !
المسرحية تدور حول زواج المنفعة .. الزواج السائد بين الطبقات الارستقراطية و القائم على المحافظة على الثروات بل و الزيادة فيها عبر الارتباط بعائلة ذات جاه و نسب .. و لكن السؤال المطروح هو : من أين لها الجاه ؟؟ من نهب الارامل و اليتامى و الفقراء ...
حب المال سبب مآسي هذا العالم !

[Mohammed omran · Rating 3 out of 5]

وسطية شو التي كانت قد ظهرت لديه منذ بداياته معبراً عنها بتلك النهاية الغريبة التي جعلها لمسرحية «بيوت الأرامل». بالنسبة الى شو، كانت معركته الرئيسية هي المعركة ضد البورجوازية البريطانية، وهو كان يرى ان هذه المعركة تجمعه مع ستالين الذي كان يبدو عليه انه قادر على مهادنة كل أعدائه، باستثناء تلك البورجوازية. من هنا حين توجه شو الى الاتحاد السوفياتي زائراً ليستكشف ذلك البلد - المعجزة، كان ينطلق كما يبدو من مفهوم «عدو عدوي صديقي»، لذلك كان في وسعه ان يغض النظر عن كل ما يراه من عيوب، وان يؤكد لمن يلتقي به ان هذا البلد يختلف كلياً عن الصورة التي تحاول الصحافة البورجوازية ان تصوره بها. مهما يكن فإن هناك جانباً آخر في شخصية شو، دفعه لأن يبدي كل ذلك التعاطف «مع أكبر تجربة اشتراكية» تتحقق في العالم حتى ذلك الحين. فهو كان بالفعل اشتراكياً، سبق له ان وضع دراسات عدة عن الماركسية ضمت الى الكتاب الإنكليزي الشهير الذي خاض في المسألة الاجتماعية الاقتصادية «دراسات فابية» من هنا لم يكن غريباً منه ان يبدي كل ذلك الحماس للتجربة السوفياتية، بخاصة لجوزيف ستالين الذي التقاه في حديث خاص جرى بينهما طوال أكثر من ساعة، تباسط فيه الرجلان، وعند ختامه قال ستالين عن مؤلف «الأسلحة والإنسان» انه «مت��ب لكنه مخلص وصادق»، فيما قال شو عن ستالين: «إنني شديد الإعجاب بهذا الجيورجي الذي كان بإمكانه ان يكون ابناً غير شرعي لكاردينال ارستقراطي». ويقال ان ستالين أعجبته هذه الملاحظة وظل طوال سنوات يرويها في مجالسه الخاصة

[رومولا الن emmajain-book · Rating 3 out of 5]

يتكون الكتاب من خمس مسرحيات

1-مدرسة الارامل:
احببت هذه المسرحيه كثيرا وتستحق لوحدها خمس نجوم

2-كاليجولا:
ممله لم تعجبني

3-رجل الاقدار:
هذه ايضا لم تعجبني

4-الهاربة من الفضيحة:
فيها بعض الملل

5-جوديث:
احببت هذه المسرحيه

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 3 out of 5]

The plot concerns young Dr. Harry Trench who falls is enamoured with Blanche. Blanche responds to his love, and her father Sartorius approves of the love-affair on learning that Trench belongs to a patrician family.

Then comes a impediment to the love-affair. Trench meets by sheer happenstance a man called Lick cheese who has just been dismissed by Sartorius from employment. From this man, Trench learns that Sartorius’s assets comes from his ownership of slums, and that Lick cheese had been dismissed for having spent a petite sum of money on repairing one of the tenements belonging to Sartorius and occupied by a tenant. This discovery by Trench leads to certain complications and results in the termination of the love-affair between Trench and Blanche.

However, a few months later certain developments force Trench to come to terms with Sartorius, and the mediator is no other than the same Lick cheese. Trench and Blanche then make up their quarrel and agree to get married. The initiative in the compromise is taken by Blanche who therefore may be regarded as the first specimen of the New Woman of Shaw’s plays. This New Woman, beginning with Blanche, and developing through Vivie Warren, was to reach maturity as Ann Whitefield in Man and Superman. Trench, the male chosen by Blanche, and Sartorius, the prosperous slum-landlord and social climber, do little more than serve the theme of the play.

The one genuinely original character is Lick cheese because he alone comes alive and shows some development. Beginning as Sartorius’s humble and respectful rent-collector, Lick cheese rebels when he is sacked for spending too much on repairs to the slum hovels and shocks Trench by revealing the disgraceful source of Sartorius’s wealth. In the last Act of the play Lick cheese reappears, this time as a financier who has grown prosperous by rigging compensation claims from public bodies responsible for housing schemes.

The play Is well and truly ‘unpleasant’, as none of the characters here is in the least admirable. The play is farcical, presenting a problem in actual life. The problem relates to the slum-landlords and their tenants. The play is weak not only as regards its plot but also as regards its leading character, Harry Trench, who arouses no sympathy at all. As a first effort by Shaw In the field of drama, this play has certain remarkable qualities. Its dialogue is original; its construction is thoroughly workman-like; and it proves quite successful on the stage.

The play shows also Shaw’s interest in social problems. He claimed that a play of this kind could have been written only by a socialist economist. Shaw, in this play, clearly shows his hatred for the slum-landlords who exploited their tenants by charging them high rents but providing no amenities at all. However, he allows a typical slum-landlord to defend him and to present his side of the case.

[Mohamed Ammar · Rating 4 out of 5]

كل سلوك الشخصيات متوقع لكن الي مش قادر افهمه التغيير الاخير في سلوك البنت وتفكيرها !
وإذ ربما اكون في حاله من الانكار ان البنت الي عمال ااقول هي الحته النضيفه الي فيهم
تخيب امالي وسعادي D:
جميله والترجمه موش بطاله
لما شافته وهو ماسك صورتها , حسيت اننا داخلين على مشهد كله مشاعر نبيله وصادقه , بس نبيله ماتت غرقانه :D :D
احبيبي يا شو :*

[Alaa Osama · Rating 3 out of 5]

عندما يكون المال امام الاخلاق فى صراع فغالبا ما تنهزم الأخلاق.

[Katie Lumsden · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this. Interesting themes, easy to read, would recommend.

[I.Baschar · Rating 4 out of 5]

عندما يعزف قلم الكاتب الكبير جورج برنارد شو، جميل وقوي في طرحه للموضوعات الواقعيه المجتمعيه ، الحبكه حاضره، يعرض الفكره على لسان شخصيات الروايه بعمق وبحكمه وبقوه الحوار وبفن انتقاء الكلمات، كأنه يرسم بالكلمات. هنا المسرحية غير ساره على الرغم من أنها تأخذنا الى الزواج بشكل كوميدي تقليدي، في النهايه يكون الزواج هو مصلحه اقتصاديه للطرفين. المسرحية تمثل بالدرجه الأولى انتقاد للنظام السياسي في بريطانيا حيث يقوم الملاك الأغنياء تكوين ثروات كبيره او صغيره عن طريق استغلال معاناه الفقراء..

[Abeer Nwaider · Rating 3 out of 5]

احدى مسرحيات شو اللطيفة السلسة التي تحمل رسائل للمجتمع كالعادة
استهدف هذه المرة المجتمع الراسمالي الانكليزي وعرى انسانيتهم امام الشعب وامام انفسهم
حتى النبيل منهم فحب المال هو رأس كل خطيئة في الحياة كما قال كوكين

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

A comedy of manners grown scabiously over a tragedy of class.

[mengwe · Rating 3 out of 5]

more like 3.5ish

[Christopher M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first of the Plays Unpleasant and a "problem play," so everyone is horrible and mostly discussing an issue they don't resolve. That's the point, of course, and it is not only thought provoking but also sadly still relevant in its exploration of the morals of being a rich slum landlord. But later plays are more rounded, and this suffers from Shaw's habit of writing stage directions like passages from a novel the audience will never read.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحية خفيفة الظل
تنقد بشكل ضمني مجتمع الرأسمالي و كيف أنه يتغذي و يتوسع علي نهب الفقراء و دس مخالبهم فيه .
معاناة المجتمع من اختلتل التوازن الاقتصادي بين الطبقات و اختلال التوازن الأخلاقي و اختلاطهم العرضي ببعضهم !
لعنة الطبقات الأستقراطية و مئات اللعنات علي الطبقات الأقل ، الضغط بشدة من جانب الرأسمالين علي الطبقات العاملة !!
أي اختلال للتوازن هذا أنه لا يوجد توازن ليختل من الأصل .
هذا العالم قد لعن بحب المال و السلطة و الطبقات النبيلة !
برافو جروج برناد شو

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

From BBC Radio 3:

What happens if an Englishman, decent enough in private, shuts his eyes and conscience to the monstrous abuses of the poor by slum landlords, especially if the remedy might affect his own financial security? The theme has resonated down the years.

[Dr.Mohamed Ahmed · Rating 3 out of 5]

المال هو أساس المشاكل

[zeinab · Rating 3 out of 5]

عندما يصبح الحب من أجل المصلحة
عندما تتخلى القيم عن الحب

[Martin Denton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Widowers' Houses by Bernard Shaw brings us back to a time when ruthless self-made capitalists were persona non grata in proper society: sure, it's a study in hypocrisy, but there's something somehow refreshing about the rigid politeness of the snobbish upper classes of Victorian England. Mr. Sartorious, a slum landlord of vast wealth but no social position, actually demands affidavits from the titled relatives of his prospective son-in-law, assuring that they will receive his daughter Blanche into their homes. Imagine such worries plaguing the likes of Donald Trump or Martha Stewart.

For his part, the young man, Harry Trench, is completely ready to ignore Sartorious's humble background--until, that is, he discovers the source of Sartorious's income. Then he is appalled: how can a man make his living on the backs on the poorest of the poor, charging them inflated (if meager) rents for horrific tenements that are mostly unfit for human occupation? But Sartorious is able to turn the tables on him:

SARTORIOUS: And now, Dr. Trench, may I ask what your income is derived from?
TRENCH (defiantly): From interest: not from houses. My hands are clean as far as that goes. Interest on a mortgage.
SARTORIOUS (forcibly): Yes: a mortgage on my property. When I, to use your own words, screw, and bully, and drive these people to pay what they have freely undertaken to pay me, I cannot touch one penny of the money they give me until I have first paid you your seven hundred a year out of it.

Leave it to Shaw to insert such a succinct criticism of the capitalist system inside what has heretofore felt like an almost Wildean comedy of manners. In Widowers' Houses' third act he'll propose a rather cynical resolution; until then, though, he'll keep us rapt in a torrent of theoretical discussion regarding how to improve the lot of the poor and, more pointedly, precisely who is ultimately responsible for said improvement, and how, and why.

[Antar Jabareen · Rating 3 out of 5]

موضوع المسرحية يدور حول الطبيب الإنكليزي الشاب ترنش الذي يلتقي خلال رحلة استجمامية على ضفاف نهر الرين بصبية شابة إنكليزية بدورها تدعى بلانش. يغرم الشابان بعضهما ببعض ويطلب يدها من والدها سانتوريوس كربط كلام الى حين موافقة اسرة الطبيب. عندما يأتي ترنش لزيارة والد حبيبته يقابل موظف ابيها الذي تم طرده من وظيفته يكشف للطبيب ان والد حبيبته تإنما حقق ثروته الهائلة من استغلال الفقراء وتأجيرهم بيوتاً مريعة آيلة للسقوط ولا تتمتع بأي ميزات صحية، ولا تصان على الإطلاق. وإذ يكتشف ترنش جشعه وإجرامه، يصر على خطيبته أن تتزوجه من دون أن تقدم أي مساعدة مالية من والدها وان يكتفي بدخله البسيط. فهو لن يقبل أبداً مالاً في حياته يأتي من مصدر قذر لكن بلانش ترفض ويتوقف مشروع الزواج. ويهاجم الطبيب أبيها بكلمات قاسية فيرد عليه بأن الطبيب وعائلة اصحاب هذه الاملاك وانهم يأخذون منه ربا على القروض ومن الدخل وانهم ليس افضل منه. بعد مضي وقت طويل يعود الموظف المطرود الى بيت ساتوريوس بعد ان تبدل حاله واصبح ثريا. جاء ليعرض عليه صفقة مربحة حيث ان البلدية ستشق شارعا في الارض الموجود عليها بيوت الايجار القذر وستدفع تعويضاً حسب وضع المنزل لذلك عليه ان يرممها بمبالغ بسيطة ويربح تعويضا اكبر. يخبره ساتوريوس ان يذهب ويأتي بالطبيب ممثل عائلته ليتفقا فقد يحدث ان تقرر البلدية تغيير خطتها وذلك سيتسبب له بالخسارة. ياتي الطبيب وبعد اخذ ورد يتفقا. بلانش تعلم حقيقة أبيها فتعذر الطبيب وحين يكون في بيتها يلتقيان ويرجع الود بينهما.

[Intesar Alemadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

بيوت الأرامل .. مسرحية ..
جورج برناردشو ..
إيرلندا .. وزعيم الأدب الإنجليزي المعاصر ..


بيوت الأرامل هو اسم يعبر عن بيوت الفقراء الذين لا معيل لهم .. يتحدث برناردشو في مسرحيته عن الرأسمالية والطبقة البرجوازية .. تأثيرها في المجتمع واستغلالها لذوي الحاجات والمضطرين ..
الغنى والمال الذي يرفع الحقير إلى مصاف النبيل .. والحب الذي يغير المفاهيم والمباديء في سبيله .. لن يتطرق برناردشو لحياة سكان تلك البيوت الوضيعة .. بل سيسلط الضوء على الجشع في تبني الرأسمالية .. وجشع الملاك والمؤجرين ..
وأخيراً أود أن أنوه أنجورج برناردشو اشتراكي ..
المسرحية خفيفة وجميلة .. ويقال أنها ليست أفضل مسرحياته .. لعل النهاية لم تعجبني .. لكنها تحصل .. تحصل أن يفسد المرء من أجل تلبية رغبات من يحب ..


…………


ودمتم بحفظ الرحمن ..

[Abdulmageed Idrees · Rating 4 out of 5]

مسرحية تمثل حياة بعض النبلاء في لندن في القرن التاسع عشر من حيث توضيح بعض طرق كسب المال في تلك المدينة، وطبيعة الحياة الاجتماعية والاقتصادية المعقدة غير المتكافئة والعادلة بين طبقات ذلك المجتمع، و حياة المجاملات والنظرات الفوقية المتكبرة للفئات الأدنى بحيث لا يسلم من ذلك إلا من أوتي حظا من النسب والمال.

أبرز شخصيات المسرحية العصامي السيد سارتورباس وابنته المدللة بلانش والسيد النبيل ترانش، ووكيل أعماله كوكين.

شو في هذه المسرحية كان مبدعا جدا في مسألة التعبير عن الشخصيات وتفكيرها وردود افعالها بطريقة توحي الى واقع تلك الأفعال في الحياة اليومية، إلا أن هناك بعض نقاط الضعف من ذلك؛ ضعف منطقية بعض الأحداث التي وقعت بالصدفة، والتي قد يكون اضطر لذكرها شو، ولَم يجد لها مخرجا أفضل من ذلك.

[Ahmad El-Saeed · Rating 2 out of 5]

من مسرحيات برنارد شو تدور حول اصحاب البيوت اللذين يقومون باستغلال فقر الناس لكسب المزيد من المال وتناقش احوال عدة طبقات اجتماعية مختلفة واختلاف..
من المقولات
" لم تكن منحطاً بما فيه الكفاية لتظل بعيداً ولم تكن رجلاً لتقول الحقيقة "
" هذا هو مسلك الرجال في ان تدفع المرأة للخطأ "
" كنت اتمنى ان تتصرف بنذالة اكثر لتنبهني لغرضك "
" لو ظننت انك قادرة على الانقلاب علي هكذا لما كنت خاطبتك قط "

[Mohamed Alfatih · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحية لبرنارد شو، أطول بقليل من بقية مسرحياته، تناول فيها كعادته قضية إجتماعية وهي الجشع وسحق والمعدمين والعبث الذي يسببه الطمع بالبوصلة الأخلاقية للمرء فيتحول من فريق أصحاب المبادئ إلى فريق الفاسدين، لا يتشعّب برنارد شو بهذه القضية إلى تشريح أكثر عمقاً كما يفعل دائما ولذا أجد المسرحية جيدة جداً في الحبكة واستعراض الفكرة الأساسية وليست ذات جودة عالية في الأحداث والحوارات.

[vivi · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was my first george bernard shaw play (well other than my fair lady ig) and it was a psychotic introduction omg... had me gagged at several points like the twists the turns the reveals i was in shock i tell you. no clue what they were talking about in the third act but the ending got so insane like shaw mustve been such a freak icb

[Shimaa abdelrhem · Rating 3 out of 5]

Families often
think it due to themselves to turn their backs on new-

comers whom they may not think quite good enough for them.

العائلات عادة يظنون أنه يجب عليهم أن يديروا ظهورهم للقادمين الجدد عندما يعتقدون أنهم ليسوا جديرين بهم ...