Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Feminists

REP

(21,691 posts)

6. Henry Higgins is not Shaw; Shaw did not think marrying Higgins was a good solution, either

Reply to gkhouston (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 04:47 PM

Feb 2012

Henry Higgins is actually Henry Sweet (of Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer), of whom he said, "Pygmalion Higgins is not a portrait of Sweet, to whom the adventure of Eliza Doolittle would have been impossible; still, as will be seen, there are touches of Sweet in the play. With Higgins's physique and temperament Sweet might have set the Thames on fire."

Shaw thought quite highly of Eliza; Higgins treats everyone exactly the same, regardless of their class (badly).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's get REALLY old school: Anyone else read GB Shaw's Getting Married (1911)? [View all] REP Feb 2012 OP

Wow. On my reading list now. n/t Gormy Cuss Feb 2012 #1

I just downloaded it. I'll read anything by Shaw Catherina Feb 2012 #2

Shaw regarded Eliza's marriage to Freddie as a failure (in the Epilogue) REP Feb 2012 #3

As it was bound to be Catherina Feb 2012 #4

No. It's about religion. REP Feb 2012 #7

Now I'm intrigued. Catherina Feb 2012 #8

Yes, but I'm not sure she would have been any better off with 'enry 'iggins. gkhouston Feb 2012 #5

Henry Higgins is not Shaw; Shaw did not think marrying Higgins was a good solution, either REP Feb 2012 #6