Review of Biography Michael Holroyd. Bernard Shaw, Vol. 1: 1856-1898—The Search for Love (1988) | Vol. 2: 1898-1918—The Pursuit of Power (1989) | Vol. 3: 1918-1950—The Lure of Fantasy (1991) 
Timid-minded but industrious author looks at short-sighted lion, November 14, 2011
Holroyd's hefty triptych is now about twenty years old. Holroyd appears to have made much effort—there are huge lists of acknowledgements (and incidentally amusing asides on the teething troubles of then-new word processors). But maybe his effort was confined to mailing out requests for information, and perhaps arranging material in sequence.
Shaw was world-famous from roughly (Max Beerbohm's chronology) his 40th birthday, 1896. This fame lasted to the end of his life. But less that ten years after waking up no longer obscure, the First World War began. Shaw was established in the fin de siècle, a contemporary of a mixed crew including Wilde, Beardsley, William Morris—just about, Kipling, Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Wagner, Whistler, Zola, H G Wells.
Why did Shaw become so well-known, or, if you prefer, notorious? Holroyd manages interesting material on Shaw and sex. But Holroyd, in my opinion, is hopeless on this question. As a minimum, to situate X, it's necessary to establish what outlook was assumed by writers before the advent of X; and then describe what he/she did that was so novel as to attract huge attention. It's also necessary to establish the economic and legal framework: it's likely Shaw benefitted from the relaxation of laws on blasphemy, and on the removal of stamp duty from educational publications, and on Victorian wealth, allowing fairly massive attendance at theatres (and music halls)—and no doubt other things. However, Holroyd seems rather incapable of attempting general topics; his accounts of Shaw's work, mostly plays of course, are competent but seem (to me) superficial. Thus 'Heartbreak House' (first produced 1923) was regarded by Bertrand Russell as an illustration of the enfeebled moral and intellectual state of Britain prior to the First World War, populated by people talking about little of importance; and possibly its audiences viewed it in that light; but Holroyd's descriptions, in a long passage in vol 3, of the characters and their speeches, doesn't do much to bring out the irresponsibility of Heartbreak House types.
Even after fairly careful examination of Holroyd, I can't be certain when Shaw metamorphosed from music critic, ghost writer, author of unfinished novels, and author of unperformed plays into fame. Holroyd, in effect, assumes Shaw's retrospective activity must have been important, and we get a great deal of information on Shaw's life and family in Ireland, St Pancras Vestry and local London politics, Henry George—Shaw regarded the 'land question' as absolutely crucial—and Karl Marx as influences, the Webbs, the founding of the 'New Statesman', and so on. Fascinating to read that the LSE was established with the help of a bequest of £10,000. Socialism in Britain started earlier than anywhere else, and was basically nationalistic. This explains a peculiar difference with both the USA and Germany, where Jewish immigration perverted the movement from the start into a secretive pro-Jewish underground force.
The time span of volume 2 included vast Jewish immigration into the East End of London, unnoticed by Holroyd; it's interesting that by 1909 'a power Broadway impresario Charles Frohman' became involved in 'experimental repertory' at the Duke of York's. I wish Holroyd had delved a little into the taboo topic of theatre takings—was Shaw something like an Andrew Lloyd-Webber figure? Anyway, Volume 3 contains 32 years of Shaw ageing from 63 to 94. He clearly had little idea about Stalin, and for that matter little about Hitler. And indeed little about Churchill. His death was eventful—many news hacks and a few religious figures turning up more or less unwantedly. He left money to the British Museum, which later split into two parts, the British Library being the natural destination of his money; however, there was at least one lawsuit over this issue. Bertie Russell said that he was delicious in his attacks on humbug—but also that, his battles being won, his plays were no longer performed. I've seen and heard several people say his plays are "boring".
Holroyd's books therefore are more valuable as reference sources than as a convincing portrait. Interesting to read Shaw on Einstein—not a clue. Or Charlie Chaplin. Or Liberalism—Shaw was brought up when the Manchester School of competition benefitted Britain, especially the entrepreneurial types, and Shaw noted things were changing, and lashed out at Liberalism and Liberals. I expect he helped muddy the meaning of the word—in the USA it's used in truly weird senses. Shaw knew nothing of Judaism (Belloc isn't even mentioned in Volume 3). Or Shakespeare—one of his plays shows Shakespeare jotting down comments from the common people on his wax tablets! I don't think Shaw knew much of India—many of his pithy sayings make sense if you assume that information was restricted, and Shaw was simply assuming that most people were fairly reasonable. It's hard to make sense of his comments on the USSR (Soviet Union) on any other basis—Holroyd has of course quite a bit on this, not of great informational depth. And the same applies to many of his plays—St Joan, for example. Of course, the same applied to his audiences who otherwise would have been less inclined to regard him as a sage.
I have a sort of family anecdote about Shaw: after the War, someone went to Shaw's house to tune a piano (or mend a shelf, or something) and on his return, the others in their workplace asked him what was Shaw like? "Just an old man with a beard." The point is that all the others were thrilled. Shaw and Wells were admired author twins.
So—detailed, with many presumably accurate quotations. And full of raw meat, notably on the Socialist movement in Britain, but all somewhat uncooked and indigestible. (There is no real examination of the way Socialist ideals became influenced, corrupted, degraded in their passage to official 'Labour Party' dogma). I don't think I'm alone in thinking this; the laudatory paragraphs in the blurbs don't entirely carry conviction; and my copies ('used', once owned by a school) look unopened. Amazon has virtually no reviews.
I wanted to mention this book as a perhaps unexpected source on Stalin and the way 'socialism' became contaminated by Jews into a euphemism for totalitarianism. Holroyd takes himself seriously as a biographer; there's plenty of detail. There's abundant material on Beatrice Webb, and 'Sidney Webb'—I think I'm right in saying the real name is never given. There's material on trust money which 'Webb' used to help set up the LSE. It is a fact (see e.g. Belloc) that Britain's theatre land was dominated by Jews, and it seem likely that Shaw's success, when it finally came (he was about 40—according to Max Beerbohm!) was due to promotional activity. Certainly it's hard to judge his plays—plays are in any case hard to read, since the reader of course has to try to bear in mind all the multiple characters' beliefs and outlooks. The fact these plays are hardly ever presented now, and haven't been for decades, suggest that 'booming' was necessary for them. The filmed versions included the lightweight 'My Fair Lady'. Later in life, to quote Russell, Shaw was 'led into rather absurd adulation of Stalin'. (I think 'led to' was correct—in Russell's Autobiography).
Shaw (1856-1950) and 'Jews'. Internet search with Jewish search engines says Shaw wrote ‘... the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word, the Jew." in the London Morning Post, December 3, 1925’. Shaw may have been a Jew from Ireland; if anyone is still interested in his work, the Jewish links ought to be investigated. But he died before the big days of Jewish TV and colour films.
Pygmalion was staged in 1913 (I haven't attempted to find when it was written). It was made into a film in 1938; Shaw by then was over 80, and presumably the film was made with his approval. It's available (in rather quivery black-and-white). Students of the JQ might like to watch it.
‘My Fair Lady is a musical based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, with book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner and music by Frederick Loewe. The story concerns Eliza Doolittle, a Cockney flower girl [and daughter of a 'common dustman'] who takes speech lessons from professor Henry Higgins, a phoneticist, so that she may pass as a lady.’ (Wikipedia). First performance: 15 March 1956. First showing of the film: 1964. References to aristocracies include Hungarians and Ruritanians; but the American Jews include nothing on Jews.