Talk:Candida (play)

Where Her Heart Is?
I question whether Marchbanks is really where Candida's heart is. When I read the play, it seemed more to indicate that Candida does love Marchbanks, but not in that way, and that she chose a method of showing him that he could not possibly have her. I didn't get any indication that, if indeed her husband did not "need" her in the way she says he does, she would cheerfully leave him for Marchbanks. Is there strong indication of either possibility being a better reading?

Also, I don't know enough about reading the play to say it well in the article, but could someone point out the idea that Marchbanks might be better off unmarried? The play does seem to indicate that, and I have read it in one review.

-- That was one of the ideas which recur in Candida and Man and Superman, that the basic urge of a woman is to mother. Which is an interesting question, given that the "Woman Question" has never been sufficiently resolved, even after the tumult of the Sexual Revolution. The giveaways for how Candida feels (the genuine possibility that she would leave her husband for Marchbanks) are in the commanding italics - the little gestures and adverbs which describe her actions in minute, Truffautian detail. I love the way the play ends, by the way. At least, for Marchbanks. (I think there can be a lot of discussion on Shaw's assessment of the basic female urge to nurture and protect. Being a woman, it's hard to know quite how to take that...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.36.222 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

plot description all wrong
the plot on this page is alllllll wrong. someone needs to fix it otherwise we risk misinforming readers.

Plot, productions
I don't see anything badly wrong with the plot description.

However, in "Adaptations" (really, productions of the play) a broadcast on BBC7 must have been a repeat from very much earlier than 2009, Ray Smith who was in it having died in 1991.

Rogersansom (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Morell really a Fabian Socialist?
The intro paragraph states that Morell is a Fabian Socialist. The text of the play says "The Reverend James Mavor Morell is a Christian Socialist clergyman of the Church of England, and an active member of the Guild of St. Matthew and the Christian Social Union." If Shaw, who was a member, wanted Morell to be one too, that could have been mentioned here. Instead, the closest thing to supporting the claim that Morell is a member is this: "guess at his politics from a yellow backed Progress and Poverty, Fabian Essays, a Dream of John Ball, Marx's Capital, and half a dozen other literary landmarks in Socialism", and the exchange with Proserpine that ends with Morell saying "bother the Fabian Society". At best, the idea that Morell is a Fabian is, as it says, a guess at his politics, so doesn't belong in the introduction as a statement of fact.

Suggest changing the intro to read:

"The cleric is a Christian socialist, allowing Shaw—himself a Fabian Socialist—to weave political issues, current at the time, into the story." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanafee (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)