Talk:Man and Superman

Comment
This article seems wrong about the production of the play. It was performed in New York on Broadway in 1905-06. Am I missing something else? Not sure why there is the whole bit about it never being performed until 1917? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickie27 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This article was poorly written.
 * I tried to fix it. Is it better? I'm not an experienced copyeditor, and work better from a blank page I think. I'll look over it again when I have time. --Kenneth M Burke 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an OK introduction, but it needs a bit more on the play following on from "a bit deeper". What is deeper about it and how does it related to Nietszche's ideas? Also, Man and Superman has a very long preface, essentially an essay on evolutionary themes in the history of man, which has a lot of ideas (most of them fairly crackpot when viewed today). They relate to Hegel's notions of the world spirit "working itself out in history" and are strongly influenced by Lemark's notions of evolution, now generally discounted. Many think they also prefigure fascist notions. No commentary on the play would be complete without reference to the preface, which is better known than the play to which it is appended. This article should really go to Cleanup or suchlike, and when I work out how to do that, I will put it there. Myles325a 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis
I think that a brief synopsis would greatly improve the quality of the article.--Dark Green (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

superman
Could you please explain how Shaw was 'influenced' by the term coined by Nietzsche ? If you regard 'man' as the median, there are only two vertical ways to go: up and down. The question at issue here is not the banal nature of the word itself, but what was intended by it. Do you think Shaw was thinking on the same lines as Nietzsche ? (Pamour (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)).

More relevant image
A magazine image from the first staging can be found here. We know what Shaw looks like (as in the current image) and it adds nothing to the article — this new one, showing Ann regarding Tanner in a slightly predatory way, would be more apt. I imagine there's a free use or other acceptable licence for its inclusion in the article but as an unregistered editor, I can't add it. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Accepted for inclusion — thanks User:NickW557. --86.157.225.91 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The first link in the section. indicated as "here", is a dead link. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)