- homepage link


Man and Superman - all the world's a stage - society

Bernard Shaw, Coincidentally

By Stanley Kauffmann


Coincidence is a suspect device in dramaturgy. Can there be a teacher of playwriting anywhere who advises the use of coincidence in structure? Yet it is a fact, odd and teasing, that Bernard Shaw uses it frequently in plays that are now fixed in the world’s treasury of drama.

Some examples. In Mrs. Warren’s Profession, the clergyman father of Vivie‘s boyfriend turns out to be a former lover of her mother. In You Never Can Tell, the landlord of Dolly Clandon’s dentist turns out to be her long-lost father. In Man and Superman, the longed-for sweetheart of the brigand in the Sierra Nevada mountains turns out to be the sister of the chauffeur he has just kidnapped. In John Bull’s Other Island, the Irishman whom Broadbent consults for guidance turns out to be from the same village as Broadbent’s partner, Doyle. In Misalliance, the pilot whose plane crashes in the garden of a country house turns out to be the best friend of a young man staying in the house. In Fanny’s First Play, the hooker who knows a certain young man turns out to have been a cell mate of the young man’s fiancee when the latter was in prison for civil disturbance. In Heartbreak House, the burglar who breaks into that house turns out to be a former member of Captain Shotover’s crew. This list is incomplete.

“Turns out” is the operative phrase in these descriptions. Shaw does the turning, knowingly, almost ostentatiously. But why does this dramatist, whose technical skill grew breathtakingly even as he swept through the first decade of his career, cling to coincidence as he goes along and aloft?

Several explanations occur. First is a basic paradox in Shaw. He considered himself a pioneer of the New Drama. (He said that, after he had been heralding the New Drama in his theater criticism, he found that there was none and had to supply it himself.) Yet he loved the flavors of the nineteenth-century popular theater that had absorbed him in Dublin and London, trumpery though the plays usually were, and he particularly liked the way the audience was engaged in a kind of proprietary relationship with the stage. The theater of that day belonged to its audience in a way that is now quite lost: people went to the theater (Dickens describes it vividly) as if it were an extension of their homes. The theater’s artifices, patent as they were, were almost an etiquette. If Character A did this, then B must do that. The public relished these arrangements. Shaw, despite his inspiration by Ibsen and others, was reluctant to discard the heartiness of this rapport. In fact, as Martin Meisel clarifies in Shaw and the Nineteenth Century Theater, Shaw’s New Drama frequently used armatures and character ideas from popular plays of the past, providing them with the soundness they had lacked yet exploiting their theatrical juiciness.

He clearly saw coincidence as part of his dramaturgic legacy. But as a serious artist, he had to make sure that it did not fracture verity. He understood that coincidence could successfully function only in comedy. Even in Heartbreak House, which eventually is a deeply grave play, the coincidence occurs in the second act, which is comic.

But why did he want to use coincidences at all? Presumably he could have constructed his plays without them; why, then, did he risk (the apt word, I think) the use of coincidence? Here are some possible reasons. First, they are enjoyable. If they are handled with a kind of effrontery, rather than embarrassment, and if the progress of the play up to that point has engaged the audience, the coincidence conveys a thrill of neatness. It makes us feel fulfillment of a wish. When Mr. Crampton turns out to be Dolly’s father in You Never Can Tell, it seems much less a trick than a desired comeliness. It seems part of the nature of this play that its very shape should add to its delight.

Beyond and perhaps beneath this factor is the peculiar truth that coincidence, in the hands of a master, is a subtle compliment to the audience. Shaw seems to be saying to us: “I know that you know that this coincidence would be highly unlikely in life; but I also know that, if I have done my job properly, you will chuckle with me at that very fact, both because it is neat and because we all want it to happen.” When a Shavian coincidence is played before us -- or is read -- we hear him saying the above, thus admitting us to a society of connoisseurs. Shaw leaves it to the low-spirited and literal to balk at the unlikelihood of the event. The rest of us are relishing the coincidence as a manifest of theatrical life, set.pleasantly apart from the dailiness of life off-stage.

Of course the toleration of coincidence, even a secret eagerness for its appropriate use, has its dangers. I was once in a parodic high-school show in which I played someone who was.needed in a particular scene, and, to excuse my sudden appearance, the author gave me the line, “I was in the neighborhood looking for some real estate.” The line got the desired laugh, but the audience was laughing with the author at the play, not, as in Shaw, enjoying the play itself more. Like many other potentially beneficial instruments in all the arts, coincidence used by clumsy hands can merely obtrude. With Shaw, it helps to confirm the being of the play as an event in art that illuminates the real world yet is free of the real world’s limitations.



©2003-10 All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or distribute in any form without express permission. Hunter Department of Theater . 695 Park Avenue . New York, NY 10065 .