Know It All Review

I enjoyed this article. It made me look at Wikipedia as much more of a legitimate effort at universal knowledge, rather than its somewhat awful reputation. I think the article rather intelligently examined the websites foibles as well as its benefits over more traditional forms of encyclopedia.

I do think that some of the things said in defense of the site were rather unconsidered, but then again, coming from Wikipedia, unconsidered is hardly a rarity. I thought the defense of errors was particularly flawed: "When confronted with evidence of errors or bias, Wikipedians invoke a favorite excuse: look how often the mainstream media, and the traditional encyclopedia, are wrong! As defenses go, this is the epistemological equivalent of 'But Johnny jumped off the bridge first.'" However, part of what makes this quote so frustrating to me is the tendency of the articles author to treat her subject as a juvenile one. How can we be expected to examine Wikipedia fairly and without bias with that kind of obvious tone to the work?

Also, and this is likely because I've never bothered to contribute myself (although I flatter myself to think that if I took the time I could surely find something useful to say), I did not realize how many rules, and good rules, there were about contributing. The rules about N.P.O.V. (the neutral point of view) and verifiability are both interesting, but I had never really inferred them from the site's content.


Overall, even though it pointed out flaws of the site I had never considered, I think this article has made me take Wikipedia somewhat more seriously. Yes, it is obviously a flawed effort: nothing allowing that much free input can expect to be free from a few "trolls", an unfortunate law of the Internet. However, its goals are strangely optimistic, and I find myself hoping that, eventually, we can have this sort of all-inclusive knowledge.

Pygmalion: 2nd Response

The sequel is undoubtedly my favorite part of this play. While I appreciate the movie versions, I have to say that I found the Eliza and Higgins romance aspect to be unrealistic, at best, and I am extremely happy with the way Shaw explains this away in his true ending. I can also understand how frustrating it must have been for him to deal with the seemingly unalterable opinion of the public that every "romance" must absolutely end with the main characters falling for one another. This kind of staid, formulaic opinion of performance and literature is what I most abhor about the "Hollywood-izing" of popular culture. I applaud literature that goes against the formula, and Shaw not only does this, but does it well and in a way that makes sense, not simply for the sake of rebellion. You can romanticize it all you want, but all feelings aside, Higgins would make a deplorable husband. Whether or not you believe Eliza really loves Freddy, it's easy to see that her life with him would be much more emotionally stable. Granted, he might not be intellectually stimulating, and certainly not rich, Eliza was guaranteed to get all the argumentative intellectualism she wanted simply from being around Higgins, and with the promise of financial assistance from Higgins and Colonel Pickering, I think that her choosing the guy who obviously adores her is the only logical choice.

Pygmalion: 1st Response

This is absolutely one of my favorite plays. I've read it numerous times, although I've only seen it performed once or twice, and have also seen the musical adaptation My Fair Lady, which I enjoy enough, but I have to evaluate it separately from the play, being that the movie is edited to have that oh-so-Hollywood ending.

Aside from the obvious points to admire, such as the clever mythological allusion in its title (I'm a bit of a mythology buff, mostly as a hobby, and it always excites me when some of that usually useless knowledge comes in handy), perhaps one of the things I most enjoy upon repeated readings is Shaw's stage directions. As a reader of many plays, and a writer of one woeful attempt, I am used to stage directions being sparse and utilized only when necessary to clarify some issue of mechanics in the scene. In fact, previous play writing classes have all suggested to me that the "proper style" of stage directions is as few as possible to convey the point. Shaw gleefully ignores this provision in favor of providing the rich detail that I feel really helps create the scene, both in the mind of a reader (although this is obviously not the works intended audience) and the mind of a director. Without some of these incredibly specific descriptions, I feel that it would be difficult for the play to maintain its consistency of message across different performances, because some of those descriptions, such as the one for Eliza's entrance, are specific not simply because of the author's whim, but because the circumstances of the setting of the play require that level of exactitude.

I also am consistently impressed by the Technical Note at the beginning of the play, wherein Shaw acknowledges that some of the scenes he has written would be well nigh impossible to stage in a regular theater. Again, in my experience, one of the things that typically defines a well-written play is the absence of impossibilities like that, simply for the sake of its staging. However, even as Shaw includes these scenes (the first instance being that of Eliza arriving at her domicile in the taxi cab), he marks them off clearly. The play is written to stand without these inclusions: the plot still makes sense, and the audience comes away with much the same story. To me, though, those scenes are crucial, both as a reader of the play, being able to collect so much extra information that only serves to further enrich the piece, and also, potentially, as an actor. Whether or not these extra scenes are being performed in a particular run of the play, the knowledge of those in-between events, and the characters behavior in them, could be very useful to an actor looking to strengthen their performance by providing background information that would otherwise have to be inferred from the text (although this is often a necessary skill, I have found that many prefer strong, specific support for their character choices, rather than having to make these inferences).

Despite my familiarity with the piece, I find myself still discovering new things to enjoy about it. I look forward very much to class discussion!