Dacia Di Gerolamo Ms. Jensen AP English 12 26 January 2011 AP Literature Analysis 4 Pygmalion was not a single genre book, but a book with genres intertwined. Not only was it a romance but also a comedy. Not a traditional romance with the fairy tale ending, but a story in which love is used, but not in the sense it is usually portrayed. It was a comedy not in a humorous way but in a way in which Shaw used satire to shed light on social issues. Issues such as division between the classes during the 1800's. The purpose of this article was to evaluate dramatic comedies in the 1800's. It examines the satire used in the early works. The author is able to clearly express his view. He constructively criticizes dramatic comedies of the time. The author uses the traditional ideas of the genre a long with how the authors built their works around the genre. Enough evidence is definitely provided for the reader to get the point of the paper. The author points out that the works are defined by the characters actions. The author is able to make the characters a certain way in order to fit a genre. In Shaw's case the genre was not only a comedy, but a romance as well. The author can easily have bias especially on the romance genre, whether good or bad. And also the sense of humor can affect it. All his bias can affect his view on all pieces of romantic criticisms.

AP Literature Analysis 3 Although George Bernard Shaw had the standing of a classic dramatist, people still question how good he truly was. This is in fact the purpose of the author writing this criticism. Morgan wanted to look into Shaw's work to see if he was justly able to have that prestigious standing. The critique was very well written, and supported the argument throughout. To back up her argument Morgan referred to not only his great works, but also situations in his life that shaped his writing. The author uses substantial evidence in order to support Shaw's standing. In his works Shaw focused on marriage, genius, and class distinctions. He wrote about these things in a satiric way in order to show society during that time period. And when he was unable to keep people interested, he changed the way he wrote by adding more of a comedic element to his work. The author of this criticism concludes that Shaw did in fact deserve that prestigious title, and he was in fact an amazing writer. She shows this by describing how he was able to change his work when he needed to appeal to his audience. Morgan also points out how Shaw put heartrending human emotions in the center of all of his plays. His plays showed the pure grain of true feelings amongst the irrationalities. Morgan states "…Shaw's comedic brilliance and his geniality tend to enliven the mind and break down prejudice". Morgan may in fact be a fan of the Great Shaw's works making it very easy for her to see Shaw as a classic dramatist.

George Bernard Shaw was not like other writers of his time. He chose to go against the norm and push to expose immoral behaviors. In his work he attends to individual responsibility and for people to go against the conformist of society. He wanted his readers to break away from what was expected of them and find themselves in the process. The author's purpose in writing this was to recognize Shaw. Not only for the things he did but the way he did them. The author wanted to show how Bernard used his writing to connect with his audience in ways that were not typically seen. The article was much focused; it expressed the main points efficiently and organized so the reader knew what to look for and to see the main ideas. In order for this author to emphasize his points he adds quotes said by Shaw. This helps with the effectiveness of the piece as a whole. The reader is able to see the first hand evidence to back up the authors views. The author comes to the conclusion that Shaw was able to do things others could not. He points out the contemporary moral problems Shaw chose to address along with his use of ironic tone and paradoxes. The author may be in fact a huge fan of Shaw, making his criticism bias. He states all of Shaw's accomplishments throughout the piece along with all of his life work. He does not in fact state his admiration for Shaw, but it can be inferred by the elevated complimentary diction