Consider the character of Henry Higgins. Is he closest in character to Doolittle, Freddy, or the sculptor, Pygmalion? Is Higgins a hero? A socialist with noble aspirations? Or a failure as a human being? Could Higgins be more accurately labeled an “anti-hero?” Research this archetype and discuss.
In Pygmalion, Professor Henry Higgins is a phoneticist with bad manners and a love of the English language. He is oblivious the world of social conduct and cares not for the rules and rituals of the middle class. He says and acts how he wants and thus is considered pretty socially inept. It is illustrated consistently through the play that he has the temperament of a child. When things don’t go the way he wants, he throws a fit. When he’s insulated, he sulks and so on and so forth. He is rude and tramples on anyone to get what he wants, yet he is immensely intelligent and so well meaning in his pursuits that most cannot hold his faults against him.
In my opinion, he is closest in character to Alfred Doolittle. Both characters share many personality traits. Firstly, both of them seem to not care what their classes think of them so long as they get to continue on doing what they want to. Alfred is a proud member of the undeserving poor and Higgins doesn’t bother to fix his manners no matter how any times he commits a social faux pas and loses favor. Next, they both hold all classes in contempt and they are therefore equal to both of them. Because of this, they treat all classes the same, whether it be in a positive or negative way. Another way they are similar is in their treatment of Eliza. They both view her as a means to end rather than a human being.
Higgins is the main catalyst of Eliza’s transformation. He formulates the experiment and becomes Eliza’s teacher who transforms her into a lady. What does this say about him? Does he do it simply because the idea of a challenge intrigues him? Or is he a noble hero and champion of the lower classes? In my opinion, Higgins is simply a spoiled man baby who needed to pass time. Like I mentioned before, Higgins doesn’t view Eliza as a human being. He views her as a means to an end. She is clay to him and not much more. One cannot say he is a noble hero because he doesn’t transform Eliza with the intent of bettering her life. In fact, in the beginning of the play, he won’t even give her spare change for flowers until acted on by divine force. He does so because he made a petty bet he could, and I think it was just an intriguing intellectual pursuit to him and an entertaining way to thumb his nose at the middle class.
However, I do think Higgins can be labeled an anti-hero. He is rude and selfish unlike a hero but doesn’t intend to be and doesn’t act out of malice. While Higgins may have had poor intention in transforming Eliza, he still did a good thing. He raised a girl out of abject poverty and into comfortable middle class living. He did so out of his own selfish intent, but he still did it and it still helped her (for the most part).
In my opinion, he is closest in character to Alfred Doolittle. Both characters share many personality traits. Firstly, both of them seem to not care what their classes think of them so long as they get to continue on doing what they want to. Alfred is a proud member of the undeserving poor and Higgins doesn’t bother to fix his manners no matter how any times he commits a social faux pas and loses favor. Next, they both hold all classes in contempt and they are therefore equal to both of them. Because of this, they treat all classes the same, whether it be in a positive or negative way. Another way they are similar is in their treatment of Eliza. They both view her as a means to end rather than a human being.
Higgins is the main catalyst of Eliza’s transformation. He formulates the experiment and becomes Eliza’s teacher who transforms her into a lady. What does this say about him? Does he do it simply because the idea of a challenge intrigues him? Or is he a noble hero and champion of the lower classes? In my opinion, Higgins is simply a spoiled man baby who needed to pass time. Like I mentioned before, Higgins doesn’t view Eliza as a human being. He views her as a means to an end. She is clay to him and not much more. One cannot say he is a noble hero because he doesn’t transform Eliza with the intent of bettering her life. In fact, in the beginning of the play, he won’t even give her spare change for flowers until acted on by divine force. He does so because he made a petty bet he could, and I think it was just an intriguing intellectual pursuit to him and an entertaining way to thumb his nose at the middle class.
However, I do think Higgins can be labeled an anti-hero. He is rude and selfish unlike a hero but doesn’t intend to be and doesn’t act out of malice. While Higgins may have had poor intention in transforming Eliza, he still did a good thing. He raised a girl out of abject poverty and into comfortable middle class living. He did so out of his own selfish intent, but he still did it and it still helped her (for the most part).