Part of the series:Â Exploring the Literary Giants, examining influential authors through paired comparisons of context, style, and enduring impact.
🔍 Society, identity, and the masks we wear.
Two Nobel Prize winners. Two revolutionaries of the theatre. Two writers who refused to accept appearances at face value.
George Bernard Shaw and Luigi Pirandello could hardly seem more different. Shaw was the great social provocateur, using comedy, satire and intellectual argument to expose the absurdities of class, convention, gender and respectable society. Pirandello turned his gaze towards the unstable territory of identity itself, questioning whether there is such a thing as a single, objective reality or an authentic self beneath the masks we wear.
Yet their differences conceal a remarkable affinity. Each distrusted appearances and challenged the core assumptions of their audiences. They recognised that human beings are shaped by the roles they are expected to perform, ultimately transforming theatre into something far more intellectually restless than mere entertainment.
Shaw asks us to look at society and say: Why must we live this way?
Pirandello takes us somewhere even more unsettling and asks: Who, exactly, is the person who is living it?
Why these two?
The pairing of Shaw and Pirandello works because both men were theatrical innovators who believed that the stage could be a place of intellectual confrontation.
Neither wanted audiences simply to sit comfortably and watch a familiar story unfold. Shaw wanted to provoke them into reconsidering their social and political assumptions. Pirandello wanted to destabilise their very understanding of reality.
Shaw’s social criticism could be ferocious, but he delivered it through wit. He attacked hypocrisy, class prejudice, conventional morality and the restrictive expectations placed upon women and men. His characters often discover that the supposedly respectable rules governing society are neither natural nor inevitable.
Pirandello approached human existence from another direction. His concern was not primarily with whether society was unjust, although social structures certainly matter in his work. He was fascinated by the instability of identity: the difference between who we believe ourselves to be and who others believe us to be; between the person we are and the role we perform; between reality and the stories we construct around it.
The contrast is stark.
But it is precisely the contrast that makes the pairing work.
Shaw dismantles social conventions from the outside.
Pirandello dismantles the concept of a fixed identity from within.
And both leave their audiences with an uncomfortable suspicion that what appears solid may be nothing of the sort.
There is also something wonderfully appropriate about bringing these two Nobel laureates together. Shaw received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1925, while Pirandello received it in 1934. Both had already transformed modern theatre before the prize recognised their achievements.
Time, place, movement
Shaw was born in Dublin in 1856 and spent much of his adult life in London, becoming one of the most prominent intellectual and theatrical figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
He belonged to an era of enormous social change: industrialisation, expanding political consciousness, debates about socialism, women’s rights, poverty, education and the organisation of modern society. Shaw did not stand outside those debates. He plunged directly into them.
His theatre consequently became a vehicle for ideas.
But Shaw had an unusual gift: he could make an argument entertaining.
A Shaw play can contain political, economic or philosophical ideas that might have filled an essay, yet the audience encounters them through characters arguing, flirting, deceiving, provoking and making fools of one another.
Pirandello, born in Sicily in 1867, came of age in a newly unified Italy and wrote during a period in which traditional certainties were increasingly being challenged.
His work developed alongside the profound intellectual upheavals of the early twentieth century. The old confidence in fixed categories—reality and illusion, reason and madness, individual and society—began to look increasingly fragile.
Pirandello transformed that instability into theatre.
His characters do not simply inhabit a fictional world, but they can become conscious of their own fictional status. The theatre itself can become part of the drama: actors transform into characters, characters confront their creators, and the boundary between the stage and reality begins to disintegrate.
Rather than a mere theatrical trick, this marked a complete revolution in how the stage could reflect upon itself.
Core themes
Society and social convention
Shaw’s great subject is society, particularly the ridiculous and often cruel conventions that human beings accept simply because they have existed for so long.
He had little patience for the idea that tradition automatically deserves respect.
Pygmalion is perhaps the perfect example.
Eliza Doolittle’s transformation is ostensibly about language and pronunciation, but beneath the comedy lies a devastating observation about class. Her accent determines how people perceive her. Change her speech and, suddenly, people change their perception of who she is.
Language becomes social identity.
Shaw therefore exposes something deeply uncomfortable: society claims to judge people by who they are while constantly judging them according to external signs.
And that brings us directly towards Pirandello.
Identity and the mask
For Pirandello, identity becomes infinitely more complicated.
A human being does not necessarily possess one fixed identity; we appear differently to different people because every relationship creates a different version of us.
The “mask” is therefore not simply a disguise hiding an authentic self.
The disturbing possibility is that there may be no single self underneath it.
This idea lies at the heart of Pirandello’s theatre.
His characters can become trapped by the identities others impose upon them. They may believe themselves to be one person while everyone around them sees somebody else.
What begins as mere confusion inevitably darkens into a profound fear of non-existence.
Theatre within theatre
This is where Pirandello’s metatheatrical revolution becomes indispensable to understanding his achievement.
In Six Characters in Search of an Author, six fictional characters suddenly enter a theatre where actors and a director are rehearsing another play. They insist that they are real (at least within their own reality) and demand that their unfinished story be performed.
The theatre consequently begins to contain itself.
Actors are playing characters who are themselves confronting actors.
The audience is watching a performance about the possibility of performance.
The boundary between fiction and reality becomes increasingly impossible to maintain.
Pirandello goes beyond breaking the fourth wall to question whether it was ever as solid as we imagined.
The effect is revolutionary because theatre becomes conscious of its own artificiality.
Who owns a character?
Is a character more real once an actor performs it?
Is the actor pretending to be somebody else, or revealing another version of himself?
Can an author determine the meaning of a creation once it has entered the imagination of others?
Pirandello turns these questions into drama.
The impossibility of objective truth
In Right You Are (If You Think You Are), Pirandello pushes the problem even further.
The audience is presented with conflicting versions of reality and is denied the comforting resolution that one of them must ultimately be correct.
Truth becomes dependent upon perspective.
The title itself is almost a philosophical provocation: you are right, if you believe you are right.
The effect is deeply unsettling because we are accustomed to fiction providing answers. Pirandello instead gives us uncertainty.
And uncertainty becomes the answer.
Social roles and liberation
Here Shaw and Pirandello begin to converge.
Shaw examines the roles society assigns to us. Pirandello examines what happens when those roles become indistinguishable from identity itself.
In Pygmalion, Eliza must negotiate a society that has already decided what sort of person she is because of the way she speaks.
In Pirandello, characters are trapped by the versions of themselves that exist in other people’s minds.
Both writers therefore ask whether human beings can escape the identities imposed upon them.
The answers are very different, but the question is remarkably similar.
Style comparison
Shaw’s method is argumentative, satirical and exuberantly verbal.
He loved ideas, and he loved putting ideas into the mouths of characters who could fight over them. His dialogue can feel like intellectual fencing: rapid, witty and deliberately provocative.
His humour is rarely innocent. Behind the joke there is usually an argument.
Pirandello’s humour can also be sharp, but his theatrical universe is more unstable and psychologically unsettling.
Where Shaw frequently wants the audience to recognise the absurdity of society, Pirandello wants the audience to question the nature of reality itself.
Shaw says, in effect:
Look at this ridiculous social convention. Why have you accepted it?
Pirandello replies:
Look at this person you think you understand. How certain are you that you know who they are?
Shaw’s theatre often exposes society by making its conventions ridiculous.
Pirandello’s theatre exposes reality by making its categories unstable.
Yet both writers share an extraordinary capacity for making an audience reconsider what it thinks it already knows.
Key works
Shaw’s theatrical legacy is immense, spanning dozens of plays that systematically dissected Victorian and Edwardian pieties.
Pygmalion (1912) remains perhaps his most accessible and enduring masterpiece, wrapping a penetrating critique of class consciousness and social identity inside a razor-sharp linguistic comedy.
Man and Superman (1903) is considerably more ambitious philosophically, bringing together social criticism, ideas about evolution, gender and human development. Its famous “Don Juan in Hell” section becomes almost a play within the play, allowing Shaw to pursue philosophical questions through theatrical form.
Earlier works cut even closer to the bone. Mrs Warren’s Profession (1893) confronted the hypocrisy surrounding prostitution, poverty, and the economic subjugation of women with such candour that it was initially banned by the Lord Chamberlain.
Major Barbara (1905) launched a searing attack on capitalism and industrial philanthropy, forcing the audience to weigh moral purity against practical power.
And in Saint Joan (1923), Shaw reimagined the historical martyr as a champion of individual conscience, using her trial to expose the terrifying self-preservation of entrenched institutions.
Shaw’s extraordinary modernity explains why his work retains its vitality.
Beyond the theatre, he was also famously ahead of his time in his views on social reform, women’s emancipation, economics, animal rights, and ethical vegetarianism—viewing the latter not as a simple dietary preference, but as an essential element of a coherent moral life.
Moreover, his wit has survived almost as vigorously as his plays. Shaw possessed the rare gift of compressing an entire philosophical treatise into an aphorism sharp enough to draw blood.
Pirandello’s masterpieces are equally revolutionary, representing a total subversion of 20th-century drama.
Six Characters in Search of an Author (Sei personaggi in cerca d’autore; 1921) stands as the definitive monument of his metatheatrical vision, stranding unfinished fictional figures on a stage to demand an author for their grief.
Right You Are (If You Think You Are) (Così è (se vi pare); 1917) systematically dismantles the illusion of objective truth, demonstrating how gossip and human projection construct contradictory realities.
In Henry IV (Enrico IV; 1922), he delivers a chilling study of madness, identity, and the sanctuary (or prison) of historical performance.
His theatrical experimentations deepened with Each in His Own Way (Ciascuno a suo modo; 1924) and Tonight We Improvise (Questa sera si recita a soggetto; 1939), which shattered the traditional distance separating playwright, actor, character, and audience.
And his obsession with the splintered self was equally potent in prose: The Late Mattia Pascal (Il fu Mattia Pascal; 1904), though a novel rather than a play, remains essential for understanding his fascination with identity, fake deaths, and the ultimate possibility (or impossibility) of reinventing oneself.
Together, these works reveal a dramatist committed to deconstructing the very mechanics by which human beings construct their stories, identities, and realities.
Legacy and influence
Shaw changed modern drama by demonstrating that theatre could be simultaneously entertaining, political, philosophical and intellectually confrontational.
He helped establish the modern “problem play” as a form in which social questions could be placed directly before an audience without sacrificing wit or theatricality.
His influence extends far beyond the theatre. Pygmalion has itself been repeatedly adapted and reinterpreted, most famously as My Fair Lady, proving how enduring Shaw’s examination of language, class and identity has become.
Pirandello’s influence is perhaps even more radical in formal terms.
Theatre after Pirandello could no longer regard the boundary between fiction and reality as unquestionable.
His metatheatrical experiments anticipated and influenced later developments in modern and post-war theatre, including writers who would deliberately expose theatrical conventions and make the audience conscious of its position as an audience.
But the deepest legacy of both writers is not a particular technique.
It is the refusal to accept appearances.
Shaw taught audiences to question the social structures surrounding them.
Pirandello taught them to question the structures within their own minds.
One attacked complacency through satire.
The other attacked certainty through paradox.
Both understood that theatre could do something extraordinary: it could make an audience laugh while simultaneously making it uncomfortable about the assumptions behind the laughter.
Final reflections
George Bernard Shaw and Luigi Pirandello approached humanity from radically different directions.
Shaw looked at society and saw conventions waiting to be challenged. Pirandello looked at the individual and saw identities waiting to unravel.
Shaw believed that many of the problems of human life were produced by systems we had constructed ourselves and could therefore, at least theoretically, change.
Pirandello was less optimistic about the possibility of escaping the structures of identity. His characters discover that the masks we wear may become so deeply embedded that removing one only reveals another.
And yet, beneath that difference, they share a profound conviction:
Human beings are not nearly as simple as the roles assigned to them.
The social mask fascinates Shaw because it can be challenged.
The mask fascinates Pirandello because it may be impossible to remove.
Perhaps that is why these two very different dramatists belong together.
Shaw makes us laugh at the absurdity of the world we have built, while Pirandello makes us wonder whether the person laughing is quite the person we thought they were.
One revolutionised theatre by turning it into a forum for social argument. The other revolutionised it by turning theatre itself into the subject.
And both left us with the same unsettling invitation:
Look again.
What appears to be reality may be only a performance.
What appears to be identity may be only a mask.
And what appears to be certainty may, after all, depend entirely upon who is looking.
Part of the series:Â Exploring the Literary Giants
→ View all entries in this series
You may also like:
- Ernest Hemingway and Joseph Conrad → Read essay
Comment on “Exploring the Literary Giants: George Bernard Shaw and Luigi Pirandello”