
Getting Married
Free public-domain edition — preview in your browser, no account required for the first chapter.
Preview free · sign up to save progress, download to your shelf, and sync with the apps
Already have an account? Sign in
This book offers a razor-sharp, ahead-of-its-time critique of marriage that remains startlingly relevant, challenging readers to rethink the legal and emotional foundations of one of society's most sacred institutions.
Edition details
Book Summary
George Bernard Shaw's 'Getting Married' is a provocative play and essay that systematically dismantles the legal, social, and religious foundations of marriage, arguing it is a flawed institution rooted in property law and economic slavery for women. Shaw advocates for easy divorce, economic independence for women, and a honest reckoning with the impersonal nature of sexual desire.
The book opens with a lengthy preface that critiques marriage as a social construct rather than a natural or divine institution, tracing its origins to property law and sex slavery. Shaw argues that current marriage laws are hypocritical, forcing women into economic dependence and trapping couples in unhappy unions. The play itself features a heated debate among characters—including a bishop, a socialist, and a rebellious young woman—who argue over marriage's necessity, morality, and legal structure. Hotchkiss condemns marriage morality, while Soames and the Bishop clash over civil versus religious marriage. Shaw concludes that the only solution is to make divorce as cheap and easy as marriage, to grant women economic independence, and to abandon romantic illusions. The work is both a philosophical treatise and a dramatic exploration, exposing the gap between marriage's idealized public image and its oppressive private reality.
Reading guide
Go deeper in Getting Married
Character guides, themes, chapter companions — plus Character Web, narrative arc, and theme heatmap teasers that unlock fully beside the text in BetterReads.
Narrative arc
Story tension across the book.
Mrs. Bridgenorth
As hostess and mother of the bride, Mrs. Bridgenorth moves through the wedding-day bustle with the ease of a woman who has done this many times before, trading dry pleasantries with Collins while the General bolts from the cake. Marriage, she insists, came natural to her — a claim that quietly sets her apart from her unmarried sister Lesbia and from Collins's own reluctant account of being broken into it. Her composure anchors the play's opening world and makes her a steady counterweight to the guests who want to argue marriage into a theory.
Reginald Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss arrives at the wedding armed with statistics and mischief, insisting that the respectable Englishman who defends marriage cannot even say which marriage he means — civil, sacramental, polygamous, or South Dakotan. His gift for unanswerable quibbling exposes the muddle beneath everyone's pieties, and his refusal to let a comfortable phrase stand unchallenged makes him the play's sharpest irritant. He matters because he turns the breakfast table into a debating chamber where the real subject — what marriage is for — cannot be avoided.
Lesbia
Lesbia stands slightly apart from the wedding festivities, the sister whom Collins still hopes to marry off and whom Mrs. Bridgenorth has already written off as a permanent old maid. Her resistance is not coyness but principle: she weighs the economic and emotional costs of marriage and finds the bargain poor, a position Shaw treats with real sympathy rather than as a joke. Her presence forces the play to ask whether a woman can decline marriage without being diminished, and her exchanges sharpen the case against compulsory coupling.
Leo
Leo is the young man who wants the wedding to mean what weddings are supposed to mean — love, permanence, a future — and who cannot understand why Lesbia keeps examining the contract instead of signing it. His emotional weather swings between pleading and indignation, and his sincerity is both his charm and his vulnerability in a household where everyone else has an argument ready. His pursuit of Lesbia gives the play its central romantic pressure and tests whether feeling can survive being cross-examined.
Collins
Collins has superintended so many wedding breakfasts that he can joke about the General's flight from the cake while quietly revealing his own long accommodation to a marriage that never quite came natural to him. His affectionate, rueful account of a wife who locked the doors and made the engine driver promise to be careful — and of children who ran away from home — gives the play its warmest and most ambivalent testimony. He matters because his genial fatalism shows what the marriage debate looks like from inside a real one.
The General
General Bridgenorth is a man of duty and habit who has done his paternal office at wedding after wedding and now finds the ritual unbearable in a way he cannot articulate. His abrupt exit from the cake — noted by Collins with affectionate amusement — hints at a private cost beneath the military bearing, and his traditionalism makes him a natural foil to the play's arguing guests. He matters as the silent, slightly wounded representative of the older generation whose marriages the younger characters are busy renegotiating.
Critique of Marriage as an Institution
The book systematically attacks the legal, social, and religious foundations of marriage, arguing it is a flawed, often oppressive institution based on property rights and sex slavery rather than genuine affection or partnership.
Economic Dependence of Women
A central theme is that marriage functions as a system of economic slavery for women, who are forced to marry for livelihood, reducing the institution to a form of legalized prostitution and distorting genuine relationships.
Divorce and Legal Reform
The book advocates for easy, accessible divorce as essential to marriage's maintenance, arguing that indissoluble marriage causes misery and hypocrisy, while sensible divorce laws would allow for healthier re-assortment of couples.
Illusions of Romantic Love
Shaw debunks the romantic ideal of love as a permanent, sacred bond, portraying it instead as a transient, irrational appetite that should not form the basis of lifelong legal contracts or justify personal enslavement.