This was my very first attempt at delving into the works of Strindberg, and oh dear lord, did he strike back with full force.

This is not just any ordinary play; it is a profound exploration of hate and power, as well as passion and the lack thereof.

Looking back on this emotionally brutal piece, I am truly shocked to see how deeply it engages with the same "topics" of oppressive gender and class power structures. What makes it remarkable is that it does this in a way that the power structures inform the emotional physics of the scenario, rather than being the sole end goal.

The play is set over the course of a seemingly perfect Summer night. The characters are Jean (30), a servant to the count; Kristine (35), the cook to the count; and Julie (25), the daughter of the count. The seeds of drama are already sown in their ages. Jean and Kristine are, in a sense, together (if nothing better presents itself). Julie is drunk, and Jean is bored. One thing leads to another, and ultimately, no one emerges happy.

What strikes you so forcefully in this play is the intense tension between passionate emotion and muddledness. For the most part, the characters carry on in normal, everyday dialogue - self-contradicting, unarousing, and stable. However, every now and then, this ordinary dialogue erupts in vivid, imagistic, and often horrifying language. After the emotional strain of the commonness of the rest of the dialogue, these interruptions possess a fantastic rending strength.

I thoroughly enjoyed this play and would highly recommend it to others.

I read the translation made by Peter Watts.

It is a beautiful play by the master Strindberg. This is the kind of play that makes one certain about the role of inspiration in art. The most remarkable aspect of the play is how it showcases the changes in the characters in a smooth and unconstrained manner. You believe what you watch and understand it, although the characters' very odd behaviors, especially Julia's.

The relationship between the servant and the master is presented in such a powerful way only in Losey's important movie The Servant (1963), which is a Harold Pinter adaptation of a 1948 novelette by Robin Maugham. This movie further explores the complex dynamics between the two, adding another layer of depth to the theme. The combination of the play and the movie provides a fascinating study of human nature and the power struggles that can occur within a household.

Overall, both the play and the movie offer valuable insights into the world of art and the relationships between people. They remind us of the importance of inspiration and the ability to present complex ideas in a engaging and thought-provoking way.

It is an arduous and rather uncomfortable task to pen a review for a writer renowned for his blatant misogyny, especially for a feminist and a woman. One might wonder, then why bother reading the play? The answer is that the dramatics society at my workplace was staging a performance of the same play. However, I didn't get around to reading it until last year, and as you can see, I read it six months later, precisely around Midsummer (when the play's action occurs). I firmly believe that one reads a particular book or watches a particular movie when the time is right, neither too soon nor too late. Now, having read the play, I have given it three stars, and I found it to be just okay. The play does grapple with relevant social themes such as class and social hierarchy, sexual relations, and the power struggle between the sexes, which are as pertinent today in 2012 as they were in 1888. However, the writer's inherent and deeply ingrained patriarchal and misogynistic beliefs are so blatant that they cannot be overlooked.

Jean, the valet in the play, is the archetypal 'Bosola', a social climber and aspirant who desires to transcend his class, yet has a fascination and an abhorrence for the aristocracy he aspires to. Miss Julie is portrayed as a 'wild' woman, given to impulse and fancy. This image of a 'wild' and 'fanciful' woman is a common trope in literature, often seen as 'untamed' and deserving of punishment. The play's setting, on Midsummer's Eve, a festival associated with paganism and excess, seems to bring out the 'unconscious' of the characters. Moreover, as suggested by Christine, the cook, Miss Julie is on her period and is thus more'strange' than usual. This is typical of patriarchy, which either devalues women's experiences or associates a woman's biological functions with her 'indiscreet' behavior.

At the end of the play, it is not Jean who takes the 'extreme measure', but rather Miss Julie who has to 'pay' for her'sin'. Not only is she a noblewoman who has 'defiled' herself by having sexual intercourse with a 'lowborn' man, but she is also a woman who dared to break the barriers of patriarchy and assert her sexual desire. Jean can have libidinous desires, have a 'fuck' whenever he wants, and 'cheat' on Christine if he wishes, but the same rules do not apply to Miss Julie. She is called a 'whore' by Jean and is seen as a 'fallen' woman. Miss Julie always dreams of 'falling', while Jean dreams of 'rising'. What is also disturbing is that Miss Julie, who was previously seen as 'wild' and'strange', is 'tamed' by Jean and almost under a hypnotic trance, obeys his bidding. Strindberg seems to suggest that a woman must be 'tamed' in the end, and Miss Julie's fate is similar to that of her Serine, who must be taken to the chopping block by a man. The constant use of animal imagery as a motif in the play alludes to Miss Julie; she is both her pet bird and her pet dog. She is likened to a female dog in heat and a bird in a cage that is set right by its master if it tries to fly away.

The Count is conspicuously absent in the play, yet his presence is felt. He is a shadow that cannot be ignored, and both Jean and Miss Julie fear him. He perhaps represents the ultimate Patriarchal Power - the Ultimate Authority; Jean is merely a cog in the machine of patriarchy. Miss Julie is always known as Miss Julie and never by her first name because patriarchy always views a woman in relation to her social position. She is always someone's daughter, wife, or mother, never her own self. This is why, towards the end of the play, Miss Julie says, "I haven't got a self." It is because the self she knew as an aristocratic lady has been 'compromised' after having sex with Jean, and there is no other'self' that she knows.

A word about Christine - she is a woman, but not entirely sympathetic to Miss Julie's plight. She calls her "Poor woman/girl," chides Jean for taking 'advantage' of Miss Julie, and yet we see her fawning over Jean throughout the play. She knows about his sexual encounter with Miss Julie and is strangely indifferent to it. Instead of helping her fellow woman, she leaves Miss Julie to her own devices by going to the Church to pray for them.

There is an interesting exploration of love in the play. Strindberg blurs the line between sex and love, leaving it ambiguous whether it is lust that drives both Jean and Miss Julie or if there is love on Jean's part towards Miss Julie, which is overridden by his desire to surpass his class.

It is highly ironic that Strindberg shows that 'nurture' plays a significant role in 'nature'. He presents the figure of Julie's mother as a 'diabolical' woman who defies societal boundaries. She does not believe in marriage and motherhood, which are forced upon her. She attempts to remodel societal structures by reversing the gender hierarchy, but this results in her and the Count becoming the laughing stock of society. According to Strindberg, this is what happens when the 'natural order' of things is reversed. He seems to suggest that women are half-brained, dull creatures who, if given power, will only cause chaos and disorder in society. This is precisely why Miss Julie needs to be eliminated as she is a threat to 'order' with her 'disorderly' and 'wild' ways. A woman is considered 'fallen' if she transgresses and expresses her sexual desire and volition. Miss Julie then resembles the figure of Eve, tempting Adam (Jean) with the forbidden fruit of knowledge, leading to the 'fall'.

I am guessing that patriarchy must have relished this play as the class issue is merely a smokescreen. The real success of the play, in my opinion, lies in the fact that women are reviled and 'taught' a lesson, lest they dare to transgress. Can you blame me for thoroughly enjoying the scene where Miss Julie asks Jean to kiss her shoe? I am deeply disturbed and angry that Strindberg, a deeply misogynistic writer, is hailed as one of the greatest dramatists. I guess if I were to discuss the greatness of drama, I would say that Strindberg pales in comparison to the greatness that was Henrik Ibsen.

Jean has a strong aversion to clubs. She simply can't stand the idea of being in a club environment.

Perhaps it's the noise, the crowd, or the overall atmosphere that turns her off.

She firmly believes that her life is better without being part of a club.

Jean is a firm advocate for Kristen and is constantly shouting out "#kristenforlife".

She feels a deep connection to Kristen and wants to show her unwavering support.

Moreover, Jean is also passionate about seeking justice for Miss Julie.

She believes that Miss Julie has been wronged and is determined to see that justice is served.

Jean's hatred for clubs and her dedication to Kristen and justice for Miss Julie are two aspects of her personality that define her.

She is not afraid to speak her mind and stand up for what she believes in.

In a world where many people conform to the norms, Jean is a breath of fresh air with her unique perspectives and unwavering convictions.

From one perspective, here we also have an interesting similarity with the play "The Pretenders", that is, the downfall of a woman. Now, the reason why Mr. Strindberg has been so involved in this issue may be because he himself has always had several lovers in addition to his wife. However, it should not be concealed that apart from misogyny, he actually had a particular talent in dissecting and grasping people's states and behaviors.

In addition, that view "every human being is the sum of the environmental factors surrounding him and cannot escape from their framework" has here reached a point of maturity that, in a short time, it transforms this into a significant effect among naturalistic works. And perhaps if Strindberg had not had so many misogynistic thoughts, he would have been much more famous than this.

Miss Julie is an aristocratic woman who vividly represents the social diseases prevalent in many families of her class. She is still recuperating from a broken engagement, which was shattered due to her attempt to train her fiancé like a dog. In a moment of despair, she flirts with her servant Jean and embarks on an adventure with unforeseen consequences. Jean seduces Julie by sharing a heart-breaking story of his childhood love. However, after their love affair, Jean rejects her and confesses that he has deceived her, leaving her in disgrace.

Julie keeps having a frequent dream, which symbolizes the desires of her own fall. This dream perhaps reflects her inner turmoil and the consequences of her actions. The image of her as an aristocrat brought down by her own choices is a powerful one. It shows how the social norms and expectations of her class can lead to such tragic outcomes.

The story of Miss Julie serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of crossing social boundaries and the importance of self-awareness. It also highlights the complex nature of human relationships and the power dynamics that exist within them. Overall, it is a thought-provoking and engaging narrative that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

In today's society, the love affairs between high-on-hormones youngsters are often very short-lived.

These young people, driven by their intense emotions and hormonal surges, enter into relationships with great enthusiasm. However, due to their lack of maturity and experience in handling relationships, these affairs tend to fizzle out quickly.

The modern world, with its fast-paced lifestyle and constant distractions, also contributes to the brevity of these love affairs. Youngsters are easily influenced by external factors such as social media, peer pressure, and the pursuit of instant gratification.

As a result, they may not be able to invest the time and effort required to build a lasting relationship. Instead, they jump from one relationship to another, in search of the next exciting experience.

This trend of short-lived love affairs among youngsters is a reflection of the changing times and the values of modern society. While it may seem exciting and liberating in the moment, it can also lead to feelings of disappointment, heartbreak, and a lack of emotional stability.

It is important for young people to understand the importance of building healthy and lasting relationships based on mutual respect, trust, and communication. Only then can they hope to find true love and happiness in life.

This was an extremely interesting read.

It's particularly fascinating as I'm reading it for school purposes and have the opportunity to analyze it from some really cool perspectives.

The plot is highly dramatic and emotional. Although not an abundance of events occur in a traditional sense, an incredible amount takes place just within the characters' words and rantings.

Julie is the sort of character where one can perceive numerous dimensions and, to some extent, establish a connection.

The fact that it's a play gives it a distinct reading experience, which can be quite pleasant at times.

During the analysis, I delve deeper into both the gender roles that the characters either strictly adhere to or blatantly go against, as well as the social classes to which they are bound. This truly aids in understanding the context of the play.

I can now cross Strindberg off the list of authors from whom I have to read something. And as a huge plus, I get to write about his rather crappy view on women in school! It's a win-win situation.

You might think you are reading a romantic work, a beautiful, dramatic piece of Swedish literature, but it is a work with a great many meanings. It has only three main characters, yes, three characters, but the work is full of ideas and themes that are worth pausing and thinking about, even for a little while, and wondering about its inputs and outputs.

The characters: The Countess Julie, the servant Jean, and the cook Kristin.

The place: The kitchen in the Count's house.

You will find this classification along with the ages of the characters before the start of the drama.

The drama was first published in 1888, and it was translated into English and then into Arabic, but the translation by Professor Musharraf - Ibrahim Abdel Malik - is directly from Swedish to us from its original text.

Strindberg shed light on the class and gender struggle between rich and poor, male and female. He talked a lot about the mood swings of women and the way they make decisions and how women are in modern society. He also touched on the idea of women's hatred because of their humiliating treatment and that they are dominant. This relationship was clear between the Countess Julie and her former suitor, and undoubtedly, the Countess Julie's parents had a great role in her personality.

In the end, it is a light work and I definitely recommend it. Maybe not everyone will like it, but I recommend reading it slowly to understand its meanings. And this review does not do it justice.

Also, I read the work throughout and then went back to the translator's and author's prefaces.

Where do I begin from?

Oh well, from the start of course!

Julie, the daughter of a count, is a lively, independent, and strong-willed young woman. Jean, one of the count's servants, and Kristine, the cook, are regular working-class people just trying to survive. The whole story unfolds within one night and one morning.

After spending some time together, while the cook is asleep, Julie and Jean, who is already in a relationship with Kristine, have a "night of passion" which Julie claims results in pregnancy.

The next morning, they realize they can't live under the same roof. Jean suggests that they run away together and open an inn. Julie is hesitant, and after some time, Kristine finds them together. Julie asks Kristine to join them in running away and opening an inn, but Kristine turns the proposal down and urges them to turn to God for forgiveness.

Right after Kristine leaves, Julie's father returns home. Jean realizes that he can't run away or face the consequences, and neither can Julie. So, just before the count enters the room, Jean urges Julie to commit suicide, which she does.

I know I did a very lousy job at describing the plot.

A part of me thinks that I can do better, but the other part of me thinks there's no reason to spend more time on this stupid play.

I can't find a single redeeming quality in it, but making a list of the things I didn't like is easy.

First of all, the plot felt completely disjointed. It was like reading a book with some pages ripped out. I expected a more vibrant and colorful story, but no. There are also a couple of subplots about the leading lady's parents' marriage and her own failed engagement, but I can't see what purpose they serve.

And now, let's talk about the "juicy" stuff.

In this boring play, you'll also find completely unsympathetic characters. The worst offender is Jean. He's a liar, a manipulator, a misogynist who uses women as toys or a stepping stone to achieve his goals, and an animal killer/abuser. And he has the nerve to tell Julie to kill herself. And that's the guy we're supposed to like!

Julie isn't much better. The only thing I can feel sympathy for is that she's constantly called crazy for not wanting to submit to any man (which, given the era, is understandable), and for being treated as a "whore" by the man who took advantage of her. Otherwise, she's snobbish, says and does things that make no sense, turns into a push-over by the end, and is also an animal abuser/killer.

I would have overlooked some of these characters' douchiness if they had been more multilayered and the play hadn't been so boring. A cathartic ending would have also helped.

I don't understand what I was supposed to get out of this. That rich people are worthless? That working people will do anything to climb the social ladder? That love doesn't last? That wanting equality between the genders is stupid and an act of hate against men? (Seriously, this is mentioned in the play!) What? Because I surely didn't get a story I'll remember fondly. And yes, I know this is a product of its time, but I still have the right to dislike it.

If you made it this far, congratulations! 'Til next time, take care :) :) :).

Aus Strindbergs Vorwort:

I find the joy of life in the strong, cruel struggles of life, and it gives me pleasure to be able to experience something, to learn something.

And therefore I have chosen an unusual, but instructive case, in a word an exception, but a great exception, which confirms the rule, and which will surely hurt those who love the everyday.

What will further arouse indignation in some is that my motivation for the action is not simple, and there is not only one point of view for it.

An event in life - and this is a rather new discovery - is usually caused by a whole series of more or less deep motives.

This complexity and multiplicity of motives add depth and authenticity to the story. It makes the reader think and question, rather than simply accepting a one-sided explanation.

Strindberg's choice to present such a case challenges the traditional way of looking at things and forces us to consider the hidden forces and emotions that drive human behavior.

By exploring this exception, he shows us that life is not always as straightforward as it seems, and that there are often layers of meaning and significance beneath the surface.

In this way, his work becomes a powerful tool for understanding ourselves and the world around us.

Julie, the daughter of a count, is a proud and self-confident woman.

She makes her fiancé jump over riding fences, dances with the forester and flirts with the servants. People talk about her because of this, but warnings that her virtue is in question seem to be of no importance to her. On Midsummer's Night, she dances with the servant Jean, after which a domestic drama unfolds between the two in the kitchen of the count's residence. At first, Julie is the seemingly stronger one. She enjoys being adored by Jean, but at some point she gives in to him, the two become intimate and now it is Jean who seems to gain power over her.

In his naturalistic tragedy "Miss Julie" (1888), Strindberg takes up many themes that his Norwegian colleague Ibsen has also dealt with: class differences, gender equality, overall human equality, illegitimate relationships, illegitimate sex, the past that comes to the surface.

In just a single act, Strindberg creates so much tension that it is almost unbearable and sets off a verbal battle around one's ears that one sometimes has to read and wants to read several times. A grandiose play, an exciting author.