An odd yet fascinating play that piques curiosity with its queer aspects. I found myself truly intrigued as to what Strindberg's intention was behind this play. It presented a unique and captivating world that drew me in. However, I really enjoyed it for some particular reason. Maybe it was due to the outstanding writing, which was both powerful and evocative. The words seemed to dance on the page, creating vivid images and emotions. Or perhaps it was the peculiarity of it all, the way it defied expectations and explored the unconventional. This was my first encounter with Strindberg's work, and it left a lasting impression on me. I look forward to delving deeper into his plays and uncovering more of his literary treasures.

That was truly awful!

This was indubitably the worst play I have ever read and likely ever will. There is a dull girl who is used as a symbol for all the traits the playwright detests in women. Then there is an arrogant little cockroach, disguised as a man. Seriously, he is a walking insult to all rational men, as he ruins the lives of the other characters, both of whom are women. And the plot is so dreadfully boring that a mathematics lesson seems like a thrilling blockbuster in comparison.

The views of the writer's era cannot excuse everything he does, even though he attempts to explain himself in his rather long foreword, which is as long as half the play. In fact, the foreword was even worse than the play itself.

The only redeeming factor? It's not overly long. In fact, it's actually very short. My version has only 34 pages, and with the foreword, it's just over 40 pages. So, it's not a colossal waste of time. But still, it is indeed a waste of time.

For those who wish to read a naturalistic work, I would highly recommend Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House" (or "Nora"). However, "Miss Julie" is most definitely not worth the effort.

Doris Julia is the third play that I have read by Strindberg (both the suitor and the father), and now I can very much emphasize that I have fewer people to lead me who are so masterful in the psychology and behavior of men and women and create such vivid characters.

We had a conversation with Seyyed about it, about the women in the play and the quality of their performances, about the intense class conflict in the play, about the quality of love among the characters.

1. When Jean describes his childhood and his dreams, he presents a very large gap between the peasants and the landlords in front of us.

But on the other hand, Strindberg portrays for us a girl from the servant class who doesn't even have the right to set foot in the barn like the other young people in the village on the Midsummer's Eve festival and be seen with a young man either inside or outside the house, perhaps her dignity will be lost. And her dream is to come down from the sky and set foot on the ground. And this is exactly where Jean takes advantage of her.

2. The character of Christine is also interesting; Christine is a peasant who only has to be obedient and submissive. When Jean is about to dance with Miss Julia, she easily steps aside and obeys the order of the master's daughter and gives up her partner.

And even when she realizes that Jean wants to escape with Julia, she doesn't put up any fight or resistance.

As if being a woman and a peasant is enough to put her in the lower ranks of human affairs.

And in such a situation, her only possession is religion and she only knows the commandments of the God of the Church for herself and her class.

3. Love in the society of the play "Miss Julia" is completely confined within social affairs and the roles that are defined for people.

People cannot have a relationship with those from other classes; the only possible relationship is of the master and servant type.

As if when people like Miss Julia and Jean are about to get a little closer to each other, it will lead to a scandal. And even this closeness is very quickly, by Jean, turned into an exploitative relationship and is not healthy at all.

And this relationship is so unhealthy that it doesn't even arouse Christine's concern; because she knows that Jean will return to her in the end.

P.S: The credibility of this review, if these few lines are credible, is the result of reading and discussing with my dear friend Seyyed.

Fräulein Julie, I feel sorry for you and your fate.

Yet you are not the typical victim of a tragedy. Indeed, the circumstances have made it difficult for you: the fruit of a forced union, perhaps even a rape, neglected by the father in the name of a natural upbringing, driven by the mother to hate men, rubbed raw by the urge for the other sex. An eager advocate of class barriers - you don't even forgive your own dog for getting involved with a simple courtyard dog - yet at the same time intoxicated by the rush of crossing boundaries and serving the servants.

On the other hand, at 21 years old, you are an adult and must take responsibility for your actions. Instead, you choose to flee from responsibility, first spatially, and when that fails, into suicide. With this, you have finally left behind the honor code of your class. So it is not surprising that at your last hour, it is not the church bell that rings, but the servant's bell.

Strindberg polemicizes in this drama with the modern self-understanding of the woman as an equal and independent being to the man. As the daughter of such a mother, he portrays Julie as a passionate being, incapable of seeing the consequences of her actions or deaf to the advice of others. In his preface, Strindberg is even more explicit: The half-woman is a type that has emerged, now selling itself for power, respect, awards and diplomas, as well as earlier for money. It is then difficult to appreciate the literary quality of the play, the vividness of the characters, the successful language images and the modern composition.

The article "Julie" (1888) is written based on the common class problem in 19th-century European societies. It presents a non-romantic and passionate relationship, as well as a power struggle between two genders. Julie is the daughter of the lord, and Jean is the head servant of the house. Julie, who is unable to maintain class distance due to her mother's upbringing, is a girl with a weak personality, kind and fragile, relying only on her noble family background (daughter of the count). In contrast, Jean is a self-made and learned man, confident in himself, aware of his place in the lower class but not content. He is seeking opportunities for advancement. On the night of the holiday, in the absence of her father (the count) who has gone on a short trip, Julie engages in entertainment and dancing with the servants without restraint. In a moment of intoxication, she invites Jean to dance. Jean, who doesn't want to be involved in this game, obeys the order of the daughter of the lord. The end of the dance at the end of the night leads to Jean's room, and what shouldn't happen occurs. Julie has gained nothing but humiliation. However, the winning cards are all in Jean's hands. He wants to have a hotel in Switzerland and needs the lord's money. Julie begs her father for this money, hoping to buy Jean's love. Everyone blames Julie for not believing in class differences, leaving her fiancé, having a close relationship with the servants, and... even Christine, a servant who is Jean's fiancée, considers Julie a sinner and despises her. Before dawn breaks, the count returns home. Julie and Jean, in the shadow of the count's presence, give up their night of freedom. But Jean has lost nothing. He is still a servant, so he serves the count's breakfast in the upper class. For Julie, however, there is no way out but to rely on Jean's razor blade.

This story vividly depicts the class divide and the complex emotions and power struggles within a household. It shows how the rules of society can trap individuals and lead to tragic consequences. The characters of Julie and Jean are well-developed, and their actions and decisions are influenced by their social status and personal desires. Overall, "Julie" is a thought-provoking and engaging story that offers insights into the social and psychological aspects of 19th-century European society.

It was all her father's fault, I'd say.

He was always so absent-minded and irresponsible. He never seemed to pay attention to what was going on around him or how his actions might affect others.

Maybe if he had been more present and involved in her life, things would have turned out differently. She might not have had to face so many difficulties and challenges on her own.

But as it was, she had to learn to be strong and independent from a young age. She had to figure out how to make her way in the world without his support or guidance.

And even though she resented him for it sometimes, she also knew that she couldn't change the past. All she could do was focus on the present and try to build a better future for herself.

I REALLY enjoyed this.

It’s short, yet it manages to convey its message in a highly engaging manner. The dialogue was truly captivating, and I found myself completely intrigued throughout.

However, my only complaint is that the playwright is shockingly sexist. But when considering the time period in which this was written, one can perhaps understand to some extent.

Nonetheless, it’s a bit disheartening to see such views expressed.

Despite this flaw, the overall work still has its merits and managed to hold my attention.

It makes me wonder how different it might have been if the playwright had a more enlightened perspective.

Perhaps in a modern adaptation, these sexist elements could be removed or updated to better reflect our current values.

Overall, it was an interesting piece that left me with a lot to think about.

I should give it a Wow! After dancing with Freud in the arms of August Strindberg, I wonder what will happen to my dreams tonight. The play was truly just fabulous!!! It was not only a play but also a remarkable Freudian case study. The way the characters interacted and the themes explored were simply captivating. Alas, I don't have the luxury of time to write a detailed review at the moment. But I can't help but share my immediate excitement and admiration for this outstanding production. It has left a lasting impression on me, and I'm sure it will do the same for anyone who has the opportunity to witness it. I hope to find the time soon to pen down my thoughts more comprehensively and do justice to this amazing play.

Never. Ever. Again. EVER, you got that?

I read an excerpt from this in our practice exam for Lit. It was the part where Jean is telling Miss Julie about how he once fell in love with her. However, he couldn't attain her because she was the daughter of a count and he was only a servant. The way it was described was so beautiful and overly romantic that I thought, I HAVE to read this!. I asked my teacher if she had it, and to my surprise, she said 'yes'. I then asked if it had a happy ending, and she said, \\"No! It's actually really, really depressing.\\" Fine, I thought, it's a romantic tragedy. I'll read it anyway. So I took it off and read most of it during lunch time and the rest on the bus while coming home.

What a shock I got. That beautiful speech was mostly a lie to seduce Miss Julie, who is completely wanton and who tried to seduce him first. Jean, instead of being this gallant guy who braves it out, is actually a cold, calculating, cross, and opportunistic fellow. He ends up succeeding in his seduction and then offers and retracts the offer to run away with her. Miss Julie ends up begging him to order her to commit suicide because she couldn't do it otherwise and she can't live with the shame.

In the middle, there was a bunch of exposition about how Miss Julie was brought up in rather... odd circumstances that would have confused any poor child. When I say 'a bunch', I really mean a lot.

The Preface states Strindberg's idea that anybody who sympathises with Miss Julie only does so because they're scared that this could happen to them. It also features his breakdown of the badness that his characters represent. What a portrait of human nature!

In short: one of the most demoralising pieces of work that I have ever read. It might be a classic, but NEVER again. Got that?

A tragedy in the traditional sense, despite Strindberg's being a modern playwright.

I didn't have much sympathy for the title character at first. She makes some very foolish choices under the influence of alcohol and hormones which have terrible consequences. My initial reaction was 'how could she be so stupid?' But as I thought about the play, I realized that while her actions were stupid, they were also not uncommon, especially for someone in late teens/early twenties.

One aspect of Miss Julia's behaviour that I really didn't like was when she kept asking the manservant Jean to tell her what to do. Perhaps that rang true in 1888, but it didn't seem to fit in with her character. It made her seem weak and indecisive, which was at odds with the rebellious and independent spirit that she otherwise displayed.

Overall, I found "Miss Julie" to be a thought-provoking play that explores themes of class, gender, and power. While I didn't always like the characters or their actions, I was still able to appreciate the skill with which Strindberg crafted the story and the insights he offered into the human condition.

\\n  \\n    Book Review\\n  \\n
"Miss Julie" is an outstanding naturalistic piece. The authenticity throughout is remarkable, presenting a vivid "slice of life." The characters here are more psychological personas compared to those in realistic productions like "Ghosts." In "Miss Julie," each character seems to embody a specific type of person. Julie, the vixen from a higher class, is drawn to Jean, a man from a lower class. Jean, the strong man, endures their relationship, sometimes having a sexual advantage and other times a disadvantage, but ultimately putting an end to it. Kristin, a typical cook or maid, has to tolerate things due to her circumstances. All the characters are incredibly strong. Although the play is an idea play, it's the characters that really stand out in my mind. Moreover, when considering the idea of a crowd, the characters are different. In "Ghosts," there are various characters like a priest, a matriarch, a diseased son, a housemaid turned inheritor, and a bum for a father. In "Miss Julie," there are the three main characters and a group representing the lower servant's games. It's typical in naturalistic pieces for a group of characters to symbolize one idea or persona. In "Miss Julie," the lower class servants depict the pagan ritual of losing virginity, which highly symbolizes and contributes to the understanding of Julie losing her virginity to Jean upstairs while the ritual is happening.

The characters in "Miss Julie" also seem to have more vitality than those in "Ghosts." In "Ghosts," although they talk about the "love of life," it's not always palpable. Also, the characters in "Ghosts" are not clearly defined, leaving it to the audience to interpret various aspects. In contrast, in "Miss Julie," there are stereotypes and strongly defined characters, not just any random characters put on stage to convey an idea as in "Ghosts."

\\n  \\n    About Me\\n  \\n
For those new to me or my reviews, here's the lowdown. I'm an avid reader and writer, and now I also blog a lot. First, the book review goes on Goodreads, and then it's sent to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com. There, you'll find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge, and plenty of blogging about my travels around the world. You can also find all my social media profiles to get the details about me and my pictures. Leave a comment, let me know what you think, vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

I would've rated this 1.5 stars last night as I finished and turned off the light. I didn't feel great. I was disappointed with a classical program on NPR and found this play a touch hysterical.

During the cold darkness of early morning, I reflected on some of the subtle touches. There was the yellow label and the ill-fated bird. The condensed nature of the action was difficult to believe. By comparison, the pastoral passages were beautiful.

That said, I would afford the Author's Preface five stars as a validation of Naturalism. Strindberg is wonderful in his exposition.

I am still not a fan of the play but would read it again. Maybe upon a second reading, I will discover more nuances and come to a different conclusion. I hope to gain a better understanding of the play's themes and the author's intentions. Despite my initial misgivings, I recognize that there is something worthwhile in this work. It challenges me to think differently and consider new perspectives.