The last few pages had a distinct impact.

It was quite astonishing to see how Strindberg seemed to really loathe women.

His portrayal and the emotions he conveyed in those pages were intense and rather disturbing.

It made one wonder about the depth of his feelings and the possible reasons behind such a strong stance.

Perhaps it was due to personal experiences or some inner turmoil that led him to express such extreme views.

Nonetheless, it left a lasting impression on the reader, making them question and analyze the complex relationship between Strindberg and the female gender as presented in those final pages.

It was a thought-provoking and somewhat controversial aspect of the work that added an extra layer of complexity to the overall narrative.

A lunchtime read can be a wonderful escape from the hustle and bustle of the day.

Recently, I picked up a book during my lunch break without having very high expectations. However, to my great surprise, I actually ended up enjoying it thoroughly.

The story was engaging, the characters were well-developed, and the writing style was captivating. It managed to draw me in and hold my attention throughout the entire reading session.

I found myself completely immersed in the world of the book, forgetting about the stresses and distractions of work.

By the time I had finished reading, I was left with a sense of satisfaction and a longing to know what would happen next.

This unexpected discovery has made me realize that sometimes, the simplest of things can bring the greatest joys.

I will definitely be looking forward to more lunchtime reads in the future, hoping to have more pleasant surprises like this one.

Every time I hold a theatrical work in my hands, I always start from the premise that simply reading the text necessarily implies the fact that something is lost. This is because the purpose of a theatrical text is and remains the staging, the interpretation on stage by the actors who, physically emerging from the script, completely give themselves to the public. This is to say that a theatrical work is not a novel, and this should always be kept in mind.

"Miss Julie" is a single act that opens the door to Naturalism in Swedish theater. In just a few lines, the author addresses important themes such as the relationship between the two sexes and the interaction between different social classes, and does so in a very cynical, direct, and brutal way. Now, granted that I found the introduction written by Strindberg himself more interesting than the text itself, I recognize that the work is courageous and, not by chance, was received skeptically, if not even negatively, at the time, but...

The point is that I have a problem with Strindberg. I do not question his abilities and creative inspiration, but from what I have read and studied, I have formed an idea of him as an extremely misogynistic, cynical, base, and unpleasant person. Forgive me, but even though I recognize his merit in being extremely clear in presenting his ideas, I cannot even half-share them. Anyway, it is a work that should be read, if only because it is considered a masterpiece of its kind by the entire criticism.

The play had a strong language, and the form and layout were well done.

However, the story was rather shallow. It was not really much of a story. There were only two characters with overly exaggerated feelings, screaming at each other. While this might sound like many great plays, it lacked the necessary quality and depth.

In the foreword, Strindberg states that he wanted the characters to be characterless. But it felt as if the main female character was merely a vehicle for him to express his views on how a woman of his era should not be. Jean, the male main character, had more depth and motive. He was a person, while she was only a symbol of everything that the writer considered wrong with a woman.

This one-sided portrayal of the female character detracted from the overall impact of the play. It would have been more interesting and engaging if both characters had been developed more fully and given equal importance.

Perhaps with a more nuanced and balanced approach, the play could have achieved a higher level of artistic merit and made a more profound statement about human nature and relationships.

The Freudian front spoke about "transference" and "introjection" in his psychoanalytic theories regarding relationships and sexuality.

Stringberg created Miss Julie. The female psyche cries out for us to understand it.

Madness in the abyss. Don't be afraid. This is how man is.

Freud's ideas on transference and introjection have had a profound impact on the field of psychology. Transference refers to the process by which a person unconsciously projects feelings and attitudes from one relationship onto another. Introjection, on the other hand, involves taking in and incorporating the qualities and values of others into one's own self-concept.

In Stringberg's play, Miss Julie, the complex relationship between the characters explores themes of power, sexuality, and the human psyche. The female protagonist, Julie, struggles with her desires and social expectations, crying out for understanding.

Ultimately, we are reminded that the human condition is often filled with madness and mystery. We should not be afraid to explore these aspects of ourselves and others, for it is through understanding that we can hope to find some measure of peace and acceptance.

I have no idea what the hell I just read.

It was so confusing and seemed to lack any coherent meaning.

The words were jumbled together in a way that made it difficult to understand the intended message.

I found myself rereading certain passages multiple times, hoping to gain some clarity, but to no avail.

Maybe it was written in a language I'm not familiar with, or perhaps the author had a very unique writing style that I couldn't quite grasp.

Whatever the reason, it left me feeling frustrated and a bit dumbfounded.

I guess I'll just have to move on and hope that the next thing I read makes more sense.

Many of the same themes seen in Strindberg's earlier play, The Father, are also present in Miss Julie, although I believe they have a greater impact in the former. Both plays are "naturalistic tragedies" that deal with social Darwinism and share the same socio-historical and mythical setting. It's easy to point out instances of the author's misogyny in both, and they both address gender issues. However, Miss Julie also delves into social class, albeit in a very social Darwinist way.

Miss Julie is about a member of the declining aristocracy who falls in love with a servant, Jean. Jean, despite his humble origins, aspires to rise in society and identify with the aristocracy. But both characters are constricted by the social classes they were born into, preventing them from being who they truly want to be. Julie wants to come down from her pedestal, while Jean wants to climb the social ladder.

When Julie and Jean find love (or perhaps lust), their intentions are in conflict. Julie wants to bring herself down to Jean's level, while Jean wants to rise up to hers. Their love is not meant to last, as Julie feels dirty and remorseful for tarnishing her reputation, and Jean realizes he may have idealized the lives of the upper class. The characters are torn psychologically and waver between different courses of action, ultimately leading to a tragic end.

Like The Father, Miss Julie takes place in the late 19th century and may be semi-autobiographical. It also has a mythic setting of Eden After the Fall. The play's greatest contribution may be Strindberg's attempt to free the theatre from its traditional constraints. In his preface, he proposes a more naturalistic style of theatre with fewer characters, more complex psychological subjects, no act divisions or intermissions, less artificial sets, more natural lighting, and more opportunities for artistic expression for the actors.

In conclusion, Miss Julie is a fine play with its strength lying in its style rather than its thematic substance. It's a play that's meant to be seen and experienced, and I may be interested in seeing the 2014 film version. Strindberg's work is often polarizing, provoking varied reactions from critics, as he tried to shake up the theatre and the moral foundations of his bourgeois audience.

Jean and Julie are both individuals who possess an equal degree of instability and a fascinatingly abhorrent nature.

They are filled with misogyny, which is truly disturbing. However, despite this repugnant aspect of their characters, they still manage to be compelling.

Perhaps it is their unpredictability that draws people in, or maybe it is the underlying complexity that lies beneath their misogynistic views.

Whatever the reason, Jean and Julie continue to intrigue and repel in equal measure.

It is a strange and uncomfortable combination that leaves one both fascinated and disgusted.

One can't help but wonder what drives them to hold such abhorrent beliefs and yet still be so captivating.

It is a mystery that continues to unfold, and one that keeps us on the edge of our seats, waiting to see what they will do or say next.

I truly desired to assign a just rating to this work, and I believe I have accomplished that.

How can one disassociate art from the artist when the putrid odor of the artist's festering sores expands to consume the themes, words, punctuation, and even the very pages? This is a play centered around Darwinism, a Naturalistic play that purports to be scientific in its execution and repudiates Romanticism.

However, when judged by its own ideals, Strindberg's play is far from being scientific. Science is inherently objective, and Strindberg's entire approach to this play was birthed from personal misogyny, as is palpable from the author's preface. This is truly astonishing.

I would not have touched this污秽 if it were not for a drama class. There are superior alternatives for Naturalistic plays compared to Miss Julie, such as A Doll's House by Ibsen.

It is disheartening to see a work that claims to be scientific yet is marred by the author's personal biases. The themes and ideas presented in the play may have some merit, but the way in which they are presented and the underlying misogyny taint the entire experience.

Perhaps if Strindberg had been able to approach the subject matter with objectivity and without the cloud of his personal prejudices, the play could have been a more powerful and thought-provoking piece of art.

As it stands, however, Miss Julie falls short of its intended goals and leaves much to be desired.

It greatly reminds me of Stendhal in the novel "The Red and the Black."

Strindberg is extremely outstanding in depicting the power struggle among characters and portraying the failures and weaknesses of human beings.

Stendhal's works are known for their in-depth exploration of human nature and the complex relationships between individuals. In "The Red and the Black," he vividly展现s the ambitious Julien Sorel's journey in a society full of class distinctions and power games.

Similarly, Strindberg's plays also offer a profound insight into the human psyche. His characters are often complex and multi-faceted, with their own desires, fears, and weaknesses.

Both Stendhal and Strindberg use their literary works to揭示 the true nature of human beings and the残酷realities of society.

By reading their works, we can gain a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

Mycket bättre andra gången???

This phrase seems to suggest that something is much better the second time around. It could refer to a variety of experiences, such as a second attempt at a task, a second viewing of a movie, or a second visit to a place.

When we have a second chance, we often have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and improve upon our previous efforts. This can lead to a more positive outcome and a greater sense of satisfaction.

However, it's important to note that not everything gets better the second time. Sometimes, the circumstances may have changed, or we may not be in the right frame of mind. In these cases, it's important to approach the situation with an open mind and be willing to adapt.

Overall, the idea of "much better the second time" can be a powerful one. It gives us hope that we can always improve and that our efforts will pay off in the end.

Divný, ale ok. This simple phrase seems to convey a sense of something being strange or extraordinary, yet still acceptable or okay. It could describe a situation, an experience, or even a person.

Perhaps it's a divný sight that catches our attention, something that is so unique and unexpected that it leaves us in awe. But despite its strangeness, we find ourselves able to embrace it and move on.

Or maybe it's a divný idea that pops into our heads, an unconventional thought that challenges our usual way of thinking. After initial hesitation, we realize that it might just have some merit and decide to explore it further.

In life, there are often many divný moments that come our way. They may disrupt our routine or make us feel a bit uncomfortable at first. But as we learn to adapt and be open-minded, we discover that these divný things can add a touch of excitement and richness to our lives. So, the next time you encounter something divný, remember that it's okay to embrace the unexpected and see where it takes you.