Strindberg, in his plays, has depicted the crises in male-female relationships and the chaotic situation of women in that era so powerfully that the passage of time does not diminish its impact and astonishment. The women in his works are choosers who, among all the available paths, make their choices without considering coercion and environmental pressures. These choices, even if they do not lead to favorable results, are the choices of those women.

All the importance of the women in these plays, even if they are defeated and penniless, they are brave women who, along with the activities and struggles of feminism that took on a serious form in Europe in the late nineteenth century, assert their gender demands.

"Miss Julie" is the tragic death of a young girl whose life is the result of her mother's choices and efforts to obtain equal rights with men. As a work of art and a product of culture and thought, it presents a kind of audacity to the audience, and along with the social activities of women, it provides a practical solution in its time.

In Strindberg's works, it is no secret that he pays attention to the principle of "slices of life," which is a characteristic of the works of Zola and other naturalists. And the revelations, the very sad dramatic inner conflicts, and the hesitant dialogues that result from the indecision of Strindberg's characters fill the entire naturalistic theatrical world of the writer.

He was a master of expressionism in the theater, known as a pioneer of innovation in Swedish literature and as the Swedish Shakespeare in his country.

Annotation can indeed be an interesting and engaging activity.

However, the description of the annotator as a "misogynistic prick" is rather harsh and one-sided.

While it is possible that the annotator may have expressed some views or made some remarks that could be interpreted as misogynistic, it is important to consider the context and the overall tone of the annotation.

Perhaps the annotator was simply being critical or making a point in a way that was not well-received.

It is also possible that the person making the accusation of misogyny may have their own biases or interpretations that are influencing their perception.

Before making such a strong and derogatory statement, it would be beneficial to have a more in-depth understanding of the annotator's intentions and the specific content of the annotation.

This would allow for a more objective and fair assessment of the situation.

In conclusion, while annotation can be enjoyable, it is important to approach it with an open mind and a willingness to consider different perspectives.

And when evaluating the work of others, we should strive to be as objective and respectful as possible.

**"A New Take on August Strindberg's 'Miss Julie'"**

From BBC Radio 4 comes a captivating reimagined version of August Strindberg's 1888 stage play. This adaptation, by Roger James Elsgood, features an outstanding cast including Sofie Grabol, Lars Mikkelsen, and Marie Bach Hansen. Strindberg's original "Miss Julie" centered around a well-bred woman from the land-owning classes, Julie, who has a passionate one-night stand with her father's valet, Jean. Over a midsummer night, they engage in deep discussions about their different stations in life. Emboldened by alcohol, Julie goads Jean to cross the social, economic, and sexual boundaries that separate them, ultimately seducing him into her bed. However, after their lovemaking, the power dynamics in their relationship reverse. Jean now holds power over Julie as she realizes her vulnerability to exposure and disgrace. Julie becomes conflicted about the consequences of their actions and, with no one else to turn to, depends on Jean for advice. Jean, on the other hand, is worried about losing his job and devises a lethal plan that serves his own interests.

In this new version, the themes that drive the dramatic conclusion are not primarily those of social class, status, and breeding. Instead, they focus on gender, identity, and sexual orientation - issues that Victorian-era audiences were not prepared for but are now being openly debated. The production was recorded on location in a beautiful 19th-century country house in Ballerup on the island of Zealand in Denmark. With its talented cast, thought-provoking adaptation, and stunning setting, this new version of "Miss Julie" is sure to engage and captivate audiences. Written by August Strindberg and adapted by Roger James Elsgood, it is directed by Willi Richards and produced by Roger James Elsgood. It is an Art and Adventure production for BBC Radio 4.

For more information, visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07h2v3d

If one reads the play in isolation, detached from its author, it is truly impressive; fine language and a captivating atmosphere. It is even enhanced by the beautiful dramatization on SVT. But if one reads Strindberg's preface to Miss Julie, then suddenly the whole play falls apart. What was wrong with that old man???? He has managed to depict two very nuanced and for his time modern characters but does not understand them at all himself. He has Julie reason intelligently about women's freedom, has her personify the conflict between being sexually inferior and socioeconomically superior, but still mocks and rejects her character and arguments. It's good that he's dead.

Strindberg's work, when taken at face value, seems to offer a profound exploration of complex themes. The language used is rich and engaging, drawing the reader or viewer into a world full of drama and tension. However, when one delves deeper and examines his preface, a different picture emerges. His attitude towards the characters he has created seems contradictory and perhaps even dismissive. This undermines the power and significance of the play, leaving the audience with a sense of disappointment and confusion. It makes one wonder what Strindberg was really trying to achieve with this work and whether he truly understood the implications of the ideas he was presenting.

What did I just read?

Well, to start with, this was assigned reading for my university course. I would have never chosen to read this play on my own. It was an absolute disaster. I'm aware that many authors from the past had misogynistic views, either subtly or blatantly. Sometimes I can overlook it, but in a case like this, I simply cannot. Especially not with a foreword that's almost as long as the play itself.

After reading just three pages of the foreword, the reader gets a peek into the inner world of Strindberg, who was essentially a misogynistic fool. He repeatedly uses the word "stunted" when referring to women and incorporates all his hatred towards women in the main character, Julie.

Right.

And it's not like her "opponent" is any better. He's a walking, talking insult to all men. If only he was interesting. But he wasn't. Both he and Julie acted like complete idiots. No. Just no.

It's such a waste of time.

This play has left me feeling frustrated and disappointed. I can't help but wonder why it was even included in the course curriculum. There are so many other works out there that are more worthy of our attention and study. I hope that in the future, more care is taken when selecting reading materials to ensure that they are not only of literary value but also free from such offensive and outdated views.

Strindberg was indeed a rather blatant misogynist, and this aspect is vividly manifested in this play. Regrettably, I was compelled to read this for my university studies. Aside from the misogynistic storyline and his extremely adversarial stance in the women's rights movement during 19th-century Sweden, I also found the plot development rather peculiar. Most of the events seemed to occur out of thin air, lacking a proper and logical explanation. It truly is my sincere hope that I will never again have to read anything else written by Strindberg for my university coursework. I believe that there are many other works of literature that can offer more valuable insights and engaging narratives without the burden of such harmful and outdated views.

Readers often find it difficult to distinguish the art from the artist. Nowhere is this struggle more evident than in Strindberg's "Miss Julie."

This play can be a complex and challenging work. It delves into the realm of naturalism, presenting a raw and unfiltered view of human nature.

Some may choose to read it only if they have a genuine interest in understanding naturalism and have exhausted other options. Others might pick it up if they are curious about experiencing a strong dose of overwhelming misogyny.

In my case, it was a part of my coursework that led me to engage with this play.

Regardless of the reason for reading, "Miss Julie" forces the reader to grapple with the question of how the artist's personal beliefs and biases can influence the art they create.

It makes us question whether we can truly appreciate the art while being aware of the artist's less savory qualities.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual reader to decide how they will navigate this difficult terrain and what they will take away from the experience.

Domnișoara Iulia, a 25-year-old young woman, is completely absorbed by life. She endeavors to break the norms of the times, regardless of the prejudices that are woven around her. Her states vary from that of a mature woman who is concerned about her condition to that of a spoiled child who simply awaits to have things done to her liking.

August Stringberd highlights the condition of the independent woman who strives to assert herself and escape the shadow of the man. This young lady does not wish to feel that she belongs to a man but rather that she holds the power over him.

The reading of this play captures your attention and makes you a participant in the exchange of dialogues between Domnișoara Iulia and the valet Jean. It takes you on a journey through their complex relationship and the social context in which they exist. You become immersed in their world, experiencing their emotions and conflicts as if they were your own. This play offers a thought-provoking exploration of gender roles, power dynamics, and the struggle for independence in a society that often restricts and confines.

I definitely didn't like it the first time. The experience was rather underwhelming and left me with a sense of dissatisfaction. Then, the second time around, it wasn't much better. I still didn't have a particularly strong liking for it. However, something interesting happened. I discovered that when it was presented in Swedish, it took on a whole new dimension. There was something about the Swedish language that seemed to enhance the essence of it. Maybe it was the unique cadence or the way the words were pronounced. Whatever it was, it made me realize that there was more to it than I initially thought. At least now, I have a newfound appreciation for it in Swedish, and it has opened my eyes to the possibility that different languages can bring out different aspects of a thing.

In this rather high-strung play, Strindberg vividly demonstrates that the conventions of our societies reside within us as an irresistible power. They guide us without our consent or even our knowledge.

We are irresistibly drawn towards liberation from these conventions, yet achieving that liberation is virtually an insurmountable task. Everyone, regardless of their social standing or occupation, is firmly controlled by these invisible forces.

Strindberg employs the conventions of class distinction here, and to a lesser degree, gender, to curtail Miss Julie's and John's freedom. Then, through their actions, he reveals the freakish, visceral, and determined efforts one must undertake even to attempt to disregard those conventions.

The tragedy lies in the fact that although his characters go to great lengths to challenge and defy convention, their inability to ultimately sever themselves from it seals their doom.

It is a poignant exploration of the human condition and the power of social norms that continue to hold sway over our lives, no matter how hard we try to break free.

Look at what occurs when a foolish woman endeavors to be on par with men. Observe how such unwise women give birth to only beings in perpetual agony. Beings who are unaware of their proper position and can only meet their downfall due to their sole resolute decision in life being to eliminate the essentially incorrect life within them.

I'm not a proponent of this man's Madonna-whore complex. I deceived myself when I initially gave it two stars. There is something interesting to mention about the class themes in Julie and Jean, and even in Kristin. However, ultimately, I have no regard for Strinberg's thinly disguised misogyny.

I do, though, desire to witness him and Ibsen in a boxing ring!!!

This text seems to express a rather critical view of a particular work or author. The writer is clearly not a fan of the supposed misogyny present and regrets initially giving a somewhat positive rating. The mention of the desire to see Strinberg and Ibsen in a boxing ring adds a touch of humor or perhaps a sense of a wish for a battle of ideas between the two. It would be interesting to know more about the specific works being referred to and the context in which these thoughts are being expressed.

Overall, the expanded text provides a bit more detail and elaboration on the original thoughts, while still maintaining the essence of the critique.

Strindberg's vision (is Preili Julie bad and Jean good???) has probably always passed me by with a great curve, because I didn't see anything other than a superb interpretation of how a man apparently exploits a woman in her weakness with mental problems.

-1 star for the introduction because Strindberg is some kind of snob and misogynist (very passé).

Strindberg's works often seem to present a rather one-sided view of the relationship between men and women. In this particular case, the idea that Preili Julie is bad and Jean is good might be a simplistic and perhaps even unfair portrayal.

While his writing may have had some value in exploring certain aspects of human nature and relationships, his reputation as a misogynist cannot be ignored.

The -1 star for the introduction seems rather harsh, but it does highlight the fact that Strindberg's views may not be in line with modern sensibilities.

However, it is important to approach his works with an open mind and try to understand the context in which they were written.

Maybe there are still some valuable insights to be gained from his writing, even if we don't agree with all of his views.

Overall, Strindberg's vision remains a complex and controversial topic that continues to spark debate and discussion among readers and scholars alike.