Joyce's play is often overlooked.

Perhaps it's because it comes between his renowned works Portrait and Ulysses.

However, it is one of his most revealing pieces, showing a great deal about his personal side.

His early passion for Ibsen is very evident in this play.

The way he structures the plot and develops the characters seems to be influenced by Ibsen's style.

It would be truly wonderful to witness this play brought to life on the stage.

The dialogue, the settings, and the emotions would all come alive, allowing the audience to experience Joyce's vision in a whole new way.

Seeing the characters interact and the story unfold would give a deeper understanding of Joyce's artistry and his unique perspective on life.

It's a shame that this play has been neglected for so long, as it has the potential to be a great success on the stage.

Hopefully, one day, it will get the recognition it deserves and be performed for audiences around the world to enjoy.

Vadå landsflykt får mig att vilja flytta TILLBAKA till landet?

This is a question that has been bothering me for a long time.

Landsflykt, or emigration, is a phenomenon that many people experience.

Some leave their home countries in search of better opportunities, while others are forced to flee due to war, persecution, or other reasons.

For me, the decision to emigrate was not an easy one.

I left my homeland with high hopes and dreams, but as time passed, I began to feel a sense of longing for my country.

The culture, the language, the people - these are all things that I missed dearly.

I started to wonder if I had made the right decision.

Was I really better off here than I would have been back home?

These questions continued to萦绕 in my mind, and I found myself constantly thinking about moving back to my country.

I will always envy Joyce's remarkable ability to achieve so much with so little. Consider a play where there are at most 5 actors, yet it is filled to the brim with humanity. The relationships within are pushed to the very limit of what society deems acceptable. There are truths that are not believed, acts of infidelity, and dark desires lurking beneath the surface.

And although everything might seem "on sight", in reality, every object, the disposition of places, the clothes, the weather - all of these have life and meaning. This is the true genius of Joyce: to make the symbolic, the mythological, and the mystical shine through the mundane. It is as if he has the power to transform the ordinary into something extraordinary, to reveal the hidden depths and meanings that lie within the simplest of things. His works are a testament to his unique vision and creative prowess, leaving us in awe and admiration.

We can only strive to understand and appreciate the beauty and complexity that he brings to the literary world.

Dear friends, the play "The Outsiders" is a story of a game with love.

It is a story of testing inner desires. It is a story of courage in expressing affectionate desires and a powerful story of self-sacrifice for another.

The story is about a writer named "Richard" and his wife "Berta". Richard has two old friends. One is a journalist named "Robert" and the other is Robert's niece, "Beatrice". Richard has been in love with Beatrice for years. But he has married Berta and his only happiness is when Beatrice comes to their house once a week to teach piano to Richard's son, "Archie". On the other hand, Robert has been in love with Berta since Richard and Berta got married nine years ago. Robert decides to bravely declare his love to Berta. So he tells Berta that he likes her. But Berta tells everything Robert said to her husband Richard! She even tells him that Robert has invited her to his cabin. Richard confronts his friend and says that he is aware of his relationship with Berta. But on the other hand, he allows his wife to go to Robert's cabin and give a positive answer to Robert's love. What kind of man would let his wife go to another man without a fight? Dear friends, it is better that you read this story yourself and know the end of it.

I hope this review has been sufficient and useful for getting acquainted with this book.

"Be victorious and be Iranian."

I feel this play could have been better, yet I struggle to define precisely how. I can't envision it on stage, but that doesn't trouble me as I've adored many "only to read" plays. Perhaps with some editing and rewriting, Exiles could have truly shone. (Here I am with the maybes: If it had been a great success, would it have been edited and improved? Ah, so many questions.) It undoubtedly has potential, boasting some wonderful dialogues, but I sense something is lacking. Maybe Joyce's talent lay principally in being a novelist. Drama requires tragedy, confrontation; even in its more modern forms, it demands a conflict, a moment of intense feeling.

The Ibsen influence in the drama is evident, but it doesn't seem natural in the sense that it perfectly fits the story. By that, I mean the feminist issues are a bit incomplete. I don't mind Joyce looking up to Ibsen, but he should have honed his dramatist skills a bit more. There are numerous themes in Exiles, perhaps too many: liberation, feminism, Ireland, religion, autobiographical elements, morality, and the list goes on. In my opinion, Joyce is too analytic to be a great dramatist. A dramatist should show, not explain. That being said, I believe anyone who is a fan of Joyce will overlook such things and be drawn to the suppleness within Joyce's words.

I can't help but wonder what it was that the critics of the time resented about this play. Could it have been the liberal ideas? Although there's nothing shocking about Exiles by today's standards, there are lines that will make moralists dislike it, such as:

ROBERT: I am sure that no law made by man is sacred before the impulse of passion. Who made us for one only? It is a crime against our own being if we are so. There is no law before impulses. Laws are for slaves…

To me, Exiles was enchanting to read, even if I didn't always understand the characters, even if I had to read it more than once to sort of grasp what was going on, and even if there are some flaws in it. There are lines in the play that are so excellent that the reading of the play can be justified even if the rest were utter rubbish – and it's not. Joyce isn't afraid to criticize himself through Richard. The character of Richard is so clearly biographical (and in that sense similar to Stephen and other semi-autobiographical characters) that I have to wonder if he reproached himself with the words he put in Bertha's mouth:

BERTHA: “All is to be for you. I am to appear false and cruel to everyone except to you. Because you take advantage of my simplicity as you did – the first time.”

There are parts in the dialogue between Richard and Stephen where the influence of Ibsen is obvious, such as:

ROBERT: There are moments of sheer madness when we feel an intense passion for women. We see nothing. We think of nothing. Only to possess her. Call it brutal, bestial, whatever you will.

RICHARD: I am afraid that longing to possess a woman is not love.

However, there are dialogues that are truly Joyce's, that in other words raise difficult questions, cruel truths, and make you think. Ah, those thoughts that make his writing wonderful. I don't even mind the fact that I feel sad when and after I read them. The Exiles is not without pathos; it's not a play that should never have been a play but rather a play that could have been better.

Picture a powerful influence of Ibsen, yet it is even more autobiographical, more distinct, and has a happy ending. This surely makes you think deeply. After all, it is not just a complex triangle. It delves into the implications of love and commitment, as well as life and freedom. You can manage to empathize with some of the characters, even if you would never engage in this game of self-damage. The story seems to unfold like a rich tapestry, with each thread representing different aspects of human nature and relationships. The influence of Ibsen is palpable, yet it has its own unique flavor. The happy ending provides a glimmer of hope in what could have been a rather dark and complex narrative. It makes you question your own beliefs and values regarding love, commitment, life, and freedom. Overall, it is a thought-provoking piece that leaves a lasting impression.

Prilično zastarjela melodrama (zbog tematike), bar na prvu pogled.

The main character, Richard, who is clearly Joyce's alter-ego, is rather unclear. He "lacks a fully developed character trait until the end."

It seemed that there would be some sort of complication with a love quadrangle, but it turned out to be just a bunch of dialogues.

The philosophy of partner relationships - freedom or loyalty. The question of possessiveness.

A study on the relationship between love and freedom on the threshold of modernity in culture. (I. Vidan)

The relationship with the mother is similar to Mauriac's Genitrix.

There are solid dramatic moments (for example, at 262).

At 243, putting words into God's mouth - in favor of polygamy.

The "mysterious" end of the second act has a not bad effect.

At 281, there is a very solid culmination, but overall it all seems inappropriate to me, or perhaps, better said, too vague for four stars.

A strong first Act mellows out in the second and third.

The revelations of the characters' complicated intertwined relationships and backstories are exciting. We learn about the web of connections that bind these individuals together, and it keeps us on the edge of our seats. However, the consequences that follow are much duller. It's as if the initial excitement fizzles out when the reality of the situation sets in.

Richard's gimmick of "wanting his wife Bertha cheat on him because he did it himself and will feel better if she did it too" is quite interesting. It's a unique and rather twisted concept that makes us question his motives. At the same time, it's disgusting because his wife really does love him and doesn't want to cheat. Her loyalty is palpable, and it makes Richard's actions seem even more callous.

It's at least better than Robert's (Richard's best friend) continuous "romantic" attempts to hook up with Bertha. Ironically, Richard knows the whole time because his wife always tells him. This all sounds like a comedy, but it's written with 100% seriousness. I usually like this kind of serious treatment of a potentially comical situation, but it somehow falls flat here. Maybe it's the excessive poetic philosophizing of these seemingly normal characters or the drawn out dialogue of the other subplots to generate drama.

A staging of Exiles could be interesting depending on the interpretations of the characters. I think it beats just reading it. Seeing the characters come to life on stage and experiencing their emotions firsthand could add a new dimension to the story. It would allow us to better understand their motives and the complex relationships that drive the plot.

Two couples find themselves embroiled in a rather toxic relationship. Richard, having returned from working abroad, decides to test his love for Bertha (or perhaps her love for him) by promoting an open relationship between her and his friend, Robert. This already complex situation is further muddled when Richard engages in a spiritual betrayal with Robert's cousin, Beatrice.

In true Joyce style, there is a great deal happening beneath the surface here, much of which I'm certain I failed to fully grasp. However, the play remains highly entertaining and thought-provoking. The dialogue flows thick and fast, making it at times challenging to keep up. I believe it would be more easily appreciated when performed on stage, and I'm rather surprised that it isn't staged more frequently.

All in all, it's well worth a read. It offers a unique exploration of love, loyalty, and the consequences of our actions within the context of a dysfunctional set of relationships. The characters are complex and flawed, adding to the overall intrigue and drama of the story.

Joyce's writing in this play is sort of wonderfully intentional.

It truly reminded me a great deal of those works I had already read by him, with The Dead perhaps being especially prominent in my mind.

This is one of those extremely rare cases where I firmly believe that I am glad to have read the play rather than witnessed it in person.

As I was reading, I could vividly imagine the characters playing out their roles right off the page.

They seemed uncomfortably intimate and real in a way that can only serve as a testament to Joyce's remarkable mastery.

His ability to bring the story and the characters to life through his words is truly astonishing.

It makes one appreciate the power and beauty of his writing even more.

Overall, this reading experience has been both enlightening and captivating, leaving a lasting impression on me.

Harry Levin claims in his introductory book to Joyce that neither poetry nor theater were the writer's strengths. However, the attempts made by the author in these directions provided him with a rich experience to enrich the narrative possibilities of the novel, the genre par excellence of Joyce.

Perhaps this is true and explains the feeling that arises when concluding the reading of "Exiles". Although there are numerous fertile ideas regarding jealousy, amorous egotism, intellectual height, the silences that weave the passions, etc., we are not facing a work on a par with "Ulysses".

In any case, as an introduction to Joyce it is worth it and also as an indicator of many of the symbols and paths through which his genius knew how to find better lands. It gives us a glimpse into the evolution of Joyce's writing and the seeds of his later masterpieces.

Even though "Exiles" may not reach the same heights as some of his other works, it still offers valuable insights and contributions to our understanding of Joyce's literary universe. It shows his exploration of different themes and his experimentation with various narrative techniques, which would later culminate in his more renowned works.

Overall, while it may not be Joyce's greatest achievement, "Exiles" is an important part of his literary oeuvre and should not be overlooked.

What do I want to remember about this play? It's not just another play that I had to drudge through. No, this is a play that I actually genuinely enjoyed.

I want to remember the mastery of the intertwining love affairs that weren't really affairs at all. Joyce is truly a genius, able to weave such an entertaining tale together while capturing the essence of Ireland in his characters. Their will to be free, yet the realization that it's not a simple thing to achieve. The shame one feels for leaving, as if Ireland is their mother.

The wonderful dialogue is also something I want to remember. Beatrice's words, "It is a terribly hard thing to do, Mr Rowan — to give oneself freely and wholly — and be happy." It's akin to Stephen's phrase in APOAYM. Robert's lines about falling from a higher world and being filled with fierce indignation, while he himself has come up from a lower world and is filled with astonishment.

The exchanges between Mr. Rowan and Archie, and between Rowan and Robert, are all so thought-provoking. God's words according to Robert, "Fools! who told you that you were to give yourselves to one being only? You were made to give yourselves to many freely." It's a theory that's interesting to debate.

Rowan's misunderstandings of his wife, his fear of standing between her and her moments of life, and his raw statement about longing to be betrayed, all add depth to the play. Bertha's attempts to assert her identity in a world that turns the other way, and her conversation with Rowan about love and free will, make for a nice take on these themes. This play is truly a masterpiece that I will remember for a long time.