Scan barcode
libellum_aphrodite's review against another edition
3.0
I first learned of “Ghosts” from Chesterton’s unabashed displeasure with the play and its author in [b:Heretics|612143|Heretics|G.K. Chesterton|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1416873240s/612143.jpg|1884008]. Chesterton proclaims Ibsen's main shortcoming is his incomplete ethical stance: he has no problem exposing evil, but fails to portray goodness.
"Ibsen does not profess to know how how virtue and happiness are brought about, in the sense that he professes to know how our modern sexual tragedies are brought about."
"There is no ideal man of Ibsen."
[Here come the spoilers.] For Acts 1 and 2, Ibsen does appear to hint at a stance on what is good. Mrs. Alving exposes the lies and hypocrisy of the presumably “respectable,” officially married, aristocracy at length. In contrast, Oswald describes the lives of the artists in Paris; despite their “sham-marriages,” they pose a tantalizing picture of love, respect, and happiness that eludes the families with the proper paperwork for their relationship.
But, alas, Ibsen snatches the goodness and joy away in short order in Act 3. The two characters with any hope of salvation from this cycle, Oswald and Regine, both fall as well as their elders. Despite no “reckless living” for Oswald, a brain illness, attributed to “the sins of fathers [being] visited upon the children,” smites him down. His last wish before losing his mind is just that someone please kill him out of mercy instead of having a comatose life. When Regine learns that she is the illegitimate daughter of Mr. Alving, instead of the legitimate daughter of the equally awful Mr. Engstrand, she exclaims, “Still, what the hell …! What difference does it make!” and storms out to work at her false father's new brothel for seamen, a career path she was adamantly against at the play’s opening scene. This felt almost as if Tess of the D’Urbervilles, in all of the messed up revelations and propositions that came her way, had just said “Fuck it. Why not?”
In conclusion, Chesterton nailed it; or, as Scott summed it up, “It’s assholes all the way down.”
"Ibsen does not profess to know how how virtue and happiness are brought about, in the sense that he professes to know how our modern sexual tragedies are brought about."
"There is no ideal man of Ibsen."
[Here come the spoilers.] For Acts 1 and 2, Ibsen does appear to hint at a stance on what is good. Mrs. Alving exposes the lies and hypocrisy of the presumably “respectable,” officially married, aristocracy at length. In contrast, Oswald describes the lives of the artists in Paris; despite their “sham-marriages,” they pose a tantalizing picture of love, respect, and happiness that eludes the families with the proper paperwork for their relationship.
But, alas, Ibsen snatches the goodness and joy away in short order in Act 3. The two characters with any hope of salvation from this cycle, Oswald and Regine, both fall as well as their elders. Despite no “reckless living” for Oswald, a brain illness, attributed to “the sins of fathers [being] visited upon the children,” smites him down. His last wish before losing his mind is just that someone please kill him out of mercy instead of having a comatose life. When Regine learns that she is the illegitimate daughter of Mr. Alving, instead of the legitimate daughter of the equally awful Mr. Engstrand, she exclaims, “Still, what the hell …! What difference does it make!” and storms out to work at her false father's new brothel for seamen, a career path she was adamantly against at the play’s opening scene. This felt almost as if Tess of the D’Urbervilles, in all of the messed up revelations and propositions that came her way, had just said “Fuck it. Why not?”
In conclusion, Chesterton nailed it; or, as Scott summed it up, “It’s assholes all the way down.”
sakshi03's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
jjjada's review against another edition
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
dreamdustwithmybooks's review against another edition
challenging
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
madeleinegeorge's review against another edition
5.0
Ibsen: All bangers, all the time. I never forget how much I love this play, but I always forget how much I love this play until I see or read it again. It’s all *gasp*! A plot twist? No! But it’s always yes and then ten minutes later there’s another one and you gasp all over again even though you know exactly what’s coming.
The first time I read Ghosts I was fifteen; the only thing I remember gleaning from it was the snarling, fathomless pit of Longing and Want that the play swirls around -- even though I didn’t necessarily understand exactly what it was they were longing for. I also really wanted to play Father Manders, but that’s besides the point. Like all Great Theater, I think it ages with you, and every time I come away with something new. This time it was the transformation of the home from a space of domestic security to one of proleptic decay. “Everything is dead here.” I heard that, this time. Heard also the men who sacrificed women to ruin, the men that saved them from it. The mother who had nothing left to give but mercy -- and gave that, too. The girl who tore herself from that haunted house’s fatal clutch, even when compelled to stay. I fear I am old enough, now, to know what they Long for.
Hattie + Stuart + Paul + Sarah + Greg are absolute Forces in the Globe this season. A reminder for those who, like myself, habitually forget: the Sam Wanamaker is hot, dark, and incredibly claustrophobic ( … almost like the play itself, no way, that’s crazy…). So. Bear that in mind. BUT go see it nonetheless! The acting! The set! Henrik in all his glory! Stunning.
The first time I read Ghosts I was fifteen; the only thing I remember gleaning from it was the snarling, fathomless pit of Longing and Want that the play swirls around -- even though I didn’t necessarily understand exactly what it was they were longing for. I also really wanted to play Father Manders, but that’s besides the point. Like all Great Theater, I think it ages with you, and every time I come away with something new. This time it was the transformation of the home from a space of domestic security to one of proleptic decay. “Everything is dead here.” I heard that, this time. Heard also the men who sacrificed women to ruin, the men that saved them from it. The mother who had nothing left to give but mercy -- and gave that, too. The girl who tore herself from that haunted house’s fatal clutch, even when compelled to stay. I fear I am old enough, now, to know what they Long for.
Hattie + Stuart + Paul + Sarah + Greg are absolute Forces in the Globe this season. A reminder for those who, like myself, habitually forget: the Sam Wanamaker is hot, dark, and incredibly claustrophobic ( … almost like the play itself, no way, that’s crazy…). So. Bear that in mind. BUT go see it nonetheless! The acting! The set! Henrik in all his glory! Stunning.
magarethe's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
paula12's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
I really liked this. There's quite a lot of detail and ideas to chew on and some quite interesting critiques of marriage, parenthood and religion and its negative social influence. I just basically wish the ending was a bit different, it just felt like everything resolved a bit too fast and unsatisfactory but yeah its still pretty good.
fly's review against another edition
dark
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Entertaining
kennaly's review against another edition
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25