Brand is the flip side of Peer Gynt. Ibsen may well have intended to write heroism into Brand, a charismatic dissenting priest, but could not breathe any life into his protagonist at all. Brand is cold, righteous, merciless, uncompromising. The play is dated, dull, static, but of historical interest to Ibsen scholars, since he may have learned plenty by writing Brand. The rather rigid Norwegian state/church of his time loved it, granted Henrik a permanent poet stipend for Brand. Modern gentle readers may roll their eyes.

This is unmistakeably Hill's _Brand_: the technical grace of his Englishing of Ibsen shows an acute awareness of the responsibility of the translator to both the original text and the language into which it is to be translated. Hill's translation enriches not only the English language but the ability of English (and non-Norwegian) speakers to appreciate Ibsen's brooding, symbolically charged drama of the challenge of faith in the midst of common life. Is Brand's fidelity to his "dear Christ hurt with thorns" obdurate or obstinate? In this play, the repudiation of social morality in the name of higher things is put to the question: what if devotion to such "higher things" also leads to, or becomes a mask for, moral isolation, the cauterization of social feeling? Uncompromising and yet compromised, Brand is a caution, and _Brand_ a cautionary tale...

This book captures the essence of humanity. I recommend to anyone who wants to find themself.

This is a compact, but well-documented study of a 1926 theatre production of "The Pretenders", a little-known early play by Ibsen at the Danish Royal Theatre in Copenhagen to celebrate Adam and Johannes Poulsen's 25th anniversary as actors. The latter of these called in the help of theatre director, designer and prophet in exile Gordon Craig, who had abstained from active involvement in the theatre since he directed the (in)famous "Hamlet" with screens at Stanislavki's Moscow Art Theatre in 1912. In 1930 Craig produced a sumptuous book (now a collector's item) with colour reproductions of his designs and a personal account of his involvement. Using (Danish) documentation, including floor plans and other papers from the Royal Theatre's archives and press cuttings, Mr and Mrs Marker draw a detailed picture of the actual goings-on behind the scenes, the effectiveness of Craig's ideas in practice and the reception of the production. In some respects rather unlike Craig's self-glorifying account! An interesting, well-illustrated read for people with an interest in dramatic theory and theatre history. Too bad that no colour reproductions were included.

Although Henrik Ibsen is the first great modern dramatist, his play "Ghosts" ("Gengangere") bears a strong similarity to ancient Greek drama, where the "tragic flaw" of the protagonist lives on in his children. However, in this story the curse on the Alving family has a medical basis. Published in 1881 but not performed until the next year because of its controversial subject matter, "Ghosts" deals with the impact of congenital venereal disease on a family. "Ghosts" strongly reflects Ibsen's desire to attack hypocrisy and conventional morality and caused even more of a furor that his previous drama, "A Doll's House."

Helen Alving is building an orphanage as a memorial to her late husband and the night before the dedication she confesses to her old friend Parson Manders that her husband had been a "degenerate," and she is building the orphanage using her husband's "dirty" money so only her own money will pass on to her son, Oswald, who has just returned from living abroad. But then Oswald confesses he has a debilitating, incurable disease that the doctors believe was inherited. Even from beyond the grave, the "ghost" of Captain Alving ruins the life of his family. Mrs. Alving has to confess her husband's past to their son, destroying the young man's idealized view of his father. Knowing he is dying, Oswald wants to seduce the maid, Regina, so that when he enters the next stage of the disease she will give him poison. Oswald does not care that Regina is really his half-sister, and in the end it will be his mother's decision whether or not to give her son the poison when Oswald begins to have his attack.

The ending of the play constitutes a Rorschach test for the audience, with Ibsen refusing to let them off the hook. "Ghosts" is probably the Ibsen drama that relies most on symbolism, from the heavy use of light/dark imagery to the purifying aspects of fire, to the obvious symbolism of ghosts. Consequently, I think this makes "Ghosts" one of the easier plays by Ibsen for students to analyze. Final Argument: Reading Ibsen's plays in order has greater benefit than usual when reading the works of a single author. If you read "A Doll's House," "Ghosts," "An Enemy of the People," and "The Wild Duck," then you will see the playwright struggling to find a play that will reflect his deeply held beliefs and also find widespread critical and public acceptance. The relationship between each set of plays in the progression becomes insightful, as Ibsen either extends or reverses elements of the previous drama. For teachers of drama there might not be a better quartet of plays to study to show the growth of a major dramatist.

Ghosts and Other Plays is a seminal series of plays that combine humor with scathing social critique. Ibsen was not afraid to tackle weightier themes and taboos, in order to shock his audience out of their complacency. These plays demonstrate Ibsen's loathing of hyprocrisy, soulless institutions, the mandates of society which cause suffering (ie. Christianity). He has also been perceived as the figurehead for the emancipation of women from their traditional "place." That is not to say Ibsen is of dire seriousness or dry. His plays move quickly, the events in "Ghosts" for ex. occurring in less than a day. Ibsen is a great playwright whose works remain relevant and vital, in a consumerist society where people still remain afraid to defy cultural norms.

In this interesting play, Henrik Ibsen sets up a scenario of a married couple with three children that seem to have a good relationship with each other. This couple is Nora and Helmer (called Torvald by Nora). They always seem to have romantic conversations with each other, but soon, we learn that years ago Nora had to take a loan from Nils Krogstad, in order to pay off a lifesaving medical treatment for Helmer. He doesn't know this and thinks that the money came from Nora's father, who has passed away.

Helmer, who has just been named a manager of a bank, is always treating Nora in such a sweet manner, such as "Is that my little lark twittering out there?" or calls by another bird's name. She always gets little money from Helmer, but never gets large sums because Helmer is worried he thinks she doesn't know how to manage her money wisely. In the beginning, Nora treats Helmer with overwhelming respect although Nora is hiding her loan that she is paying off on a regulaly with some of the money from Helmer. Nora doesn't want Helmer to think she took a loan since she thinks it could affect their relationship.

There are three other supporting characters in this play: Dr. Rank, Nils Krogstad, and Christine Linde. Dr. Rank is a friend of the family who is seriously ill. Nils Krogstad a worker at the bank, who is about to his job to a friend of Nora's, Christine Linde, a woman who recently moved back to the area because her husband died.

At the end of Act II, we find out Nora forged her father's signature on the loan. Krogstad had written a letter to tell Helmer about the loan. Nora is worried that Helmer will read the letter Krogstad wrote.

This play is about a woman trying to understand her marriage, and always wanting something wonderful to happen. With Helmer, she finally realizes that she isn't being treated the way she wants, and nothing wonderful seems to happen. Nora had no trouble making the decision of leaving her family, but perhaps she would have had a hard time recovering from this rare type of circumstance in this time and age.

As I very clearly stated above, this is a read-worthy book, though not my favorite or one of the best books that I have ever read. If you're in the mood for some feminist action or any politics, go ahead, pick up the book. This is, however, NOT a book for anyone who's looking for comedy.

Las tres hermanas, es una obra de teatro, la cual yo encontré muy aburrida y sin sentido, únicamente avanza y avanza la historia y no se ve ningún cambio, por lo que el desarrollo es lento. Realmente no me agradó ya que hay muchos personajes quienes me parecieron innecesarios y no encontré el tema principal de la historia.

Concluyendo un poco de lo anterior, podríamos considerar que esta obra es de género Pieza ya que las acciones de la misma son de tono serio ya que los temas a tratar son: la muerte, incendios, política, amor, los cuales son vistos y tratados desde un punto de vista muy formal por los personajes.

Las hermanas toman conciencia de sus cualidades y defectos al hablar de sus empleos, sus vidas amorosas etc., (aunque en su mayoría sean defectos) pero como es característico del género pieza, éstas no resuelven su situación, y quedan deseando irse a Moscú sin resultado alguno.

Yo en lo personal no encontré el tema principal de la obra, lo único que me pareció interesante es ver y conocer un poco de las tradiciones y costumbres de Rusia a principios de siglo.

Even though this play seems boring and does not seem to have much of a plot, as one reviewer commented, Chekhov intended it this way. There is much more to the play that the lack of plot. Personally, at first, I thought that the play was pointless and boring; however, a more detailed analysis in my English class changed my mind. Chekhov has more to transmit that just the actions.

What is the essay of the Doll's House look like? May you show me the essay of the Doll's House for me?

I don't think the only other person to review this book quite realized what it is all about, or had even seen the book!! This is a really excellent teaching tool for anyone who is faced with the daunting task of explaining Ibsen's masterpiece in the classroom. Shafer is an eminent scholar, yet the book is very readable and user friendly and would make an excellent teaching tool for both novice and seasoned professional.

I've read several of his other books. He knows his subjects, he knows his grammar, he could make money writing other people's dissertations (on subjects he knows about), but he's just NOT INTERESTING TO READ!