the oath

I know that oaths are a big deal to the Greeks, and especially these women. The first time I read this, though, I felt a bit uneasy. It seems that Kleonike, in particular, was a bit hesitant to actually go through with this. Now this is a single woman, but I wonder.. In the masses of women participating in this, did all of them truly feel about this the way that Lysistrata did, or were they
merely following the crowd?

and so on

As I went along to the point of the oath, specifically the appearance of Lampito, I was a bit disgusted by the portrayal of the Spartans. I acknowlege the fact that Parker was trying to emphasize the extent of the paricipants of in the abstinence oath, that all of them were in this together, no matter where they're from, but its a bit too much. The accent screams HICK! the dialect implies a lack of intelligence. Personally, I would have preferred a portrayal less insulting.

some opening thoughts

to be honest, I was looking frward to this play primarily because of the heavy amount
of humor. Honestly, its wonderful to have a break from Bernarda Alba (suicide... ) and Hedda Gabler (hmm another suicide). there was a note of maturity, however, as I find it extremely interesting. I am particularly intrigued about the fact that Aristophanes wrote a play about
the power of a woman. I mean that he's totally ahead of his time-it went against what we'd normally consider the ancient Greeks to believe.

To the ending...

After hearing what many had to say, I tended to hear that most of my classmates were upset
about the ending. I, personally, am rather indifferent about it, but I couldn't ignore
how it was somewhat similar to Lorca. On the surface, there was the suicide of Adela and
that of Hedda. But its odd- Adela acted out of a combination of desire of freedom and irrationality brought on by the Pepe affair. In other words, she was the one lacking control of her
own life because of her mother, primarily. Hedda, on the other hand, also lacked control, but it was brought on by nobody other than herself, in an internal and mental sense, though I'm
positive you could argue against that.

Girls Gone Wild!

I know, I know- there is the sense of power when a man hires a prostitute. He pays her
and.....But is it really true control. Brack-the womanizer, indulges is the pleasures of the flesh, but does this show his power, or his weakness. I, on one hand, tend to view it as the
latter of the two. Think about it. He's addicted to women. He does flirt with both Hedda and
go for ladies of the night.Think of it as you woould a drug addiction. He lacks the will power to
give up the engagement in this act.

Look out! She's got a nug! -I mean- GUN!

Well, its pretty obvious- the motif of guns has risen
to symbolize control and power.I'm not going to vomit up all of
the evidence supporting this motid- its pretty obvious, and we've
gone over it enough already. I think that it goes a bit deeper, though.
After thinking about it, I began to think that Hedda uses the guns for
personal amusement in her power. Picture that mean little kid with a magnifying glass.
Picture him frying the ants on the ground with delight. Compare it to Hedda. See?

Awww, Just Give Me A Brack, Man!

Yes, yes, I know, I couldn't resist (Give me a break)
Now. Lets "brack" this case. Personally, I enjoy this character-he feels like an indulgence,
because, for those of us cheering for Hedda, there's the diappointment in the fact that he
gently takes power from her. But He's crazyamazing. All authority figure junk aside-
I've come to almost admire him based on his conversation with Hedda in the beginning of Act II.
His entire conversation is laced with little sexual hints-and he's able to get Hedda to open up about how she truly views her married life.He has status, indeed, but he also posesses a
clever intelligence- I love it.
PS-Hedda, Tesman, and Brack would certainly make "acute" triangle