Protest

I was completely silent on Friday, to show show my protest against people talking mindlessly when they should be listening. I wrote what I was doing and why on a card, and carried everywhere. I got an interesting range of reactions, from indifferent nods or shrugs, to words of support or disagreement. One elderly man said to me, at my place of employment, "Oh, you kids are always thinking of crazy things to disgaree with!" I thought that was pretty funny.

i enjoy the way in which aristophanes uses the the two choruses to mirror the action happening with the other characters (though that is characteristic of much of greek drama.) the dialogue and action between the choruses, especially the two koryphaios, can be used to get a sense of the general climate of the play (who has the upper hand in the conflict, etc.)

what do you think the women's ultimate goal, in terms of their status was? do they just want to make peace and then have everything go back to the way it was, or do they want to increase their societal standing? referring to lysistrata's yarn-plan, it almost seems as if she wants greek women to be involved in government and other male-dominated aspects of society.

just wondering what everyone thinks, is the play more about the breaking of gender roles, protest of conflict? or is it even about the breaking of gender roles? if the women plan to win the men over and get them to stop the war by tantilizaing them with their bodies aren't they just fulfilling the role that the men already had in mind for them, just sort of leaving their husbands out of it to get them to make peace?

i'd just like to comment on Kinesias' taking a leaf out of the book of the women and being sly by bringning the baby around to the akropolis when he goes to see his wife. he is obviously trying to evoke her maternal instincts, and therefore stop thinking about politics and war and once more of her home and husband. what do you think?

in the scene in which Myrrhine tantalizes her husband outside of the akropolis, she seems to be in complete control, right? well, i have a sneaking suspicion that she might have a had a little bit of indecision, a conflict of interests bewteen her desire to help lysistrata achieve peace and her own desires. what do you guys think?

i think that the best characterization of lysistrata herself can be found in the section in which she confronts the commissioner before the akropolis. it shows that she is a natural leader, in that she goes out and represents all of the women. her confrontation and general outwitting of the commissioner show her as being headstrong, determined, and crafty. she is also not afraid to take action against injustices she percieves in greek society.

just to point out the vast difference in genre between lysistrata and hedda gabler. they're both filled with all kinds of innuendo, but lysistrata's is far more tongue-in-cheek, whereas much of it in hedda comes off as threats, mostly made by brack. lysistrata is fairly unrealistic, idealistic, and allegorical in places, whereas hedda is a tediously realistic portrayal of sitting room drama. this also brings up the difference in scope. the events in lysistrata, apparently, involve the whole of Greece, whereas, in hedda gabler, the events would hypothetically bear little to no significance to anyone outside of the Tesmans' living room, or their small norwegian town. also, the author's personal stance on the subject material and the characters as far clearer in Lysistrata

i thought that the end was sort of contrary to the themes of the of play and the resolution of the story, in that the men just ended up making peace (the woman) just another object and dividing her up. the rest of the final part of the play, the feast and all, seemed to be all about redemtion, forgiveness, peace, and unity, but then Aristophanes just throws that other bit. perhaps he's just suggesting that the men only gave in because of their thoughtless obedience of their desires, and not becuase they actually wanted peace.

so what does everyone think of the translation of Lysistrata? it seems to me that the translator took a lot of liberties with the text, especially where the spartans are concerned, the dialect, etc. its also apparently a very toned down version in terms of suggestiveness. what do you think the translator's motives were in doing such things?