Scan barcode
missmelia's review against another edition
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
lsparrow's review against another edition
2.0
Perhaps it is that his plays are more an internal dialogue or journey that I find difficult in that medium, but mostly it is that I dont like the characters enough to want to join them. Miller addresses hard themes of relationships and finding meaning and asks interesting and important questions but I just cant sit though the conversation.
ajb24's review against another edition
2.0
I didn’t really know what was going on in this. I think this is something you either have to see performed IRL so you can see the stage cues and what’s going on or you have to read it to see the stage directions. Since I was just listening to it I just heard a lot of musical transitions but didn’t know what they meant. Since the plot is so disjointed I ended up being very confused. I don’t have much opinion about the plot itself, except that since it’s autobiographical I usually forgot that the main character was a character and not just Arthur Miller.
And even though I didn’t much know what was going on, I can appreciate Miller’s ability to develop characters (he’s especially good at tragic characters). I know I added this book to my list after I read The Crucible and Death of a Salesman in high school and I really liked his writing style. There’s hints of that ability here, just the plot itself had me lost so it’s not my favorite thing ever (I don’t think it’ll impact me much at all actually, especially since a major factor in my choosing to read this was that it was a short audiobook and I want to clear my to-read shelf, so I read this almost out of self-obligation rather than genuine interest)
And even though I didn’t much know what was going on, I can appreciate Miller’s ability to develop characters (he’s especially good at tragic characters). I know I added this book to my list after I read The Crucible and Death of a Salesman in high school and I really liked his writing style. There’s hints of that ability here, just the plot itself had me lost so it’s not my favorite thing ever (I don’t think it’ll impact me much at all actually, especially since a major factor in my choosing to read this was that it was a short audiobook and I want to clear my to-read shelf, so I read this almost out of self-obligation rather than genuine interest)
lookinabook's review against another edition
3.0
Dark, mysterious and captivating. This was a good read, however very tragic to see inside the mind of a man.
thebeardedpoet's review against another edition
2.0
Interestingly the play After the Fall deals with the historical tragedies of the Great Depression, the Holocaust, and the Red Scare.
The best thing about Arthur Miller's After the Fall is the format: As a transition between scenes, Quentin, the main character, speaks out loud about his life and experiences to an unseen "Listener." The story emerges from Quentin's memories and associations. Persons from various time periods in his life might appear on stage in a given scene at the same time due to the connections and associations those people evoke. Because moments at different times are portrayed simultaneously, the format can be confusing at first, but eventually becomes an effective technique for bringing the audience into Quentin's mind.
What I did not care for was the repeated portrayal of the disintegrations of marriage and friendship relationships. We witness the failure of Quentin's two marriages. We see Quentin's parents decent into brokenness. For me it simply got too depressing and discouraging to see couples fall apart like that. Also this repeated motif made the hopeful ending seem very unlikely and unbelievable. Really? We are to believe that Quentin's next relationship will function well?
The character of Maggie is thought by many to be a parallel for Marilyn Monroe, who was briefly married to Arthur Miller. Maggie enacts the descent of innocent girl who becomes a star and can't handle an artist's public life. She becomes an insanely jealous primadonna, constantly whining to get her way and spending herself into a vast hole of debt. She turns to drugs and becomes suicidal. Perhaps you can understand why I didn't find the Second Act (mostly about Maggie and Quentin's marriage) to be much fun.
The best thing about Arthur Miller's After the Fall is the format: As a transition between scenes, Quentin, the main character, speaks out loud about his life and experiences to an unseen "Listener." The story emerges from Quentin's memories and associations. Persons from various time periods in his life might appear on stage in a given scene at the same time due to the connections and associations those people evoke. Because moments at different times are portrayed simultaneously, the format can be confusing at first, but eventually becomes an effective technique for bringing the audience into Quentin's mind.
What I did not care for was the repeated portrayal of the disintegrations of marriage and friendship relationships. We witness the failure of Quentin's two marriages. We see Quentin's parents decent into brokenness. For me it simply got too depressing and discouraging to see couples fall apart like that. Also this repeated motif made the hopeful ending seem very unlikely and unbelievable. Really? We are to believe that Quentin's next relationship will function well?
The character of Maggie is thought by many to be a parallel for Marilyn Monroe, who was briefly married to Arthur Miller. Maggie enacts the descent of innocent girl who becomes a star and can't handle an artist's public life. She becomes an insanely jealous primadonna, constantly whining to get her way and spending herself into a vast hole of debt. She turns to drugs and becomes suicidal. Perhaps you can understand why I didn't find the Second Act (mostly about Maggie and Quentin's marriage) to be much fun.
menu89's review against another edition
Arthur Miller is the first playwright I am reading outside the allotted Shakespeare. I found the technique employed in the narration of events/dialogue in this play interest (although a little difficult to follow). I had a vague notion from the title that there might be biblical implications but since those parallels do not interest me, I will not pursue them.
One theme that struck out at me was of complicity and guilt. This was there throughout the first act. About who is guilty and for what reason, and how everyone is complicit. I saw him juxtapose the holocaust with other events in his life and the lives of others.
I felt that he other'd the women in his writing a lot. He focused on two male character (if i remember correctly) and these characters saved him (Lou who threw himself in front of the train to supposedly save his career and his brother who took up work so that he could go to school?) but all female characters seemed (to what?) deny him what he needed? But I think this ties into him not understanding women, or failing to treat them as actual separate entities, or at least that is what was established in the first act.
The second act furthers the story I suppose and tries to fix the lose end of trying to get out of the hopeless jumble of guilt associated to us via the past to arrive at a present where we can accept it and move on. I think this person "Holga" is a personification of this idea final idea, which is why she is brought in time and again as an ideal that Quentin wants to reach out to grab but doesn't feel like he can.
I don't really know if that was the intention of the author but those are some ideas that occurred to me whilst reading this play. I did feel like the ending was a bit vague and that the play lacked fluidity.
One theme that struck out at me was of complicity and guilt. This was there throughout the first act. About who is guilty and for what reason, and how everyone is complicit. I saw him juxtapose the holocaust with other events in his life and the lives of others.
I felt that he other'd the women in his writing a lot. He focused on two male character (if i remember correctly) and these characters saved him (Lou who threw himself in front of the train to supposedly save his career and his brother who took up work so that he could go to school?) but all female characters seemed (to what?) deny him what he needed? But I think this ties into him not understanding women, or failing to treat them as actual separate entities, or at least that is what was established in the first act.
The second act furthers the story I suppose and tries to fix the lose end of trying to get out of the hopeless jumble of guilt associated to us via the past to arrive at a present where we can accept it and move on. I think this person "Holga" is a personification of this idea final idea, which is why she is brought in time and again as an ideal that Quentin wants to reach out to grab but doesn't feel like he can.
I don't really know if that was the intention of the author but those are some ideas that occurred to me whilst reading this play. I did feel like the ending was a bit vague and that the play lacked fluidity.
not_a_bagel's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Arthur Miller's masterpiece, this semi-autobiographical work takes Miller's life and makes it so brutally realistic and devastating that after I finished reading I had to just sit there for a while in awe of his writing. Makes every other realistic fiction author look like an amateur. The Nazi sympathies are interesting from a jewish playwright though.
hageryousef99's review against another edition
4.0
خلال حياتك ستجد كتاب تتغير عنده كل أفكارك وآرائك لن تعود كما كنت قبل قراءة هذا العمل أبداً ستتغير نظرتك لكل الكتب التي تنتمي لنفس الفئة، بالنسبة لي لقد خضت هذا الشعور لأول مرة مع هذا الكتاب. لقد تغيرت كل معتقداتي في عالم المسرحيات من هذه اللحظة؛ أكاد أشعر بعقلي وهو ينضج ويتغذي علي لون جديد من ألوان الأدب. بدون أدني تردد هذه المسرحية من أجمل ما قرأت في عالم المسرحيات حتي الآن لا أدري كيف لعمل بكل هذا الجمال والإتقان ألّا يلاقي رواجاً وشهرة، شهرته لا تمثل 1% من مدي جماله. لم أري كاتب مسرحيات بتلك النظرة الإخراجية العبقرية، أعلن صراحة تلك المسرحية ورؤية كاتبها وطريقة صياغتها أفضل بمراحل من مسرحيات لشكسبير تعد البناء الأساسي في عالم المسرحيات. حبكة عظيمة إخراج رائع تسلسل أحداث مذهل حوار أكثر من ممتاز النتيجة أفضل مسرحية علي الإطلاق! من أول سطر اندمجت وغصت مع المسرحية وأبطالها وحكايتها والصراعات. المذهل أن هذه المسرحية غير حقيقية فهي عبارة عن جولة في عقل البطل ذكرياته ومأساته تبريرات وتحليلات العودة بالزمن والرجوع للحاضر مقارنة الماضي بما يحدث الآن هل البطل قاتل أم مقتول ضحية أم جاني... أسئلة كثيرة يعج بها رأسك ربما تجد لها إجابة وربما تغرق في مستنقع التحليلات. أمر رائع ومدهش ان تتجول في عقل شخص ما، دائما ما نخطئ في حق بعضنا البعض ونحكم علي الآخرين من وجهة نظرنا وعادة ما نكتشف خطأ ذلك الحكم ولكن دعني أسألك.. ما بالك لو أخطأت في حق نفسك؟ هنا في الرواية تتعري الطبيعة البشرية أمامك في عقل البطل وصراعاته سواء أكانت مع الآخرين أو مع نفسه. الترجمة أكثر من رائعة متقنة لدرجة أنك لن تشعر أنه نص مترجم بالإضافة فإن المترجم جمع في بداية الكتاب ملخص لحياة الكاتب ومسرحياته ونبذة عن كل مسرحية و في جزء مسرحية "بعد السقوط" كان شرحه للمسرحية رائع واضاف آراء النقاد وحوارات سابقة للكاتب يتحدث فيها عن المسرحية. واضح جداً مدي إتقانه لعمله ومدي شغفه به ولكن تعليقي الوحيد أن يأتي كل هذا بعد نص المسرحية الأصلي كي لا يحرق الأحداث علي القارئ فكل هذا الشرح والآراء من الأفضل أن تختم به بعد قراءة المسرحية ليتضح لك كل الجوانب.