nicolasvallaey's review against another edition
4.0
Oprecht echt van genoten om de volledige trilogie te lezen. Wist niet dat het argument in de rechtszaak misogynie was…
carmenfullarton's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
Prefer the plays of Euripides and Sophocles, due to less intense focus on the Gods. Naturally, this is the due to the historical context of his plays over the others, but the same plots (Electra, Orestes, Clytaemnestra, and Agamemnon) are focussed around the emotion of the characters and less the influence of the Gods.
jasfuller's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
borumi's review against another edition
4.0
어느 정도 순차적으로 연결은 되어있지만 완전 개별적인 작품들인 Sophocles의 Theban cycle과 달리
Oresteia를 이루는 세 작품은 뗄래야 뗄 수 없는 필연적 개연성을 갖고 있다.
Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides는 꼭 세 개를 한꺼번에 봐야하고
Aeschylus는 뭐랄까 Sophocles나 Euripides에 비해 뭔가 더 웅장하고 더 신화적인 epic같은 느낌으로 다가왔다.
Birth of Tragedy에서 니체는 Aeschylus를 더 칭송한 듯한데..그 당시 독일의 분위기 때문이었을까? Wagner의 영향이었을까?
하여튼 이 play는 단지 주인공들의 fury보다는 좀더 오래 뿌리 박힌 fury 그리고 더 광범위한 차원의 결말을 불러서 약간 epic poetry같은 느낌도 들었다.
Aeschylus와 Sophocles 둘다 Robert Fagles의 번역으로 읽었는데 느낌이 판이하다.
그리고 Introduction 또한 얼마나 중요한지도 느껴진 게 Aeschylus의 editor는 introduction이 작품을 보는 것보다 더 오래 걸리고 정말 장황하고 상세하게 썼다. 서평으로는 아주 훌륭하지만 introduction으로 이렇게 써야했을까? 이 introduction을 보고나면 작품을 볼 때 다른 생각을 품을 여유가 없어질 듯하다. Introduction은 말 그대로 소개이지, 독자가 정신이 숨막힐 만큼의 자유마저 박탈되는 곳은 아닌 듯하다.
Oresteia를 이루는 세 작품은 뗄래야 뗄 수 없는 필연적 개연성을 갖고 있다.
Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides는 꼭 세 개를 한꺼번에 봐야하고
Aeschylus는 뭐랄까 Sophocles나 Euripides에 비해 뭔가 더 웅장하고 더 신화적인 epic같은 느낌으로 다가왔다.
Birth of Tragedy에서 니체는 Aeschylus를 더 칭송한 듯한데..그 당시 독일의 분위기 때문이었을까? Wagner의 영향이었을까?
하여튼 이 play는 단지 주인공들의 fury보다는 좀더 오래 뿌리 박힌 fury 그리고 더 광범위한 차원의 결말을 불러서 약간 epic poetry같은 느낌도 들었다.
Aeschylus와 Sophocles 둘다 Robert Fagles의 번역으로 읽었는데 느낌이 판이하다.
그리고 Introduction 또한 얼마나 중요한지도 느껴진 게 Aeschylus의 editor는 introduction이 작품을 보는 것보다 더 오래 걸리고 정말 장황하고 상세하게 썼다. 서평으로는 아주 훌륭하지만 introduction으로 이렇게 써야했을까? 이 introduction을 보고나면 작품을 볼 때 다른 생각을 품을 여유가 없어질 듯하다. Introduction은 말 그대로 소개이지, 독자가 정신이 숨막힐 만큼의 자유마저 박탈되는 곳은 아닌 듯하다.
frannieman's review against another edition
emotional
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.75
binstonbirchill's review against another edition
5.0
Every once in awhile it's a good idea to try something different, something ancient, who knows... you just might like it. Greek tragedies have never sparked an interest for me but one day I decided to pick up The Oresteia (probably because I like the name Agamemnon). I was surprised that I was actually able to follow along with the story and, while I missed things, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The themes, such as revenge vs. justice (among others), are timeless. It doesn't take long to read and the man who wrote it fought in the battle of Marathon (yes, that Marathon!).
ropey's review against another edition
4.0
Apollo just appeals to authority all the damn time doesn't he, while Orestes just pulls the biggest Pikachu face in history
chrischrischris's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
jtoews's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
c2pizza's review against another edition
5.0
I just finished reading The Oresteia, so perhaps it's premature to claim it as my favourite work in Greek and Roman literature; however, it is. The style is as elegant as The Parthenon, and the moral drama is a gripping as a Fury sucking the blood from your body. I wouldn't go as a far as sacrificing my child or killing my mother to go back in time and watch the debut of this play, but I would pay a lot of money that I don't have.
Particularly interesting to me is the affect this had on Greek society. It reminds me of the biblical tale of the Jewish king Josiah (who happened to find a long-lost book of law that conveniently updated an already infallible, but out-of-date legal system for him so he wouldn't have to challenge the divine authority of established law). If someone decided to write a book to instantly propagate new ideas of governing and yet mesh the new system with the prevailing myths and prejudices of the times, that book would be The Oresteia. The formula is simple (framing the law as above man, and the changes as from the god(des)s(es), so no one can deride them as man-made or fallible), but the execution takes skill in subtlety so most people don't notice infallible things changing before their eyes. The Oresteia is more compelling than the story of Josiah (or the Spartan king Lycurgus) because it gives voice to the old arguments while subduing them in the process, and because the characters and plot have dimensions. You actually feel that Clytemnestra is making a good point every so often, and it isn't as if she and Aegistus are acting without meditation.
I could ramble on about how much insight on Greek religion gets unpacked, how many memorable lines jump off the page, the complex themes of family and honor, the treatment of women as secondary, the politicking of Athena to ensure her judgment is honored, etc. Simply put, there were a lot of ideas The Oresteia clarified for me, and a lot of ideas it sparked. I'll read it again sooner than later.
Particularly interesting to me is the affect this had on Greek society. It reminds me of the biblical tale of the Jewish king Josiah (who happened to find a long-lost book of law that conveniently updated an already infallible, but out-of-date legal system for him so he wouldn't have to challenge the divine authority of established law). If someone decided to write a book to instantly propagate new ideas of governing and yet mesh the new system with the prevailing myths and prejudices of the times, that book would be The Oresteia. The formula is simple (framing the law as above man, and the changes as from the god(des)s(es), so no one can deride them as man-made or fallible), but the execution takes skill in subtlety so most people don't notice infallible things changing before their eyes. The Oresteia is more compelling than the story of Josiah (or the Spartan king Lycurgus) because it gives voice to the old arguments while subduing them in the process, and because the characters and plot have dimensions. You actually feel that Clytemnestra is making a good point every so often, and it isn't as if she and Aegistus are acting without meditation.
I could ramble on about how much insight on Greek religion gets unpacked, how many memorable lines jump off the page, the complex themes of family and honor, the treatment of women as secondary, the politicking of Athena to ensure her judgment is honored, etc. Simply put, there were a lot of ideas The Oresteia clarified for me, and a lot of ideas it sparked. I'll read it again sooner than later.