Inferno and from an Occult Diary (Classics S.)

Rating:
Summary: strindberg goes insane
Review: In Inferno Strindberg writes about the mental problems that he suffered from during the 1890s in a such a convincing way that you almost begin to wonder whether he really was mad. At times you really believe that everyone was out to get him and maybe they were(he made himself very impopular in his native Sweden with some of his books). I guess this book gives you a good description of just how fine the line between genious and insanity is. If you like Térèse Raquin by Zola this one is for you!

Rating:
Summary: A Troubled Genius
Review: Strindberg was one of the foremost playwrights of the 19th century, almost equal in stature to the other great Scandinavian, Ibsen. This work is a departure in that the author takes as his subject his own psyche. The schizophrenia and paranoia he suffers from comes at the reader in waves. We are drawn into the vortex of his twisted reasoning, his fears, his misanthropic vision. About the nearest parallel I can think of is the work of Antonin Artaud, who also is quite adept at describing his own psychoses. What seperates them, in my opinion, is that Strindberg is a much greater writer and can at times objectively look at his subject (himself), whereas Arataud tends towards the monomaniacal. I would recommend this work for anyone interested in modern playwrights or in the psychological underpinnings of the artistic temperament.

Rating:
Summary: A Troubled Genius
Review: Strindberg was one of the foremost playwrights of the 19th century, almost equal in stature to the other great Scandinavian, Ibsen. This work is a departure in that the author takes as his subject his own psyche. The schizophrenia and paranoia he suffers from comes at the reader in waves. We are drawn into the vortex of his twisted reasoning, his fears, his misanthropic vision. About the nearest parallel I can think of is the work of Antonin Artaud, who also is quite adept at describing his own psychoses. What seperates them, in my opinion, is that Strindberg is a much greater writer and can at times objectively look at his subject (himself), whereas Arataud tends towards the monomaniacal. I would recommend this work for anyone interested in modern playwrights or in the psychological underpinnings of the artistic temperament.