Okay this is too much, I'm actually feeling really annoyed by the amount of Simpson references in this. I'm not someone who is really a fan of the show or really even watches it, so it could be because of that but I'm also having a hard time feeling like anything is actually happening here. It's just a bunch of talk about the Simpsons that I don't understand and it feels frustrating like we're literally on page 20 of this play and they are still talking Simpsons, it is so tiring. I also feel as though I can't remember a lot of what I've read as it's all just coming together in my brain like a giant "Simpsons episode plots" blob.

I'm definitely already very interested in this play already before I've even gotten very far at all. First of all, the beginning of this intro with the "it takes place in the future, and then 7 years later, and then 75 years after that," already had me very interested as well as kind of confused as to where this was headed. This type of setting description can totally warp my look at the play as a whole. I also was pleased to see that my seeing the art for the play and saying "that kind of looks like Bart Simpson" was mostly correct.

It's just so hard to feel bad for these people at the end of this because it feels like they were just so useless for the entirety of the play. They knew of this situation with the Orchard and would even constantly talk about how to save it but never actually did anything about it. It was so much "How do we save it?" and no "now let's actually go do it." So when Lopakhin would actually try and help them and think of ways to save it, they constantly ignored him. They seemed so ignorant and blinded by their memories and past there that they ignored the issue at hand, thinking that the Orchard would hopefully just save itself.

Lopakhin revealing that he's bought the orchard is such a turning point in this play as it almost feels like a betrayal in the context of the story and the other characters who live on the Orchard. Although I will say, although it can paint him as a villain in their eyes since he's buying it to tear it down and make profit, I personally feel as though he's not one. I feel that any person might think to do this, especially someone who grew up in poverty, he definitely seems more like the underdog who has finally found his success. I can't hate or dislike someone like that.

Okay uhh, I'm not sure if I have been just reading this wrong the whole time but this was so out of nowhere?? Sure, the Koreans and Korean-Americans didn't have the most amazing and polite conversations but wow okay, it escalated really fast and in an incredibly gory way. I think it's also worth noting how the white people simply entered, shooed them off and had a very nice little conversation at the end. I don't really think I can put the exact connection that they're trying to make into words but it sure is interesting.

I can already see the similarities between this and Teahouse with the really long stage directions and especially descriptive details within it. Although this one didn't annoy me quite as much. I especially liked the beginning sentence where it's made very specific what race of actors should be playing what characters. There's something about it that feels a lot nicer to read and almost more helpful to envision it. I also just like that it's specific to people who are not just White as it's not always something taken into account within shows. I actually enjoyed reading the culture and race specific things that must be included in this play.

This is soooo long, it seems kind of unnecessary. Thankfully, no one watching it unfolding would know but it feels exhausting to even just look at this huge block of text. Reading it was another kind of torture, although it did help me to set the scene a bit better, I felt like I was being forced to do something. I also found myself forgetting everything I just read because there was just so much. As much as I get maybe this could be appreciated by someone in set design and trying to do blocking, I, as a reader, did not appreciate it at all.

I noticed a lot of plays have things like prologues or random characters that just talk, whether it be fourth wall breaking, storytelling, or something completely off-topic, or maybe even all those three at the same time, somehow. The stage directions are especially interesting though, seeing as how it specifies this character has been made to make time for actors to do makeup between acts. This just made me wonder if all these prologues and random characters are made specifically for this reason and would not exist if there was not this need. Why not just a silent intermission? It's definitely an interesting thing to learn.

I'm so confused. There is a lot of things going on and being discussed between Melissa and Abiola here. It almost feels like too much honestly, they seem to keep switching topics every other line and it feels weird and really hard to follow personally. I was also kind of confused by his surprise that she was the actress. I'd just assumed he knew because he sort of acted like she was a celebrity in the last scene with them. Sure, he technically named her as the fiancee of someone he knows but it felt like if he knew that, he should've known she was an actress? I got kind of lost there.

Already near the beginning of this play and I have found a character I dislike a lot. I really don't like this character, just based on these interactions alone and the things he says. He comes off as a very "traditional man," and I really hate that. I'm also not sure if I'm entirely correct but it seems as though he is married with children and he is having an affair with Margaret Bintu. He acts like he's a know-it-all and is constantly talking over her or explaining things that she hadn't mentioned or were not entirely relevant. He's just the worst.

I wouldn't say Seymour is my favorite character in the whole world, but he is definitely my favorite TYPE of character. Seymour is never described or portrayed as a hero, he is a clumsy, insecure, poor guy who is basically the cause of the main problem (Audrey 2) in the whole show. Seymour is the protagonist of this story but unlike most where he would be the hero, he's the cause and acts somewhat selfishly throughout. Although also with good intentions, he does selfish things like killing and feeding Orin to Audrey 2; although he helped Audrey out of that relationship, it's not exactly a moral thing to do. But Seymour is still a character you want to root for, his background and demeanor is very likeable and almost relatale to many. I love character types like this who are not heroes but are the prominent part of the story.

Little Shop of Horrors is literally one of my favorite musicals as well as my favorite movie musical but I'm not really a big fan of reading plays as I find it kind of boring. Especially after having seen the movie/musical, reading it after the fact always feels so underwhelming and almost makes me feel kind of awkward. I'm hoping that's not the case here and I can enjoy looking into another aspect of this thing that I enjoy a lot. So far, even with just the beginning stage directions, I'm interested by how everything is described. Specifically the "A VOICE NOT UNLIKE GOD'S."

The whole time reading this play, I had two thoughts, one was "wow I really can't stand this kind of writing format," as well as feeling very interested (?) by this play at the same time. I don't usually like when plays are written in incredibly abstract forms that don't really make any sense, but this one feels very different from any other ones that make it so unique. I would say that the knowledge of the author and events that occured afterwards are what make this play, had I not known or looked anything up about this playwright, I might have not liked this play at all. Finding out about the suicide of Sarah Kane after this play and the details leading up to it in the hospital, make this feel like a look into her mind. It feels very intimate and almost like something I shouldn't be reading which is what makes me want to read it even more. It's sad but I can't help but be really interested in this play and the author herself.

This one hit a little closer to him than I'd care to admit, I definitely didn't expect to be impacted by something SO early on in this play. Aside from kind of resonating with this short dialogue that kind of serves as an intro to the play, it also feels like it 'sets the scene.' It almost feels like a foreshadowing to prepare us for what the rest of the play feels like. Like this is the tamest thing we will see and it will only spiral downward the more we read. It's definitely sad, and it does make me curious on how this was staged as it goes to a different formatted writing afterwards.

I'm a little confused on exactly what the point of this play is, setting wise. I had initially assumed it was some sort of afterlife but now I'm skeptical and stil ldon't understand what's really going on. Other than the conversations between thema ll working as a way to look into Antigone's contradicting feelings about everything. Regardless of all the emotions she felt, she was fighting for her beliefs and brother all the way up until the end where she kills herself. Althoguh I am still a bit confused, her passion is admirable and does speak to her character a lot, that'd she'd go back to defy Creon and bury her brother a thousand times over no matter what.

This beginning really intrigued and captivated me because I saw the name of the play and immediately assumed it was going to be the normal Antigone story but told in maybe a different sort of way. Whether it be in a different cultural sense or dialogue or even a different ending, I thought it'd just be a modified version of the original. So seeing the "hanged," and all the implications and actions detailed in the stage directions that she is dead and this is actually the afterlife? It was very surprising, and I'm not entirely sure if I'm right about that but it seems like its where its heading.

This situation is just so scary and after a bit of thinking "that's such a horrible thing to do," I realized it's actually super realistic as it is literally what happens in real life whenever there is a natural disaster or well, a pandemic. A great example is the one we are still in, at the height of the lockdown when everyone was scrambling to buy toilet paper and food and other essentials, people began gouging prices. And even after everything, things got more expensive and still have stayed that way. I can't imagine going through it all the time like these people are. This seems like a connection to the real world and what the government and businesses do to those less fortunate during times of crisis.

These lines immediately make me a bit skeptical that I'm about to read a religious play where every action the characters take is somehow rooted in "God's will,". But it also is a little contradicting seeing as they're not exactly being positive about God or any of this. They treat it more like a passing thing that just happens and you have to deal with it. If God says it has to be a certain way, it will be that way and you just have to deal. It does come off a bit confusing but definitely interesting to see if this is a bigger message or maybe it's just a passing line of dialogue.

For a guy who can't say no to anyone, he seems very okay with going against and saying no to his wife. It's definitely surprising seeing as even though he couldn't say no to these strangers, he's fine sort of denying his wife and confirming the notion of Fairchild and others that she's crazy. Especially since he seemed very fond of her, calling her his dear wife at the start and continuously saying his wife was waiting for him with the fish he was to buy. It seems sort of out of character, you'd think he'd say yes more to people he knows and loves than just strangers.

I usually never actually laugh at old plays since all the jokes tend to be very old, or even dry at times but this specific line and whole scene between Galy Gay and Begbick had me laughing. It's so to the point and explicit with what they feel that it's almost the funniest line I've ever read in an older play. It also is so fast with how characters deliver their lines, the entire dialogue between them is so funny and leaves no time to get bored. I especially like how blunt and straightforward Begbick is, she's the funniest part of this whole ordeal.

This is so infuriating because it's so true. Often, if not all of the time, actors of color are cast solely in roles made for their ethnicity. We're overlooked as people who could probably only play roles that have to do with our cultures and origin even if you're out of touch with that culture or not even born there. And on top of that type of casting which overlooks any actors of color for anything other than just the "ethnic role," they are usually always made out to be very dangerous, rebellious people who had terrible lives fgrowing up. Which is simply not always true and not what every person of color is like. I would always be expcted to be someone who always acted roles of my ethnicity solely because it's a role so ingrained in that culture or know all the dances, songs and such, when the truth is I'm not so intouch with my culture or know too much of that. It's exhausting to be forced into a box at all times, especially when its always so stereotyped and not accurate or reltable to your own life at all.

This is so gross. It's very obvious he is only saying this to get what he wants. Trying to rile her up and put thoughts into her that he is truly in love with her. It's like cornerning her and basically forcing her to feel bad for him or like she owes him something so she will accept. The realization later when M'Closky finds the papers saying Zoe is not free make this so much worse. He is just going to any length to get what he wants. This kind of thing feels really gross to even read especially with the way he speaks of her as something he can own and keep as long as he buys her. It's an uncomfortable scene to even just think about.

There are so many instances of Bruce acting as a "maniac," or simply acting out in general and becoming very angry or unreasonable with either himself, his wife or his children. It makes me wonder whether on top of the problems that arose in him from being closeted whether he also possibly had some sort of mental illnesses that only amplified all of this. And whether his wife also played a part in trying her best to supress this part of him. Although both have done things wrong in the marriage, it begs the question of whether she really is just a 'victim' as Alison empathizes with what she had to go through with Bruce.

This point in the play was especially heartbreaking in my opinion. It must be nerve-wracking having to live throuhg this kind of thing and feeling as though you yourself could have had a part or been a part of the reason your father decided to end his life. As if she hadn't already been wrestling her own sexuality and insecurities, on top of finding out about her father's affairs with men, it's a lot to take in. Especially when she'll most likely never know the entire truth as to what led to it even if it was a multitude of things pushing him to the limit.

I can't tell if it's just me but there are about three or four comments about Jews throughout this play. They're all negative too, with a lot of comments about Jews being thrown against their Religious beliefs which I believe to be Christian. And then we get to this scene with the "Jew" character and it seems really anti-semitic. All comments are negative and then the appearance of this character ends with a focus on money. The point of this in the play confuses me and I don't think it really has any valid point or goal. It wasn't needed but was shoved in there as a way to just discriminate.

I won't lie, that took me by surprise, I was sos hocked to see that. I assumed he was going to be killing himself with that knife and didn't really think about this route. I was really confused by this play and didn't think it would really take this turn. Although Woyzeck has been driven to insanity, I really couldn't tell if it was mainly the Doctor and Captain, Marie and that Drum Man or his entire life in general. I thought he'd probably try to kill himself to end what had been driving him crazy. I also found the line about the doctor showing Woyzeck to some people misleading as it also lead me to believe he was being used an experiment rather than just crazy over Marie. It could be a mix of both though, I'm not really sure what happened here or how we got here.

This scene was just terrifying. He decapitated the bird she said she loved much and then she went into a speech of her hatred of men and wanting Jean dead. I found it interesting as well as pathetic. She reminds me of Macbeth in a way, talks a lot of big game but never really goes through with it. It's not the first time she's rude or says she hates Jean and just wants him dead. Her hatred for men is also something that should prompt her to do SOMETHING but apparently this weakness she mentions earlier stops her. It's strange someone could have such a big contrast in them. Say all of these things to him out loud after what he's done to her and still not really act on any of it and go right back to the idea of running away with him and even taking Kristin with them.

This exchange about dreams between Miss Julie and Jean specifically interested me. The contrast between the dreams these two supposedly have, both have similar and such differing dreams. Miss Julie's dream of not being able to come down from the pillar she is on or she'll "want to bury [her]self in the earth] seems to represent how she is at the top but has a desire to fall down from the status she's at, a weakness of some sort. Not allowing herself too because she knows it will end in her demise. In contrast with Jean's dream of being unable to reach the first branch that will lead him to the top (to success). No matter how much he tries, he always slips and can never make it. No matter how much he wants to make it, he cannot, as opposed to Miss Julie, who can make it down but refuses to.