This ending to the play is so saddening to me. In the end after an entire play about this land and this home and the material wealth associated with it and then in the end it's an entire living person that gets forgotten as its sold off.

I think it's worth noting that so many pieces we've looked at this semester somehow incorporate this kind of setting at the onset: a Cafe or teahouse where people come to drink and socialize and share stories. I think there's a really deeply connected cultural significance of these kind of space that is almost as intrinsic to it's lasting relevance as a literal theater space.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this line correctly only because I fear that if I am then this character's personality is truly just as abhorrent as I've seen some of my classmates point out already. he seems to be aligning himself with white, British identity, colonial power, a literal monetary commodity, all in one foul swoop! There's so much that's problematic about that and I imagine that as this play progresses this character will only continue to expose himself in more specific ways.

This was the moment in this play, right here at the beginning when I realized exactly how ridiculous and absurd some of the interactions were going to be for the rest of the story. This was my first time reading/watching this play and despite knowing that it was very popular, I was never quite clear on what style it was. Clearly this moment is meant to be comedic, maybe ironic or absurdist also. Those might be terms worth discussing in depth at some point because intuitively from this point on in the play I assumed that's what I'd be getting.

I thought this was such a great moment for Audrey's character. For most of the play she's very passive and at the whims of her circumstances and the actions of people around her but this was moment where she really spoke out of her own perspective with the intention of having an influence. Even though she was a bit shy afterwards, it was nice that her affection for Seymour inspired her to give him some advice.

At this point in the play I'm reading it more for its narrative impact and less for an experience of something staged as that's what it's form seems to lend itself to, more-so. This point, in particular, was abusive and ugly to an extreme that I can only assume is here to illustrate the severity of a degree of depression and self contempt that was real enough to lead to actual loss of life. It's such a shame that anyone might genuinely consider themself in the company of such ugly thoughts and given how tragically this playwright's life ended I'm really wondering about the intention, efficacy and ethics of playwriting like this.

It was at this point that I started to become of aware of the almost Brechtian aspect of what I was reading. And explicit description of an experience seems to be being described directly to an audience. At this point the script reads almost like a novel before I'm reminded that these words are all presumably being intentionally directed to me as an audience member. I wonder what the significance/impact of that will be later on.

I think this is a really compelling part of Antígona's story that I'm glad is highlighted in this way. It's important to note and further reiterate that the actions she takes are intentional and with full awareness of the consequences that would follow. I think she recognizes that beyond simply doing what she feels is her duty to one she loves, she is also making a very charged public statement. This context being elevated in a retelling of this story seems very effective.

Going into this play with the understanding of the plot of "Antigone" I already had, I was waiting for a moment like this where the alignment of these new characters I don't recognize would be revealed. Even though it seems that Antinous relents just a few lines later, it's clear that the two are not quite of the same mind when it comes to Antigone's actions, or at least her motives anyway.

I think this illustration and explanation can actually be used as pretty clever allegory for reflections on class. The idea of those in a group who are visible vs those who are unknowable and how gathering together can change this for them especially when money becomes exposed seems like a very useful concept. I'm not sure if this is supposed to come off as poignantly in this moment but it seems like a moment to return to later.

I'm becoming aware of the idea that this "simple porter" identity is now being repeatedly used as a justification for a lack of awareness when it comes to danger. Whether a direct threat or a compromising position, it seems that I'm supposed to take note of the fact that Galy Gay clearly thinks his social standing in life exempts him from consequence.

This line made me really pause and consider the idea that storytelling or theatre in a given environment can be highly varied in it’s form and purpose. The idea that a storyteller would come to a space specifically to tell a story with something like a happy ending as a requirement makes me wonder if I do the same thing instinctively. For example, I’ll watch a scary movie knowing I’m meant to be scared but that doesn’t make it any less entertaining. Yet, I find it curious that the patrons of the cafe are essentially doing something similar but with a different medium.

I think this phrasing is a such a poetic yet succinct way that this play addresses the defining characteristics of theatre like how we’ve been discussing in class. Firstly, the image it creates with the scene of glass breaking, a marriage to one’s mother, and a passive acceptance of a new “uncle” acts as a warning to the effect of coercive or dramatic theatre. It warns that accepting any form of entertainment and being flippant about the significance of the critique the art can offer is damning. It will lead us to accepting circumstances that are problematic and even lethal.