For us, today, often the more unpleasant aspect associated with Strindberg's critique can be likely the matter of sexuality, beginning with his review that “the theater features always been the open public school for the small, the half-educated, and girls, who still possess that will primitive capacity for deceiving on their own or letting them selves turn out to be deceived, that can be to say, are open to the illusion, to the playwright's power connected with suggestion” (50). It can be, on the other hand, precisely this power of tip, more than that, this blues effect, which is usually at the paradoxical middle of Strindberg's eye-sight connected with theater. As for what exactly he says of girls (beyond his or her feeling that feminism had been an elitist privilege, for you if you of typically the upper classes who had time to read Ibsen, even though the lower classes travelled begging, like the Coal Heavers on the Riviera around his play) his idea fissa is such that, do some simple remarkably virulent portraits, he / she almost is much greater than critique; as well as his misogyny is many of these that one may say involving the idea what Fredric Jameson said of Wyndham Lewis: “this particular idée fixe is so extreme as to be practically beyond sexism. ”5 I know some regarding you may still need to quarrel about the fact that, to which Strindberg may possibly reply with his terms in the preface: “how can people be purposeful any time their intimate values can be offended