What do you think?
Rate this book
Plays 1: Spring Awakening / Lulu
Wedekind's expressionist plays influenced the whole course of modern drama
A moralist who wore the mask of an immoralist, Wedekind was the terror of the German bourgeoisie. His work was censored and the original Lulu play was not even published during his lifetime; Wedekind toned it down and adapted it to make two plays: Pandora's Box and Earth-Spirit. The version in this volume, Lulu: A Monster Tragedy, is based on the first manuscript, presenting the original sexually voracious heroine to a British audience for the first time. The volume also contains Spring Awakening, "a work of great compassion that still has a lot to teach us about the dangers of battening down adolescent sex..." (Guardian). The translation of Spring Awakening ("scrupulously faithful both to Wedekind's irony and his poetry" The Times) was commissioned by the National Theatre and that of Lulu: A Monster Tragedy ("the Bonds' version is sharper and funnier than its predecessors" Guardian) was toured nationally. Both plays are complemented by the translators' historically illuminating introductions.
A moralist who wore the mask of an immoralist, Wedekind was the terror of the German bourgeoisie. His work was censored and the original Lulu play was not even published during his lifetime; Wedekind toned it down and adapted it to make two plays: Pandora's Box and Earth-Spirit. The version in this volume, Lulu: A Monster Tragedy, is based on the first manuscript, presenting the original sexually voracious heroine to a British audience for the first time. The volume also contains Spring Awakening, "a work of great compassion that still has a lot to teach us about the dangers of battening down adolescent sex..." (Guardian). The translation of Spring Awakening ("scrupulously faithful both to Wedekind's irony and his poetry" The Times) was commissioned by the National Theatre and that of Lulu: A Monster Tragedy ("the Bonds' version is sharper and funnier than its predecessors" Guardian) was toured nationally. Both plays are complemented by the translators' historically illuminating introductions.
256 pages, Paperback
Published October 11, 2006
About the author
Frank Wedekind
362 books78 followersFrank Wedekind was a German dramatist whose bold, unconventional plays reshaped modern theatre by challenging social norms and exposing the hypocrisies of bourgeois morality, especially around sexuality. Raised between Germany and Switzerland and drawn early to travel, performance, and satire, he lived an eclectic life that included work in advertising, time with a circus, and a celebrated stint as a cabaret performer with the influential troupe Die elf Scharfrichter. His fearlessness as both writer and performer made him a central figure in the artistic circles of Munich, where his sharp wit and provocative themes influenced a new generation of socially critical satirists. His early play Spring Awakening caused an uproar for its frank depictions of adolescent sexuality, repression, and violence, while his two-part “Lulu” cycle introduced a character whose rise and fall exposed society’s fascination with desire and destruction. These works challenged censorship, pushed theatrical boundaries, and later inspired films, operas, and adaptations across decades. Wedekind’s personal life was intense and often turbulent, marked by complicated relationships, creative restlessness, and brushes with authority, including a prison sentence for lèse-majesté after publishing satirical poems. His marriage to the actress Tilly Newes brought both devotion and strain, reflected in the emotional swings of his later years. Even near the end of his life, recovering from surgery, he returned to the stage too soon, driven by the same energy that fueled his art. His influence extended well beyond his death, resonating through the Weimar era and shaping the development of expressionism and later epic theatre. Many of his works were translated, staged, or adapted by major artists, ensuring that his confrontational spirit and fearless exploration of human desire would remain part of the theatrical canon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 5, 2017
An incredibly fascinating set of plays. I know there are those who will bemoan the lengthy dialogue passages that almost seem to border upon histrionics. However, this was a very common style for drama at that time. Also, the delivery depends entirely on the performer, the director, and the stage presentation. Shakespeare can seem hammy when read, but exudes wonder when delivered well.
SPRING AWAKENING - Since its creation in 1910, this play has had many revivals ... including as a musical. It is not a difficult show to find in any one of its various incarnations. The reason is that the central theme resonates with an incredible power. Because adults keep knowledge from children (owing to parents thinking their children aren't ready for the adult world or that any discussion of sex is really pornography in disguise), there are tragic results that just didn't need to happen. The irony is that there are many humorous sections throughout to take some of the sting from the message. It is difficult not to be moved by this play.
LULU: A MONSTER TRAGEDY - When I saw the great silent classic film starring Louise Brooks, PANDORA'S BOX, I immediately sought out the play of the same name. Although I liked it, I later learned that it was one of three or four versions of the play. LULU is the original and, as written, would run about 5-hours. Although it wasn't produced in the writer's lifetime, it caused a tremendous sensation (usually of outrage). Seeking to salvage it, the writer revised it again and again, trying to make it acceptable to theater audiences by watering it down and changing the title.
It was a revelation to read the original script. This story of a sexual predator who is vulnerable herself is fascinating. It is almost as if Lulu is giving off an enticing pheromone that is virtually irresistible to any sensitive person. Louise Brooks provided a wonderful portrayal in the movie, but I can see why the German public initially objected to her. As amazing as she was, she wasn't the writer's Lulu. I'm not quite sure of who could portray her.
LULU is a cautionary tale with a lot of bite ... she is something of a monster ... and the story is definitely a tragedy. The famous ending as depicted in PANDORA'S BOX, while effective, holds only a portion of the original play's power. I literally sat there with mouth open, completely unable to close the book and move on to other things. (I wonder if David Lynch could be convinced to tackle the original?)
This edition comes with high-minded critiques. Forget about them and form your own opinions. There are also some poems that the editor created ... not bad, but the Reader is there for the original writer's plays.
For the student of theater, this book is highly recommended.
SPRING AWAKENING - Since its creation in 1910, this play has had many revivals ... including as a musical. It is not a difficult show to find in any one of its various incarnations. The reason is that the central theme resonates with an incredible power. Because adults keep knowledge from children (owing to parents thinking their children aren't ready for the adult world or that any discussion of sex is really pornography in disguise), there are tragic results that just didn't need to happen. The irony is that there are many humorous sections throughout to take some of the sting from the message. It is difficult not to be moved by this play.
LULU: A MONSTER TRAGEDY - When I saw the great silent classic film starring Louise Brooks, PANDORA'S BOX, I immediately sought out the play of the same name. Although I liked it, I later learned that it was one of three or four versions of the play. LULU is the original and, as written, would run about 5-hours. Although it wasn't produced in the writer's lifetime, it caused a tremendous sensation (usually of outrage). Seeking to salvage it, the writer revised it again and again, trying to make it acceptable to theater audiences by watering it down and changing the title.
It was a revelation to read the original script. This story of a sexual predator who is vulnerable herself is fascinating. It is almost as if Lulu is giving off an enticing pheromone that is virtually irresistible to any sensitive person. Louise Brooks provided a wonderful portrayal in the movie, but I can see why the German public initially objected to her. As amazing as she was, she wasn't the writer's Lulu. I'm not quite sure of who could portray her.
LULU is a cautionary tale with a lot of bite ... she is something of a monster ... and the story is definitely a tragedy. The famous ending as depicted in PANDORA'S BOX, while effective, holds only a portion of the original play's power. I literally sat there with mouth open, completely unable to close the book and move on to other things. (I wonder if David Lynch could be convinced to tackle the original?)
This edition comes with high-minded critiques. Forget about them and form your own opinions. There are also some poems that the editor created ... not bad, but the Reader is there for the original writer's plays.
For the student of theater, this book is highly recommended.
January 9, 2022
Lulu a fav play
September 10, 2007
Unadulterated Lulu. Need i say more? No.
March 7, 2026
主要看的《露露》。
如果不是这剧出得早，我还以为魏德金德是照着魏宁格的作品写的。女主角“露露”的内在完全空洞，只有一个美丽而富有诱惑力的外壳。男性在她身上投射各种各样的欲望，她却从未改变，只给身边男性带来不断的挫败与背叛。然而，男性认识不到是自己本身欲望的原因，总将责任归到露露身上。剧本将这种性欲的“物化”呈现得过于直白，难怪会引发作者究竟意在讽刺还是本身厌女的争论。不如抽离出来当作研究世纪末艺术家圈子性观念的材料看待。结尾魏宁格式的“女性”最终被开膛手杰克这样的“男性”开膛破肚——我能说什么，“绝配”了。
如果不是这剧出得早，我还以为魏德金德是照着魏宁格的作品写的。女主角“露露”的内在完全空洞，只有一个美丽而富有诱惑力的外壳。男性在她身上投射各种各样的欲望，她却从未改变，只给身边男性带来不断的挫败与背叛。然而，男性认识不到是自己本身欲望的原因，总将责任归到露露身上。剧本将这种性欲的“物化”呈现得过于直白，难怪会引发作者究竟意在讽刺还是本身厌女的争论。不如抽离出来当作研究世纪末艺术家圈子性观念的材料看待。结尾魏宁格式的“女性”最终被开膛手杰克这样的“男性”开膛破肚——我能说什么，“绝配”了。
July 22, 2021
(or ****)
I recently bought an edition of ‘Pandoras Box’ (part of the Lulu play) illustrated by the mighty Alastair Henning Voigt but the text was in German so I needed to read an English translation. This is supposed to be the most complete version, but ‘complete’ is a tricky word in this context as Wedekind continually revised the Lulu play, splitting it in two, editing it down, out, and roundabout. We’ll return to this aspect later.
This book also includes Spring Awakening, the ‘Spring’ standing in for ‘sexual’. Wedekind skewers the idea of ‘protecting’ children from the realities of what sex might be about and the hypocrisy surrounding it. There are both humorous (one of the children mocks her mother by, knowingly, asking her asking if she can hurry off to see the Stork) and tragic elements within the piece which obviously got him into trouble (pun intended) with the censors and this is before one takes into account the allusions to homosexuality and incest. I enjoyed this ‘child eye view’ of sexuality, the scenes and dialogue were well-paced and the text feels ‘right’ in that Wedekind pitches his dialogue at the age right level to make it seem realistic. This helps the play itself to feel relevant to today; its message still needs to be heard.
‘Lulu’ is a more problematic read as it is a lot longer, contains more characters, is spread over a wider time period and has multiple locations (Berlin, Paris London) all of which made it a bit more difficult to follow. The play is also overshadowed by the 1929 Pabst (great but probably largely unwatched) film of ‘Pandora’s Box’ which starred the iconic ‘it’ girl Louise Brooks which is obviously an adaptation of the play.
The plays full title is ‘Lulu: A Monster Tragedy’ which perfectly sums up the main character. A voracious character who uses her sexuality to get what she (thinks) she wants, leaving a wake of destruction but in the process sowing the seeds of her own. I found it a tough read, having no sympathy for anyone except (by the end) Lulu herself. Much of the impact of a play depends on the performance. I studied Macbeth at school and to see it performed, as opposed to being read, had a huge impact on me. I found it hard to visualise the Lulu as they laid it out with various characters exiting/re-entering and eves-dropping. That said, I found it absorbing, perhaps because I had to give it so much attention, although there are certainly elements of melodrama that dated it for me somewhat.
I have serious issues with this edition. It is obviously intended as a ‘performance script’ by which I mean that it has been edited by the translators for performances that they arranged. In a useful introduction by Elizabeth Bond-Pablé, which gives a good summation of his life and the circles he moved in, she indicates the history of Wedekind's constant revisionism and goes ‘back to basics’ to what they consider the purist version of the play. And then edit it(!) removing the odd scene and a few characters! And then have the gall to write “We regret the loss.” I ask you! You took it out, you dumb clucks, why not put it back in and have no regrets!? This type of nonsense really winds me up.
To compound my misery, Edward Bond writes ‘introductions’ which he uses to grandstand against capitalist culture, ‘the man’ and generally agitate for the revolution. Admittedly, these were written in the context of the Reagan/Thatcher culture wars of the early 80s (which I remember and had a tiny part within) but Bond could have least tried/pretended to refer to Wedekind once in a while during them. He also offers us ‘Three Poems for Lulu’ which takes his frankly egotistical w*nking to new heights (depths?) and leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.
This seriously, and sadly, as it should be Wedekind’s words that count, diminished my overall enjoyment of the book. Perhaps I'll stick with the lovely Ms Brooks...
I recently bought an edition of ‘Pandoras Box’ (part of the Lulu play) illustrated by the mighty Alastair Henning Voigt but the text was in German so I needed to read an English translation. This is supposed to be the most complete version, but ‘complete’ is a tricky word in this context as Wedekind continually revised the Lulu play, splitting it in two, editing it down, out, and roundabout. We’ll return to this aspect later.
This book also includes Spring Awakening, the ‘Spring’ standing in for ‘sexual’. Wedekind skewers the idea of ‘protecting’ children from the realities of what sex might be about and the hypocrisy surrounding it. There are both humorous (one of the children mocks her mother by, knowingly, asking her asking if she can hurry off to see the Stork) and tragic elements within the piece which obviously got him into trouble (pun intended) with the censors and this is before one takes into account the allusions to homosexuality and incest. I enjoyed this ‘child eye view’ of sexuality, the scenes and dialogue were well-paced and the text feels ‘right’ in that Wedekind pitches his dialogue at the age right level to make it seem realistic. This helps the play itself to feel relevant to today; its message still needs to be heard.
‘Lulu’ is a more problematic read as it is a lot longer, contains more characters, is spread over a wider time period and has multiple locations (Berlin, Paris London) all of which made it a bit more difficult to follow. The play is also overshadowed by the 1929 Pabst (great but probably largely unwatched) film of ‘Pandora’s Box’ which starred the iconic ‘it’ girl Louise Brooks which is obviously an adaptation of the play.
The plays full title is ‘Lulu: A Monster Tragedy’ which perfectly sums up the main character. A voracious character who uses her sexuality to get what she (thinks) she wants, leaving a wake of destruction but in the process sowing the seeds of her own. I found it a tough read, having no sympathy for anyone except (by the end) Lulu herself. Much of the impact of a play depends on the performance. I studied Macbeth at school and to see it performed, as opposed to being read, had a huge impact on me. I found it hard to visualise the Lulu as they laid it out with various characters exiting/re-entering and eves-dropping. That said, I found it absorbing, perhaps because I had to give it so much attention, although there are certainly elements of melodrama that dated it for me somewhat.
I have serious issues with this edition. It is obviously intended as a ‘performance script’ by which I mean that it has been edited by the translators for performances that they arranged. In a useful introduction by Elizabeth Bond-Pablé, which gives a good summation of his life and the circles he moved in, she indicates the history of Wedekind's constant revisionism and goes ‘back to basics’ to what they consider the purist version of the play. And then edit it(!) removing the odd scene and a few characters! And then have the gall to write “We regret the loss.” I ask you! You took it out, you dumb clucks, why not put it back in and have no regrets!? This type of nonsense really winds me up.
To compound my misery, Edward Bond writes ‘introductions’ which he uses to grandstand against capitalist culture, ‘the man’ and generally agitate for the revolution. Admittedly, these were written in the context of the Reagan/Thatcher culture wars of the early 80s (which I remember and had a tiny part within) but Bond could have least tried/pretended to refer to Wedekind once in a while during them. He also offers us ‘Three Poems for Lulu’ which takes his frankly egotistical w*nking to new heights (depths?) and leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.
This seriously, and sadly, as it should be Wedekind’s words that count, diminished my overall enjoyment of the book. Perhaps I'll stick with the lovely Ms Brooks...
March 5, 2009
This includes two of Wedekind's plays: SPRING AWAKENING and LULU (which was itself two plays here combined into one and subtitled "A Monster Tragedy") translated by brit playwright Edward Bond.
I've already reviewed Bond's translation of SPRING AWAKENING in a different review so I'll just abbreviate my review: good play but the language felt a little stilted and was missing some of the fire of the original.
LULU is a very oddly constructed play in that each act follows a guiding principle. It is five acts and each act can be described as the story of how one of Lulu's mates dies before his/her time, while also containing in it how Lulu connects with her next partner. Contrary to the sound of this description Lulu is neither devious nor callous. She knows what she wants and refuses to let society define her. When she discovers that she is no longer happy she goes after what she thinks will make her happy. She tries to think of others but in the end she would rather be happy that work to make others happy at her own expense. This does not mean however that she is entirely in the right either. She is neither a monster nor is she a hero. She is unable to be content and seems destine to always strive for what she does not currently control, and while her ending is surprising it fit in perfectly to her story and the themes of the play as a whole. I can see different critics describing Lulu as a heartless bitch and alternately as a liberated feminist before her time. The truth is she is both and neither. But go ahead and read it and let me know what you think
I've already reviewed Bond's translation of SPRING AWAKENING in a different review so I'll just abbreviate my review: good play but the language felt a little stilted and was missing some of the fire of the original.
LULU is a very oddly constructed play in that each act follows a guiding principle. It is five acts and each act can be described as the story of how one of Lulu's mates dies before his/her time, while also containing in it how Lulu connects with her next partner. Contrary to the sound of this description Lulu is neither devious nor callous. She knows what she wants and refuses to let society define her. When she discovers that she is no longer happy she goes after what she thinks will make her happy. She tries to think of others but in the end she would rather be happy that work to make others happy at her own expense. This does not mean however that she is entirely in the right either. She is neither a monster nor is she a hero. She is unable to be content and seems destine to always strive for what she does not currently control, and while her ending is surprising it fit in perfectly to her story and the themes of the play as a whole. I can see different critics describing Lulu as a heartless bitch and alternately as a liberated feminist before her time. The truth is she is both and neither. But go ahead and read it and let me know what you think
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews