While later uses from the Yuan and Ming are cited for the meaning of 'chopped food': 'Those who renounce the world must subsist on pine needles and cypress leaves, enduring coarse fare and austerity.' (這出家的要餐松啗柏，熬齏受淡。)
pedia.cloud.edu.tw/Entry/Detail... But interestingly, the oldest known use seems to be from the New History of the Five Dynasties (pub. ~1070) where it's used to mean pulverized/smashed: 'With a single order from Lord Shi, I will be smashed to bits.'「史公一處分，吾齏粉矣。」
Online etymologies seem to suggest that the original meaning was finely chopped or ground food, and then it later came to mean to crush/pulverize more generally. In which case the bottom part being 韭 (leek/garlic) makes sense.
So here's what's actually going on here: 齊 phonetic, 韭 as the lexical element... so what's going on here?
y'all what the hell is going on with the bottom part of 齏 (as in 齏粉)
it's kinda like 匪 but then there's just randomly additional hengs?
Metro Weekly put it better than I could have, but I'm glad I'm not going crazy here! www.metroweekly.com/2026/03/hamn...
I found myself so invested in that story, and was in tears at the end of the performance... But barely felt moved by this one.
But perhaps it's not fair to draw a comparison to one of the greatest playwrights of all time.
Compare this to another STC production from earlier in this season: The Wild Duck. Also a story about the loss of a child, intergenerational trauma, and how families support each other through adversity. And yet it actually showed us who this family was and why we should care about them.
I don't know how much of that is on the playwright vs on the source material. Savannah read the novel and said while she thought it was over-hyped, it did a better job of having an actual story.
E.g., why are Agnes and Will in love? Why do we care about or relate to their relationship? And their children--they get so little stage time that there was no opportunity to really understand who they are as individuals, which is critical to empathizing with the family.
I also found myself wondering at various points why I should care about any of the characters on the stage. This play was frequently guilty of telling the audience why we should care about a character rather than showing us.
What am I supposed to take away from Will casting himself as the Ghost of Hamlet's murdered father (this feels like it's getting close to an actual commentary!)... who urges his son to get revenge, thereby spelling his son's doom?
There are so many small elements that feel like they are close to being meaningful but were just confusing. Why is her name spelled Agnes but pronounced Ann-nes? What does it mean that their son is Hamnet but Will's play is Hamlet?
I do not understand what this play was trying to convey. It feels like there was a lot of missed potential to tell an interesting story about grief, intergenerational trauma, love, etc. and all of it was squandered by a confusing narrative that just... Didn't really say anything at all?
Miniature theater review: Hamnet, presented by the Royal Shakespeare Company at Shakespeare Theater Company
Excited to cube with the Boston crew again in June!
They'll earn that when the spacecraft don't have to be in orbit to stay aloft!
GANG
WE ARE FORMALLY LIVE!
Tickets are here: www.upkeepnewyork.com/c4ac-aw26-ti...
I’ll be announcing cubes in the coming weeks!
FEB 21&22
128 PLAYERS
16 CUBES
1 GREAT CAUSE
Lacking a prefix like "Surfeit of..." feels like asking for disaster...
Spirit stunting on Portland with an 89th minute Trin substitution
it was really sad when they stopped making them, thank god old bulk bins still exist to dig through
There's a reason it's called "the creature" and not "the monster". It is not the monster.
@phantooom.bsky.social if you liked Frankenstein earlier this year, this is well worth your time
To my point above about how effectively Ibsen uses foreshadowing here, I literally said to Savannah during intermission, "What if Gregers actually is delusional like Gina says?" Relling's "Damn you!" to close the play about sums up my feelings.
(spoilers ahead)
I was less impressed with Nick Westrate as Hjalmar. I saw him perform Prior Walter in Arena's staging of Angels in America a few years back and thought he was excellent in the role--but every part I've seen him in since, it feels like he's playing the same character.
The performances were excellent, particularly Alexander Hurt's portrayal of Gregers and Matthew Salvidar's portrayal of Dr. Relling.
STC continues to kill it on the set design and sound design fronts. Huge kudos to Lightning Designer Stacey Derosier, who managed to one up the amazing lightning she produced for Frankenstein earlier this year. Exquisite use of windows and simulated daylight in both shows.
This play is *heavy*--certainly the most heavy thing I've seen on the stage since Leopoldstadt, and that's literally about the Holocaust.
