What do you think?
Rate this book
The (Curious Case of The) Watson Intelligence by George, Madeleine (June 19, 2014) Paperback
FINALIST! Pulitzer Prize for Drama - 2014 trusty sidekick to Sherlock Holmes; loyal engineer who built Bell's first telephone; unstoppable super-computer that became reigning Jeopardy! champ; amiable techno-dweeb who, in the present day, is just looking for love. These four constant companions become one in this brilliantly witty, time-jumping, loving tribute (and cautionary tale) dedicated to the people-and machines-upon which we all depend.
Unknown Binding
First published June 19, 2014
2 people are currently reading
149 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 20, 2016
This play was described to me as one about human connection. Threads of connection (and disconnection) are clearly present, but to me, this play seemed to say more about sacrifice than anything else. What are we willing to give up to get what we want? How vulnerable, embarrassed, or humiliated are we willing to be? Is there shame in not being the "extraordinary person?" Is there shame in being the "extraordinary person's assistant?"
While I think this script could use a little tightening up, I really valued its exploration of human identity as it relates to connection. What makes us human? Who are we when no one else is around? How do other people alter our identities? This play asked questions that I'll be pondering for a while.
While I think this script could use a little tightening up, I really valued its exploration of human identity as it relates to connection. What makes us human? Who are we when no one else is around? How do other people alter our identities? This play asked questions that I'll be pondering for a while.
September 4, 2017
Oddly, even though I read this barely a year ago, I had absolutely NO memory of having done so (which bodes ill for BOTH the play ... and my failing memory!) Anyway, a local theatre company is producing this currently, so I thought I would give it a go, see if it was something I actually wanted to see - the play got decidedly mixed reviews, and I must say reading it didn't exactly make me chomp at the bit to see it. However the re-read, for whatever reason, DID make more sense this time around - although I still find it incomprehensible this was nominated for the Pulitzer.
Here's my original review:
Although nominated for the 2014 Pulitzer for Drama, this is an odd and not entirely comprehensible play (at least by me) ... it doesn't help that the stage directions are vague about which of the three stories you are in ("Watson and Eliza become Watson and Eliza").
Here's my original review:
Although nominated for the 2014 Pulitzer for Drama, this is an odd and not entirely comprehensible play (at least by me) ... it doesn't help that the stage directions are vague about which of the three stories you are in ("Watson and Eliza become Watson and Eliza").
July 5, 2015
The Curious Case of the Watson Intelligence's strength is it's thematic repetitions that create crossovers of meaning between our modern need for connection and our primal need for help and guidance. The ideas are wonderful and insightful and the structure would make Tom Stoppard very proud, but the human drama suffers slightly here, sacrificed to the altar of big ideas. Definitely ingenious but slightly dramatically inert.
May 9, 2015
A more cerebral play; I liked it for the issues it was exploring but lacked emotional resonance - but maybe that is the point when writing about AI?
June 26, 2020
World Premiere: Playwrights Horizons, New York City, 15 November 2013
Length: Full Length Play. Approximate time: 120 minutes; 80 pages
Awards: Nominated for Pulitzer Prize for Drama (2014), Winner of John Gassner Award (2014)
There are 5 Watsons in this play - 4 are active participants and 1 is just mentioned; 3 are ones everyone had heard of, 2 exist only in this play.
The ones we all know are Bell's assistant, Sherlock Holmes' chronicler and the IBM AI which won Jeopardy (this is the one we do not meet); the two we meet here are Watson 2.0 (the next generation of the IBM AI, now in human(-ish) body and Joshua Watson, a boy/man that seem less real that the other one (although he is - or so you should believe, won't you?). But for all these characters, it is not a play about AI or about Watson really.
And alongside the Watsons, there is a multitude of Elizas and Merricks - the rest of the characters in the play. In Victorian England, Merrick is an inventor who is looking for a way to create the best companion, having the characteristics of his own wife while Eliza goes to Sherlock Holmes, worried about her life (and finds Watson instead). In our time, Eliza and Merrick are divorced and she is working on an android who can be the perfect companion and Merrick ends up sending Watson to spy on her. There is a wonderful symmetry between the two story-lines and Madeleine George weaves them together with constant switches between the two times, showing that even of the story is reversed, a lot of it is the same.
Then there is the problematic part - the one too many Watsons -- Bell's assistant. He seems to be there to try to add more to the story of interconnection but something just did not click for me - every time the play went to him, it felt as if we stepped into another story, despite having the same character names. It feels like an addition that is there to help strengthen the story but feels like an ornament which just is too much. I understand why it was added, it moves the play from a love story across the centuries to a more general connection through time and it does not weaken the story but it does not feel part of it either.
The Victorian/21st century double story explores what reality is and what companionship is - and what matters in it. While Eliza and Merrick try to find their way to (or away from) each other, with Watson as the faithful helper (in some weird times sometimes), it all comes down to figuring out what you want in life (and love). And when one Watson knows things he should not (while another Watson should), you are left wondering if there is something more in some names.
An enjoyable play (even with the surplus Watson) and an interesting way to explore what companionship really is. And the fact that the same play can have Holmes's Watson and an android and not feel weird is a testament to the well-done weaving of stories by the author.
Length: Full Length Play. Approximate time: 120 minutes; 80 pages
Awards: Nominated for Pulitzer Prize for Drama (2014), Winner of John Gassner Award (2014)
There are 5 Watsons in this play - 4 are active participants and 1 is just mentioned; 3 are ones everyone had heard of, 2 exist only in this play.
The ones we all know are Bell's assistant, Sherlock Holmes' chronicler and the IBM AI which won Jeopardy (this is the one we do not meet); the two we meet here are Watson 2.0 (the next generation of the IBM AI, now in human(-ish) body and Joshua Watson, a boy/man that seem less real that the other one (although he is - or so you should believe, won't you?). But for all these characters, it is not a play about AI or about Watson really.
And alongside the Watsons, there is a multitude of Elizas and Merricks - the rest of the characters in the play. In Victorian England, Merrick is an inventor who is looking for a way to create the best companion, having the characteristics of his own wife while Eliza goes to Sherlock Holmes, worried about her life (and finds Watson instead). In our time, Eliza and Merrick are divorced and she is working on an android who can be the perfect companion and Merrick ends up sending Watson to spy on her. There is a wonderful symmetry between the two story-lines and Madeleine George weaves them together with constant switches between the two times, showing that even of the story is reversed, a lot of it is the same.
Then there is the problematic part - the one too many Watsons -- Bell's assistant. He seems to be there to try to add more to the story of interconnection but something just did not click for me - every time the play went to him, it felt as if we stepped into another story, despite having the same character names. It feels like an addition that is there to help strengthen the story but feels like an ornament which just is too much. I understand why it was added, it moves the play from a love story across the centuries to a more general connection through time and it does not weaken the story but it does not feel part of it either.
The Victorian/21st century double story explores what reality is and what companionship is - and what matters in it. While Eliza and Merrick try to find their way to (or away from) each other, with Watson as the faithful helper (in some weird times sometimes), it all comes down to figuring out what you want in life (and love). And when one Watson knows things he should not (while another Watson should), you are left wondering if there is something more in some names.
An enjoyable play (even with the surplus Watson) and an interesting way to explore what companionship really is. And the fact that the same play can have Holmes's Watson and an android and not feel weird is a testament to the well-done weaving of stories by the author.
February 16, 2019
A plethora of crisscrossing ideas – the prevalence of the name Watson as a supporting character, technology versus human interaction – falters under the weight of doing too much with little emotional connection. I like the idea of a play that examines how technology has shaped and altered human relationships and how that in turn shapes people, but Ms. George fails to trust her central concept and loads down the play with too many tangents and sub-tangents.
Watson Intelligence is a prime example of why creative writers should focus on character, plot, and the emotions and themes they can evoke through strong storytelling. Here, plot and character are secondary to the philosophy, which might appeal to a small sector of the theatre-going public, but leaves the play emotionally inert.
Literary snobs will no doubt sneer when they read the following, but here goes: The Big Bang Theory did a better, more amusing, and more pointed commentary on this very subject.
When a thirty-minute sitcom can better tackle a philosophical argument than a two-act play, the play needs more time in previews. Not recommended.
Watson Intelligence is a prime example of why creative writers should focus on character, plot, and the emotions and themes they can evoke through strong storytelling. Here, plot and character are secondary to the philosophy, which might appeal to a small sector of the theatre-going public, but leaves the play emotionally inert.
Literary snobs will no doubt sneer when they read the following, but here goes: The Big Bang Theory did a better, more amusing, and more pointed commentary on this very subject.
When a thirty-minute sitcom can better tackle a philosophical argument than a two-act play, the play needs more time in previews. Not recommended.
January 5, 2024
A fun and intriguing play!
Madeleine George takes the coincidence of the Watson name and how those people (and character)
and their contributions are relegated to the shadows. And yet it is through Watson the greatest change can happen.
We follow Watson, Eliza, and Merrick who play alternate versions of themselves in different time periods. The play weaves around timelines as we explore how these character's live all interconnect. The complexity of human relations is investigated through their interactions.
It's funny, engaging, and even melodramatic at times. It is definitely a play that needs to be seen to fully comprehend. It does veer a bit into the philosophical - so there are some questions I believe we are supposed to continue to ponder after the play is finished and the show is over.
Madeleine George takes the coincidence of the Watson name and how those people (and character)
and their contributions are relegated to the shadows. And yet it is through Watson the greatest change can happen.
We follow Watson, Eliza, and Merrick who play alternate versions of themselves in different time periods. The play weaves around timelines as we explore how these character's live all interconnect. The complexity of human relations is investigated through their interactions.
It's funny, engaging, and even melodramatic at times. It is definitely a play that needs to be seen to fully comprehend. It does veer a bit into the philosophical - so there are some questions I believe we are supposed to continue to ponder after the play is finished and the show is over.
June 10, 2019
Reading Women 2019: Play
This is a quirky play that I feel like I need to actually see performed and then have a drink with friends afterward and discuss. It was a finalist for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, and I can see how it touches on interesting questions about artificial intelligence and human connection. I appreciated that even with those themes it still had a light touch and made me laugh at times.
This is a quirky play that I feel like I need to actually see performed and then have a drink with friends afterward and discuss. It was a finalist for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, and I can see how it touches on interesting questions about artificial intelligence and human connection. I appreciated that even with those themes it still had a light touch and made me laugh at times.
January 14, 2020
A fascinating concept for a play, connecting seemingly unrelated characters just through a shared name. The narrative flows well between the various storylines even as they share many similarities. I think there is something lost, however by only reading it and not seeing it performed as it was meant to be.
September 4, 2023
“I weirdly feel like I’m inside you every time I walk past you.”
A rollercoaster compared to what I expected! I enjoyed the connection between time periods, especially the climactic radio program. The ending fell flat for me, but I can definitely see the appeal.
A rollercoaster compared to what I expected! I enjoyed the connection between time periods, especially the climactic radio program. The ending fell flat for me, but I can definitely see the appeal.
February 2, 2018
Weird. I did not even understand it. Maybe it would make sense when staged, but I could not follow what the heck was happening.
January 22, 2020
Lots of ideas, blended well together at times, other times not sure what the point was. Overall entertaining, would love to see this staged!
August 14, 2020
delightfully trustworthy
November 23, 2020
4 ⭐️
Fantastically witty writing, I would love to work on this show!
Fantastically witty writing, I would love to work on this show!
September 21, 2021
i… i do not understand a single thing that happened during this. i’m performing a monologue from it, and decided to give it a read but… i’m left with so many questions lol.
February 4, 2024
Fascinating though confusing. Scene changes gave me whiplash. But the 4 Watsons kept it all very interesting.
July 4, 2025
Very well written, but felt myself getting thematically lost a lot.
Read
July 11, 2025Eliza’s speech on pp. 76-77 is a beautiful (and terrifying ) description of the vulnerability of being in love.
November 17, 2024
I’m kind of disappointed in the narrative structure of this play. It seems to have no real resolution, its purpose feels identifiable but vague, and this Eliza character is just about the most annoying Madame Bovary I’ve ever experienced in text. Eliza’s clueless and she has no idea what she wants or how to be a mature adult, despite her having a PhD. Merrick is a little odd, but reading his parts was still more enjoyable than putting up with Eliza’s childish BS. I dreaded to read her lengthy monologues. (“I’m the chairman of the bored.”)😂
Another aspect I felt seriously impatient with was just how cheap, young-adulty, and overly colloquial the lines read in many places. It doesn’t feel like a serious book that asks to be taken seriously with that kind of dialogue.
But overall, the interplay of several stories at once was a rather interesting concept and it was crafted well, especially near the end where one line sort of bleeds over into the next scene. The theme(s) in the book are also ones that leave you pondering and stick with you. Those are implemented very well too.
I don’t want to be a negative Nancy and hyper-judgmental, so I included some positive remarks on what was done well (as I do when I teach writing), but I’m really not that impressed. The play pales in comparison to so many other books, even if we ignore the whole English literary tradition and limit our comparison to only the play’s 21st century dramatic rivals vying for our attention.
Another aspect I felt seriously impatient with was just how cheap, young-adulty, and overly colloquial the lines read in many places. It doesn’t feel like a serious book that asks to be taken seriously with that kind of dialogue.
But overall, the interplay of several stories at once was a rather interesting concept and it was crafted well, especially near the end where one line sort of bleeds over into the next scene. The theme(s) in the book are also ones that leave you pondering and stick with you. Those are implemented very well too.
I don’t want to be a negative Nancy and hyper-judgmental, so I included some positive remarks on what was done well (as I do when I teach writing), but I’m really not that impressed. The play pales in comparison to so many other books, even if we ignore the whole English literary tradition and limit our comparison to only the play’s 21st century dramatic rivals vying for our attention.
February 23, 2016
Ingeniously constructed but (for me) emotionally hollow, which is particularly problematic when the play is meant to be emotional.
March 24, 2017
I need to play Eliza one day.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews