Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons

by Sam Steiner

The average person will speak 123,205,750 words in a lifetime. But what if there were a limit? Oliver and Bernadette are about to find out.

Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons imagines a world where we’re forced to say less. It’s about what we say and how we say it; about the things we can only hear in the silence; about dead cats, activism, eye contact and lemons, lemons, lemons, lemons, lemons.

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama, Fiction, Romance, Dystopia, Politics

72 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 5, 2015

Reviews

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steiner's debut play is perfect for the Age of Twitter. Here, the government imposes a 140 word maximum that people can speak per day, and this two-hander details how this imposition affects one couple's communication style. The beginning is a bit of a jumble, as the play is presented in many very short scenes that are non-chronological, and the conceit isn't clearly delineated till the play is half over; but I think that is one of the play's strengths actually, in that the audience has to really work to figure it out. Otherwise, it might be just a one trick pony.

Reread 2/23 due to its being currently being revived in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/202...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ZDO...

[david · Rating 5 out of 5]

In an unspecified location sometime in the future we meet Bernadette and Oliver.

The government has sanctioned a new law that limits the number of words one person may speak in a day, one-hundred and forty words.

Interesting and formidable writing.

It touches on their relationship, indirectly.

And woven between the dialogue; censorship, democracy, and free speech.

[clumsyplankton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short play script very well done and I’m interested in seeing it on stage one day

[Maddie]

Stumbled across this play while doing some research for Creative Writing and really, really loved it! The concept of only being allowed to speak 140 words per day was so interesting to watch unfold, like if Twitter was our only reality.

[Michael Bagnoli · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the play I will be performing in at the end of the semester. There will be a scene from the beginning, middle, and end, all strung together. Of course, I will be playing Oliver.

Words have always been of particular fascination to me. We give them so much power, and yet they often leave us wanting. They will never be enough to communicate how we truly feel. And that’s why I love acting, and why I am so excited for this performance.


Lemons, Lemons, Lemons, Lemons, Lemons.

[emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this play despite how short it was. Although with that said - I wanted more from it, so I couldn't give it a 5-star rating. Also, the timeline was a bit messy. I'd like it better if it was more controlled/neat. I don't know if I'm keen to read more of Steiner's work, but I do think that his idea/concept for this play's brilliant. To me, the ending was a bit - unsatisfactory; I felt it ended quite abruptly and passively. It made me feel like I was waiting for something - but nothing really came/happened. I'd half-guessed the thing that was revealed in the ending - so it didn't surprise me at all or made me feel anything.

I think the play can be very 'relatable' for contemporary readers/audience especially during today's social/political/environmental climate. There are definitely many Olivers around; a mate of mine's definitely dating an Oliver. I've definitely went out with an Oliver; and I've definitely been a bit of Bernadette and a bit of Oliver in a rather embarrassing text-situation. For instance : I totally felt that when Bernadette told Oli that she's 'not her background'. But I also felt very Oliver-esque during a spontaneous emotional outburst when I dramatically announced that I'd never go out with a politically ignorant person. Of course thinking back, I sounded like a socially ignorant person because no matter what the situation is/was - in the grand scheme of things - I'm also a politically ignorant person. And in my opinion, what is worse than that is to be inconsiderate to the feelings/well-being of the people who are in your life. For example : Instagrammers who proudly announce that they will delete/block people who don't share the same political ideas as they do? Who are you trying to impress? You're simply rubbing your own ego, and not really helping whatever 'cause' you're trying to advocate.

The play's about a relationship amidst a political and social chaos/crises. There's a bill being passed - that restricts one's 'voice'/usage of words to 140 a day. The couple argues on and off - about everything - but they never have enough words to express themselves. I personally think that their actions 'expressed' enough what they couldn't express through words.

The political element(s) in this play reminded me of a book I read recently : A Man'A Man' by Keiichirō Hirano . Both writers worked the political bits into their work in different ways; and I think I appreciate Hirano's method/style much more. I was able to sympathise with Hirano's character more. 'Oliver' in Steiner's play was just a very predictable character. When I think about Bernadette being in a relationship with him, I think of the term, 'consensual violence'. But in this case 'consensual idiocy' is more fitting/accurate. But then it makes me think : isn't contemporary 'love' too much/often 'consensual idiocy' anyway?

Also, that bit in the play when Bernadette and Oliver can't even fuck each other properly because of their existing problems? I felt that that was such a disturbing/uncomfortable read; and I think Steiner wrote that scene brilliantly. I personally think that it's not easy to write scenes like that as well as he did. Also, the scene about 'cheese' in the beginning was very cleverly written as well .

[lea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jenna Coleman, the woman she is, convinced me to read it as she was in the actual play and I was not disappointed! It is also perfect as I wanted to read more genres this year and more diverse subjects.

As for the play itself, I really liked the concept of the 140 words (but I would hate it in our world tho) and how it affected the relationship of the characters. I loved the little monologue Oliver had about the working class needing more words and that it was done to affect it.

[Karen Abc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Por razones que no llego a comprender muy bien, casi siempre termino leyendo más de narrativa que de cualquier otro género. A raíz de este auto-descubrimiento es que me propuse leer más obras de teatro. Llegué a Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons porque estaba entre las sugerencias aquí, después de leer Mosquitoes. Me compró con la premisa de una suerte de traslación de la limitación de twitter a la comunicación "real". Resulta ser mucho más que eso, obvio.

En un tiempo que parece ser contemporáneo y en una locación no especificada, Bernadette conoce a Oliver. Girl-meets-boy / boy-meets-girl. La obra está construida a partir de piezas temporales intercaladas que van desarrollando un hilo donde se revelan momentos del pasado que explican el presente de la pareja y la sociedad. Luego de que el gobierno aprueba una ley que limita el discurso a --literalmente-- 140 palabras, las relación de la pareja entra en una serie de discusiones y reconciliaciones. Es una propuesta muy interesante sobre la censura y las relaciones afectivas a partir de la hipérbole (curiosamente la limitación de 600 tuits de esta semana me hizo recordar que nunca escribí esta reseña)

Lo único que no le juega a favor a esta historia es, por momentos, su insistencia en exponer el tema de manera muy evidente, cuando ya se había desarrollado con otro tono y tiempo. Crea cierta redundancia que termina afectando la lectura, especialmente casi llegando al final. Por suerte cierra de una manera linda, quizás está condensado en ese final toda la fuerza devastadora del planteo de una limitación en la comunicación diaria y las consecuencias de esto en un plano muy, muy, personal.

[Calista · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lemons

[slewan · Rating 4 out of 5]

kände att jag behövde återbesöka den imorse genom att läsa manuset. berättelsen är enkel men berättar så mycket mer. det är just det enkla, endast två karaktärer på scen, och de stora kontrasterna från innan ”the hush law” kom och efter. verkligen en spännande teaterupplevelse o om någon humanist missade den så läs möjligtvis manuset. replikerna är verkligen spot on men det är ju självklar skillnad på att se en teater o att läsa ett manus.

[Leah Agirlandaboy]

Interesting concept, but it felt sloppily executed. Or maybe it’s just that the characters weren’t very smart? (If you had a limited number of words per day, why would you ever use qualifiers or articles or vocatives? You wouldn’t.) Also, does this really qualify as a rom-com?

[Carissa]

ty bags for the rec i enjoyed quite a lot

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found another one that would be great for exercises in class, but not for watching an entire piece. Again, this is due to my directorial deficits, not necessarily the material, though it is pretty out there. He told me no on your fashion, and I'm not entirely sure how to block the absence of transitions between time frames. The playwright gives no indication as to how to pull this off.

[Lu · Rating 3 out of 5]

It moved me towards the end

[Schwarzer_Elch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un 1984 de los tiempos modernos.

[Ana Leite · Rating 3 out of 5]

Se podem fazer código morse no chão, não podem escrever também? Tenho muitas perguntas.

[Jonathan Daley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant linguistic examination. Truly original and engaging. The non-linear storyline is also very well handled, seamlessly shifting and changing.

[Duncan Hendry · Rating 5 out of 5]

A true revelation. I absolutely loved this and when it all fell into place it made me happy, mad and sad all at once. Stellar. On to more Steiner!

[daniella ❦ · Rating 3 out of 5]

quite enjoyable play! i read it because miss jenna coleman is currently playing bernadette at the harold pinter theatre in london and obvi since i can't see it live this is next best. it's out of chronological time and it took me a second to figure out why they were repeating numbers but i like how the words and numbers reflect their relationship. kinda reminds me of those like mid 2020 tiktok povs that were like how many words you get assigned in a day type beat. good short read and wish that i was watching jenna coleman and aidan turner perform this instead of just reading it and imagining them perform it weeee

[Maya · Rating 2 out of 5]

language project yay….

[kira✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Couldn’t comprehend what was going on until more than half way through, but when i started understanding it, the book finished. Maybe if the book was longer i wouldn’t mind that i didn’t understand it at first 😄

[Harry Revell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant play about the beauty and significance of the spoken language. Very clever and delivering a variety of emotions throughout. Great stuff.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eighteen.

Confusing at times. But I have to say I quite enjoyed it. Fairly fitting for these orwellian times.

*nods*

[Claire James Carroll · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good idea. Would tweak the ending.

[Ash · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tiktok POV: The government enacts a new law where you can only speak 140 words a day

...but make it a play. A solid 2.5 for me.

In the near-or-distant future, we meet Bernadette and Oliver, a dysfunctional couple convinced they're not dysfunctional at all actually, and are going to do great or good or fine at least under the government's new "hush law," which limits people to speaking 140 words per day. Oliver is an activist who staunchly opposes the law, and Bernadette, a lawyer, is uninterested - she doesn't care to get involved because she didn't believe the law would pass. They're a frustrating mismatch with negative qualities that make both of them unsympathetic (though not necessarily bad or unrelatable.) Though the characters don't truly feel fully fleshed out, you can fill in the blanks - these are caricatures of people you know.

This play is very abstract, with no concept of a set or space. Though places and events are mentioned, we never feel fully grounded in them. Scenes are abstract and start and end quickly and abruptly, sometimes repeating, and the narrative bounces around in time very frequently - if you're not a play reader, I can't recommend this as a place to start. I'd be very interested to see this on stage (once) to see the choices they make for set, "scene" changes, lighting, etc. Making these characters compelling would be some heavy lifting for the actors but there are some directions and quiet moments I'd love to see play out.

The play takes a big-picture view of some interesting and ever-more-relevant concepts like government censorship, oversight, abuse of power, activism or lack thereof, things left unsaid but like... very zoomed out. It basically pokes at these concepts from space, with no real effort to actually dig in. It left me thinking of "The Language Archive" by Julia Cho or the novel "Ella Minnow Pea," which actually get at these concepts, but with some substance behind them and characters that feel much more substanitive as well.

Overall an interesting concept, but I've seen it done better and feel like there were a lot of places this fell flat.

[Z · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Sam Steiner’s idea for a play that could be performed at the drop of a hat, without a stage, and just two actors, to be something of a modern masterpiece. All we’ve got to work with is what Oliver and Bernadette withhold and give each other. I think this play can drive you to see almost anything differently, but especially relationships and politics. It caused me to reflect on the things we should say more and the things we should say less. What freedom is and how it correlates to the mere ability to pursue happiness. The constant time jumping between scenes keeps you jarred as to the difference in circumstances before and after the “Hush Law” (just as Oliver and Bernadette are). Exploration into how different social classes are affected is a major theme, but we’re still receiving it through the lens of Oliver and Bernadette’s relationship with all of its sufferings and their sincere attempts to navigate a completely new set of rules regarding communicating. The simple consideration that we often don’t save enough of ourselves for our partner at the end of the day was sad in a universally relatable way. That our careers and the causes we devote ourself to can take more from us than we ever intended them to. As well as the concept that we’re ultimately at the mercy of our government. The reality that ‘our rights’ as we know them, may not be permeant in a world that is fluid and ever-changing. A lover of words, I’d wither in that world. Absolutely reduced and eliminating qualifiers I’d simply say “I loved the play” and save 136 words for…everything else, I guess.

[Brooke Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play presents a paradoxical world where the amount of words each individual speaks are limited to 140 per day, however, it also presents a world where actions are enough in a sense e.g. Bernadette knows more than just throwing a brick happened between Oliver and his Ex. This play says that we need words to solve our problems but not to know what problems we have, body language suffices for that. By the end of this play, it appears that Bernadette and Oliver have made no progress at all in solving their problems, in communicating with one another or in becoming closer. Perhaps what this play is really trying to suggest is that while we have the freedom and multitude of words we should use them more frequently and expressively to tell each other how we really feel, which in society today is rare. Maybe this book is not a dystopian future, but a view of the present where a bill is not needed to prevent people from speaking out or talking to one another. Not communicating has become a social norm and while we recognize what problems we do have, we would rather throw something away than use the medium of language to fix it.

[Balkiss Sltii · Rating 5 out of 5]

J'ai déjà regardé la pièce jouée par des amis dans le cadre de leur cours d'anglais à l'université, plusieurs couples jouaient les différentes scènes en alternance, ajoutant à cela la non chronologie de la piece et ma difficulté à capter l'anglais à l'oral, j'ai rien compris. Puis un jours j'ai vu qu'on joue une piece qui s'appelle citrons citrons citrons citrons citrons dans le théâtre Le funambule, ça m'a vaguement rappelé la pièce a laquelle j'avais rien compris, j'y suis allée et là je suis tombée sous le charme de la pièce. Et maintenant en relisant en anglais, j'ai encore ce coup de foudre. Cette pièce explore la relations d'un couple au travers de leurs rapport au langage et ... C'est si magnifique..

[Daisy Leather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just read in a half an hour spurt sitting in Waterstones. This play has been following me around this week - introduced to it for the first time last Saturday, on Monday Amazon recommended I buy it, on Tuesday it was announced for the west end and then stuff with 'lemons' keeps popping up on my social media since. Needed to read it.

Really enjoyed it. Encapsulates the importance of language and the difficulty of communicating with other people. Reminds me a bit of a classic Beckett - like Waiting for Godot vibes.
Thoroughly enjoyed where she started shouting 'lemons' at him.
Also, the concept is excellent. Love a bit of dystopia.

[MattBarnes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. What a marvelous play. The concept is that people are somehow given a little amount to say everyday. Meaning that every word needs to be chosen with care. So thus a look at what a lack of words does in polotics to those that need to speak up and how to navigate a relationship are explored. Purely done by two characters, this was a joy to read. I normally hate reading scripts but I loved it. It flowed beautifully. Will take no time to read, go give it a go. I will deffo go see this if it's performed again.



I love the title and the yellow cover of the book.