What do you think?
Rate this book
The Homecoming
When Teddy, a professor in an American university, brings his wife Ruth to visit his old home in London, he finds his family still living in the house. In the conflict that follows, it is Ruth who becomes the focus of the family's struggle for supremacy.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
39 people are currently reading
4509 people want to read
About the author
Harold Pinter
394 books777 followersHarold Pinter was a British playwright, screenwriter, director and actor. A Nobel Prize winner, Pinter was one of the most influential modern British dramatists with a writing career that spanned more than 50 years. His best-known plays include The Birthday Party (1957), The Homecoming (1964) and Betrayal (1978), each of which he adapted for the screen. His screenplay adaptations of others' works include The Servant (1963), The Go-Between (1971), The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981), The Trial (1993) and Sleuth (2007). He also directed or acted in radio, stage, television and film productions of his own and others' works.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews
December 23, 2017
Max is the self-glorifying, violent old patriarch of the house in which lives his mild-mannered, ineffectual brother, a psychopathic pimp of a son, and the youngest son, whose violence is legal, he's a boxer. They trade taunts and insults and menace and there is nothing positive in their relationships. The old man is widowed, the others all single, there is nothing in even one of them to attract a woman.
One night, sneaking into the house he left six years before comes the oldest son and his wife. He's the brilliant one, the PhD, the teacher of philosophy in an American university. He's brought with him his wife, a woman from close by but whom he never told his family about.
At first they think she is a prostitute and speak to her in vile ways, but although she starts out as strong and in control, she uses her seductive power on the sons, and thinks nothing of sexual play short of intercourse with a brother in law. And strangely neither does her husband who had sensed something was amiss before that episode and wanted to leave and return home to their suburban American life.
Ruth, the wife, discloses she was a body model, a glamour model, or maybe that was a euphemism, and by the end of the play, she's left her husband to accept their offer to be woman of the house, sexual favours for all and a little housework thrown in, and to prostitute herself to bring in money for the household. All she asks for is the trappings of a high-class whore. The husband accepted all this, didn't really try and persuade her out of it, didn't rail at his family for suggesting such things. He just lectured them on what it meant to be a philosopher and see life clearly. He decides to return to the US and look after his now motherless three sons.
This to me is what the play was all about. That the eldest son, Teddy, might have escaped, might have the brains, but his mother had been a whore, his uncle had driven her to appointments, his father had lived off her money, one of his brothers was a pimp, and both of his brothers raped women and this is how he saw life. His wife might have been a whore and was certainly going to be one...
One cannot escape one's early life, the culture, that is the true way in which we see the world. It doesn't matter how far you go, how tall the tree grows into the sunshine, the roots, your roots, are buried in the dank earth and whatever decays and creeps around down there is who you really are.
Or maybe not. Maybe Pinter meant something else entirely different.
One night, sneaking into the house he left six years before comes the oldest son and his wife. He's the brilliant one, the PhD, the teacher of philosophy in an American university. He's brought with him his wife, a woman from close by but whom he never told his family about.
At first they think she is a prostitute and speak to her in vile ways, but although she starts out as strong and in control, she uses her seductive power on the sons, and thinks nothing of sexual play short of intercourse with a brother in law. And strangely neither does her husband who had sensed something was amiss before that episode and wanted to leave and return home to their suburban American life.
Ruth, the wife, discloses she was a body model, a glamour model, or maybe that was a euphemism, and by the end of the play, she's left her husband to accept their offer to be woman of the house, sexual favours for all and a little housework thrown in, and to prostitute herself to bring in money for the household. All she asks for is the trappings of a high-class whore. The husband accepted all this, didn't really try and persuade her out of it, didn't rail at his family for suggesting such things. He just lectured them on what it meant to be a philosopher and see life clearly. He decides to return to the US and look after his now motherless three sons.
This to me is what the play was all about. That the eldest son, Teddy, might have escaped, might have the brains, but his mother had been a whore, his uncle had driven her to appointments, his father had lived off her money, one of his brothers was a pimp, and both of his brothers raped women and this is how he saw life. His wife might have been a whore and was certainly going to be one...
One cannot escape one's early life, the culture, that is the true way in which we see the world. It doesn't matter how far you go, how tall the tree grows into the sunshine, the roots, your roots, are buried in the dank earth and whatever decays and creeps around down there is who you really are.
Or maybe not. Maybe Pinter meant something else entirely different.
May 12, 2025
Harold Pinter's theater is similar to the existentialist theater ("Hell is other people") and the absurdist theater of Jean Genet. The absurd lies with them in the human relationships, the unhealthy relationships between the characters, and the situation is tense to the point of no return. And the spectator/reader knows it will become a tragedy from the start. In the end, the drama turns not to the tragic but to the sordid.
The subject addressed in the play is disturbing, not just a little, because Harold Pinter tackles what is sacred for many. He takes it out on the family. We witness an impossible dialogue between a father and his son from the start. Other tense exchanges follow, bitter, violent memories resurface, and resentment, and one wonders if the happy days evoked at times do not also hide an inevitable underlying violence. When you see the list of characters, you understand that there is a generational conflict, but the brothers don't get along either. The old family quarrels resurface with each movement and word, and readers wonder when the family sphere will burst. It is then that the other brother arrives, and his wife, the only female character in the play, is the only woman among all these men. She is a married woman and a mother of three children. Will she be able to appease them? More or less.
Remember, I warned you. The ending is sordid.
The subject addressed in the play is disturbing, not just a little, because Harold Pinter tackles what is sacred for many. He takes it out on the family. We witness an impossible dialogue between a father and his son from the start. Other tense exchanges follow, bitter, violent memories resurface, and resentment, and one wonders if the happy days evoked at times do not also hide an inevitable underlying violence. When you see the list of characters, you understand that there is a generational conflict, but the brothers don't get along either. The old family quarrels resurface with each movement and word, and readers wonder when the family sphere will burst. It is then that the other brother arrives, and his wife, the only female character in the play, is the only woman among all these men. She is a married woman and a mother of three children. Will she be able to appease them? More or less.
Remember, I warned you. The ending is sordid.
September 14, 2022
من عاشق نمایشنامه های مک دونا هستم و به معنی واقعی کلمه توی دیالوگ ها و فضاش غرق میشم. عاشق دیالوگ های کوتاه، کوبنده و حتی بی معنی ام.
اما این نمایشنامه رو که مک دونا ننوشته :))
آره! ولی مک دونا گفته که توی نویسندگی از دو نفر خیلی تاثیر گرفته که یکیش هارولد پینتر عه و اون یکی دیوید ممت.
خب حالا اینا چه ربطی به هم دارن؟
ربطش در اینه که انتظارم رو بالا برده بود. خیلی بالا. اما نمیدونم چرا قیافم بعد تموم شدن نمایشنامه شبیه زل زدنای سیامک انصاری به دوربین شد.
نمایشنامه دوتا پرده داره، تا آخر پرده اول خیلی خوب بود، گفتم این همونیه که میشه عاشقش شد. و منتظر اتفاقای سیاه و خفن باحال و تجاوز و تیکه تیکه کردن بودم. اما توی پرده دوم واقعا همه چی آشفته و بدجور سورئال شد. و من هیچی نفهمیدم. تقریبا هیچی. البته پیامش رو فهمیدم ولی نفهمیدم چرا اینجوری نوشته شده و چرا این نمایشنامه بعنوان بهترین اثر پینتر شناخته میشه.
خب بهرحال قرار نیست که من همه چیزو بفهمم. امیدوارم وقتی از پینتر بیشتر خوندم بتونم بفهمم اش. شاید الان خیلی خامم.
بهرحال امروز امتیازم بهش ۲/۵ هستش. شاید یکروز ادیت کردم .
.....
این ریویوو حاصل همخوانی با سعید بود و همش رو از روی حرفای اون کپی کردم.
ایموجی عرق شرم.
اما این نمایشنامه رو که مک دونا ننوشته :))
آره! ولی مک دونا گفته که توی نویسندگی از دو نفر خیلی تاثیر گرفته که یکیش هارولد پینتر عه و اون یکی دیوید ممت.
خب حالا اینا چه ربطی به هم دارن؟
ربطش در اینه که انتظارم رو بالا برده بود. خیلی بالا. اما نمیدونم چرا قیافم بعد تموم شدن نمایشنامه شبیه زل زدنای سیامک انصاری به دوربین شد.
نمایشنامه دوتا پرده داره، تا آخر پرده اول خیلی خوب بود، گفتم این همونیه که میشه عاشقش شد. و منتظر اتفاقای سیاه و خفن باحال و تجاوز و تیکه تیکه کردن بودم. اما توی پرده دوم واقعا همه چی آشفته و بدجور سورئال شد. و من هیچی نفهمیدم. تقریبا هیچی. البته پیامش رو فهمیدم ولی نفهمیدم چرا اینجوری نوشته شده و چرا این نمایشنامه بعنوان بهترین اثر پینتر شناخته میشه.
خب بهرحال قرار نیست که من همه چیزو بفهمم. امیدوارم وقتی از پینتر بیشتر خوندم بتونم بفهمم اش. شاید الان خیلی خامم.
بهرحال امروز امتیازم بهش ۲/۵ هستش. شاید یکروز ادیت کردم .
.....
این ریویوو حاصل همخوانی با سعید بود و همش رو از روی حرفای اون کپی کردم.
ایموجی عرق شرم.
September 8, 2023
دوستانِ گرانقدر، داستانِ این نمایشنامه، در مورد یک خانوادهٔ عجیب و غریبِ انگلیسی است.. با خواندنِ این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب و غافلگیرکننده، پی میبرید که تمامیِ خانواده مشکلاتِ روانی دارند... شغل و اندیشه آنها هم هیچ تفاوتی در مشکلاتِ روانی آنها ایجاد نکرده، حتی اگر استادِ دانشگاه باشند یا سالها از خانه و خانواده به دور باشند.. پس شما در این نمایشنامه که به نظرم یک داستانِ روانشناسانهٔ قوی و خواندنیست، قرار است با رفتاری غیرعادی از یک خانوادهٔ مشکل دار و روان پریش روبرو باشید و از سوی دیگر، آنچه در داستان مشخص است، مشکلِ این خانواده با زنان و بی ارزش بودنِ جنسِ زن، نزدِ این خانواده است
-----------------------------------
پدرِ خانواده،«مکس» نام دارد که ۷۰ سال سن دارد و پیرمردی بسیار بداخلاق و بدزبانیست که به همه بی احترامی میکند و پیش از بازنشستگی، قصاب بوده است... برادرِ کوچکترِ مکس، «سام» یا همان عمو سام است که ۶۳ ساله بوده و در خانهٔ او زندگی میکند و رانندهٔ تاکسیست.. همسرِ مکس که «جسی» نام داشته، مُرده و البته به نظر میرسد، به غیر از شوهرش، با برادرِ شوهرش یعنی سام و رفیقِ شوهرش یعنی «مک گره گور » و مردانِ دیگر نیز رابطه داشته است
پسرهایش «لنی» و «جوئی» که هرکدام سی و خورده ای سال سن دارند نیز کماکان با پدر زندگی میکنند
لنی به نظر میرسد، فکرش خوب کار میکند و رفتارش عجیب و غریب است و گویا زنانِ فاحشه را اجاره میدهد.. جوئی هم عاشق بوکس است، سعی دارد یک بوکسر حرفه ای شود و کارگر ساختمان است
داستان از جایی خواندنی تر میشود که شبی از شبها، «تدی» پسر بزرگِ خانواده به همراه زنش «روت» به خانهٔ پدری میروند. سالها کسی از تدی خبر نداشته و نمیدانند که ازدواج کرده و تنها خبر داشته اند که تدی دکترای فلسفه دارد و در آمریکا زندگی میکند و استادِ دانشگاه است... روت هم پیش از ازدواج با تدی، مدلِ لخت عکاسی و فاحشه بوده.. تدی و روت، سه فرزندِ پسر دارند که آنها را با خود به انگلیس نیاورده اند و خودشان برای گردش در اروپا عازمِ این سفر شده و پس از گشت و گذار در ایتالیا و ونیز، به انگلیس و خانهٔ پدر، سفر کرده اند تا چند وقتی در آنجا بمانند.. ولی اوضاع به دلخواهِ تدی پیش نمیرود، چراکه پیرمرد، به جای برخوردی گرم با تدی، در همان لحظهٔ نخست، زنِ تدی یعنی روت را جندهٔ رخت شور و سفلیسیِ کثیف خطاب میکند
چیزی از ماندنِ آنها در خانه نگذشته که لنی با روت میرقصد و جوئی با او همبستر شده و سکس میکند
حال پسرها و پدر و عمو، با هم به صورت خیلی عادی مشورت میکنند که روت را برای خودشان در خانه نگه دارند.. تدی به سراغِ زندگی خود در آمریکا رود و روت در لندن و در خانهٔ مکس نزدِ خودش و پسرانش بماند.. ولی باید ملاحظاتِ انسانی را نیز در نظر داشته باشند!!! باید هرکدام مقداری پول به او بدهند و مقرری برایش تعیین کنند. به هر حال زنِ بیچاره نیاز دارد برای خودش جوراب یا لباس بخرد.. ولی بعد تصمیم میگیرند، روت را به عنوانِ فاحشه، هر شب اجاره بدهند تا خرجِ خودش را دربیاورد، البته نباید با هر بی سر و پایی سکس داشته باشد، فقط مردانِ متشخص.. به هر حال هرچه نباشد، روت عروسِ این خانواده است!!!! حتی تدی میتواند برای روت مشتری جور کند و از آمریکا اساتیدِ دانشگاهی که به انگلیس سفر میکنند را برای عشق و حال و سکس، به خانهٔ مکس بفرستد
فکر میکنم، گویا این رفتار نسل به نسل باید جاری باشد، مکس و همسرش جوئی، سه پسر داشتند و کارشان به فحشا کشیده و حال معلوم نیست سرنوشتِ سه پسرِ تدی و روت، چه خواهد شد
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
*************************
لنی: مجهول چطوری میتواند سزاوارِ پرستش باشد؟ به عبارت دیگه، چطور میتوانیم چیزی را که ازش بی خبریم، پرستش کنیم؟
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
-----------------------------------
پدرِ خانواده،«مکس» نام دارد که ۷۰ سال سن دارد و پیرمردی بسیار بداخلاق و بدزبانیست که به همه بی احترامی میکند و پیش از بازنشستگی، قصاب بوده است... برادرِ کوچکترِ مکس، «سام» یا همان عمو سام است که ۶۳ ساله بوده و در خانهٔ او زندگی میکند و رانندهٔ تاکسیست.. همسرِ مکس که «جسی» نام داشته، مُرده و البته به نظر میرسد، به غیر از شوهرش، با برادرِ شوهرش یعنی سام و رفیقِ شوهرش یعنی «مک گره گور » و مردانِ دیگر نیز رابطه داشته است
پسرهایش «لنی» و «جوئی» که هرکدام سی و خورده ای سال سن دارند نیز کماکان با پدر زندگی میکنند
لنی به نظر میرسد، فکرش خوب کار میکند و رفتارش عجیب و غریب است و گویا زنانِ فاحشه را اجاره میدهد.. جوئی هم عاشق بوکس است، سعی دارد یک بوکسر حرفه ای شود و کارگر ساختمان است
داستان از جایی خواندنی تر میشود که شبی از شبها، «تدی» پسر بزرگِ خانواده به همراه زنش «روت» به خانهٔ پدری میروند. سالها کسی از تدی خبر نداشته و نمیدانند که ازدواج کرده و تنها خبر داشته اند که تدی دکترای فلسفه دارد و در آمریکا زندگی میکند و استادِ دانشگاه است... روت هم پیش از ازدواج با تدی، مدلِ لخت عکاسی و فاحشه بوده.. تدی و روت، سه فرزندِ پسر دارند که آنها را با خود به انگلیس نیاورده اند و خودشان برای گردش در اروپا عازمِ این سفر شده و پس از گشت و گذار در ایتالیا و ونیز، به انگلیس و خانهٔ پدر، سفر کرده اند تا چند وقتی در آنجا بمانند.. ولی اوضاع به دلخواهِ تدی پیش نمیرود، چراکه پیرمرد، به جای برخوردی گرم با تدی، در همان لحظهٔ نخست، زنِ تدی یعنی روت را جندهٔ رخت شور و سفلیسیِ کثیف خطاب میکند
چیزی از ماندنِ آنها در خانه نگذشته که لنی با روت میرقصد و جوئی با او همبستر شده و سکس میکند
حال پسرها و پدر و عمو، با هم به صورت خیلی عادی مشورت میکنند که روت را برای خودشان در خانه نگه دارند.. تدی به سراغِ زندگی خود در آمریکا رود و روت در لندن و در خانهٔ مکس نزدِ خودش و پسرانش بماند.. ولی باید ملاحظاتِ انسانی را نیز در نظر داشته باشند!!! باید هرکدام مقداری پول به او بدهند و مقرری برایش تعیین کنند. به هر حال زنِ بیچاره نیاز دارد برای خودش جوراب یا لباس بخرد.. ولی بعد تصمیم میگیرند، روت را به عنوانِ فاحشه، هر شب اجاره بدهند تا خرجِ خودش را دربیاورد، البته نباید با هر بی سر و پایی سکس داشته باشد، فقط مردانِ متشخص.. به هر حال هرچه نباشد، روت عروسِ این خانواده است!!!! حتی تدی میتواند برای روت مشتری جور کند و از آمریکا اساتیدِ دانشگاهی که به انگلیس سفر میکنند را برای عشق و حال و سکس، به خانهٔ مکس بفرستد
فکر میکنم، گویا این رفتار نسل به نسل باید جاری باشد، مکس و همسرش جوئی، سه پسر داشتند و کارشان به فحشا کشیده و حال معلوم نیست سرنوشتِ سه پسرِ تدی و روت، چه خواهد شد
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
*************************
لنی: مجهول چطوری میتواند سزاوارِ پرستش باشد؟ به عبارت دیگه، چطور میتوانیم چیزی را که ازش بی خبریم، پرستش کنیم؟
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
November 7, 2023
I have given up hope of ever seeing this play...a surreal perspective on the Madonna-whore complex identified by Freud - Pinter has a gift for 'abstract echoism' that confronts the audience with 'scaffolding of belief' when constructural orientation is lost. Harold Pinter is a very challenging playwright who is always forcing the audience to look deeper into questions that define our humanity.
September 9, 2018
I reread this after reading The Birthday Party & The Room: Two Plays just the other day and it's a natural progression for both Pinter and the reader. The decrepit boardinghouses of the two earlier plays have become an old family home; the characters are more developed; the dialogue is richer and both more and less nuanced. The woman is still a focal point, but she no longer jabbers to herself because the men in her life tune her out: she is reflective, quietly assertive, and silent on her own behalf when their sordid needs arise and they want an answer from her.
I first read this for a class over thirty years ago and I have no memory of what my 18- or 19-year-old self thought of it (or what I was told to think of it). I reread my now cover-less (due to this read) copy from then and could see I'd bracketed a few lines (even back then I hated the look of underlining or, even worse, highlighting) and made a minimal amount of notes in the margins. Next to a speech by Teddy (the homecoming son) I'd written "he's like Clov, not Hamm" -- a reference to Beckett's Endgame, which maybe I read for the same class.
This was the first Pinter I read, but not the last, and I consider him one of my favorite playwrights, so something must've gone right in the course, whatever it was called and whoever the professor was. Perhaps he was the old Jesuit priest from Ireland that also taught me Joyce. He loved James Joyce and disliked Joyce Cary -- we only read The Horse's Mouth so he could criticize it, it seemed to me -- or was that me who didn't like the Cary, or was that me because of him. Sorry for the ramble, as this is not one of Pinter's so-called memory plays, but even here truth is malleable and memory does not unlock it.
I first read this for a class over thirty years ago and I have no memory of what my 18- or 19-year-old self thought of it (or what I was told to think of it). I reread my now cover-less (due to this read) copy from then and could see I'd bracketed a few lines (even back then I hated the look of underlining or, even worse, highlighting) and made a minimal amount of notes in the margins. Next to a speech by Teddy (the homecoming son) I'd written "he's like Clov, not Hamm" -- a reference to Beckett's Endgame, which maybe I read for the same class.
This was the first Pinter I read, but not the last, and I consider him one of my favorite playwrights, so something must've gone right in the course, whatever it was called and whoever the professor was. Perhaps he was the old Jesuit priest from Ireland that also taught me Joyce. He loved James Joyce and disliked Joyce Cary -- we only read The Horse's Mouth so he could criticize it, it seemed to me -- or was that me who didn't like the Cary, or was that me because of him. Sorry for the ramble, as this is not one of Pinter's so-called memory plays, but even here truth is malleable and memory does not unlock it.
September 14, 2009
Incredibly disturbing...
Without painting broad strokes of flagrant violence, obscene language, or the like, Pinter still manages to create an environment of unparalleled menace. His tools are simply language (or, rather, what isn't said) and layers of paradox that rise from a triumviri of inconsistent character behaviors, statuses, and conceptions of the past.
While reading, I found myself continually doubting the "validity" of what nearly every character did and said. Did I mention this play is also incredibly funny?
Though "The Homecoming" is a major mind-warper in terms of characters' behavior, it's ultimately very transparent. The facts are stated, quite clearly; it's simply unthinkable to the viewer that what's going on is unchallenged.
Unsurprisingly, critics lambasted "The Homecoming" for various reasons -- my favorite being its "amorality" and "thematic ambiguity." I mean, how can a play be so riveting yet still make you ask, "what was the 'point' of that story?" Pinter's a unique talent who will certainly be missed.
Without painting broad strokes of flagrant violence, obscene language, or the like, Pinter still manages to create an environment of unparalleled menace. His tools are simply language (or, rather, what isn't said) and layers of paradox that rise from a triumviri of inconsistent character behaviors, statuses, and conceptions of the past.
While reading, I found myself continually doubting the "validity" of what nearly every character did and said. Did I mention this play is also incredibly funny?
Though "The Homecoming" is a major mind-warper in terms of characters' behavior, it's ultimately very transparent. The facts are stated, quite clearly; it's simply unthinkable to the viewer that what's going on is unchallenged.
Unsurprisingly, critics lambasted "The Homecoming" for various reasons -- my favorite being its "amorality" and "thematic ambiguity." I mean, how can a play be so riveting yet still make you ask, "what was the 'point' of that story?" Pinter's a unique talent who will certainly be missed.
October 8, 2014
Quite a few books you read/movies and plays you watched in your youth tend to disappoint when you are of a "ripe/mature" age - but this play, which I saw on stage in London at age eighteen, had not lost any of its riveting qualities when I read it tonight, thirty-six years later - within the space of less than two hours. In less than a hundred pages Pinter manages to turn the grotesque into the plausible by making an eerily antisocial milieu come to life. "Chapeau"!
December 11, 2016
What the actual eff.
I'm curious about what my professor is going to say about this because wtf.
I'm curious about what my professor is going to say about this because wtf.
July 24, 2012
یک نمایشنامه منسجم و دوست داشتنی از مرد دوست داشتنی تآتر جهان. مثل بقیه کارهای پینتر دیالوگها پر بود از سوءتفاهمها و دیالوگهای بلندی که به مونولوگ شبیه میشد، دیالوگهای بیهودهای که توضیحات اضافه انسانها بود (چیزی که در دنیای مدرن بین افراد اتفاق میوفته).
اصلیترین موردی که در این نمایشنامه به چشم میخوره بحث مادر-معشوقه هستش. زن به مثابه اوبژه در دنیای مدرن و خانواده هستهای. حتی این اوبژه شدگی زن در بین قشر روشنفکر و آکادمیک (که نمایندهش تدی هستش و دیگر همکارانش که قرار مشتریهای ماشین-بدن روت شوند) و قشر پرولتاریا (که دیگر افراد نمایشنامه نمایندگان آن هستند) به چشم میخوره. وقتی بیحضور زن درمورد اقامتش بحث میشه ، درمورد شغلش برای خرجی خود را درآوردن (روسپیگری) و حتی ایجاد سلطه جنسی نسبت به او (حتی تدی هم نمیگه اون خودش باید تصمیم بگیره صرفا میگه من فکر نمیکنم اون این طوری بخواد، یا میگه: اون دوست داره با من برگرده، ما سه تا پسر داریم!) بیحضور فیزیکی (سخن راندن از بدن بیحضور بدن ممکن) کاملن نمادهای مرد-پدر سالارانهی دنیای مدرن را موشکافی میکند و حتی پس از اینکه زن حضور پیدا میکنه بدن اوبژه شده خودش رو در قبال مسئله مالی (و نه لذت) به دست مبارزان سلطه جنسی قرار میده. زنی که خود میپذیره معشوقه و کارگر جنسی مشتی مرد بشه در قبال خونه و لباس و خورد و خوراک.
که البته این پایان ماجرا نیست. درآخر این مردان مبارزه کننده با هم هستند که به دست و پای این زن میافتند و او مادروار سوپراگوی همه آنها حتی پیرترینشون میشه تا خود سلطهگری به نوع دیگر (مادرگونه) را بازتولید کند.
سلطهای که در جامعهی مدرن از بین نمیرود و صرفا با شکلها و روشها مختلف بازتولید و بازآفرینی میشود در قامتها و اشکال ناهمگون و متضاد هم!
اصلیترین موردی که در این نمایشنامه به چشم میخوره بحث مادر-معشوقه هستش. زن به مثابه اوبژه در دنیای مدرن و خانواده هستهای. حتی این اوبژه شدگی زن در بین قشر روشنفکر و آکادمیک (که نمایندهش تدی هستش و دیگر همکارانش که قرار مشتریهای ماشین-بدن روت شوند) و قشر پرولتاریا (که دیگر افراد نمایشنامه نمایندگان آن هستند) به چشم میخوره. وقتی بیحضور زن درمورد اقامتش بحث میشه ، درمورد شغلش برای خرجی خود را درآوردن (روسپیگری) و حتی ایجاد سلطه جنسی نسبت به او (حتی تدی هم نمیگه اون خودش باید تصمیم بگیره صرفا میگه من فکر نمیکنم اون این طوری بخواد، یا میگه: اون دوست داره با من برگرده، ما سه تا پسر داریم!) بیحضور فیزیکی (سخن راندن از بدن بیحضور بدن ممکن) کاملن نمادهای مرد-پدر سالارانهی دنیای مدرن را موشکافی میکند و حتی پس از اینکه زن حضور پیدا میکنه بدن اوبژه شده خودش رو در قبال مسئله مالی (و نه لذت) به دست مبارزان سلطه جنسی قرار میده. زنی که خود میپذیره معشوقه و کارگر جنسی مشتی مرد بشه در قبال خونه و لباس و خورد و خوراک.
که البته این پایان ماجرا نیست. درآخر این مردان مبارزه کننده با هم هستند که به دست و پای این زن میافتند و او مادروار سوپراگوی همه آنها حتی پیرترینشون میشه تا خود سلطهگری به نوع دیگر (مادرگونه) را بازتولید کند.
سلطهای که در جامعهی مدرن از بین نمیرود و صرفا با شکلها و روشها مختلف بازتولید و بازآفرینی میشود در قامتها و اشکال ناهمگون و متضاد هم!
August 16, 2019
I’ve been in a mood to see – and to read – some plays. Here’s one of them…
This is a mad play – a mad, mad, mad play. Mad as in the old-fashioned, before-we-had-names-for-every-kind-of-mental-illness mad. Like before 1980 or thereabouts. Mad as in ‘he’s going mad,’ or ‘what, is he mad?’ Acting outside of all acceptable moral and societal expectations – like way outside. And so…
Teddy is coming home to his working class roots, his family in England. He’s a professor of philosophy in the US and has brought his wife with him. Max, his father, is crazy-mad, one moment doling out the lovey-dovey-ness and even ‘cuddling’ with his sons, (I don’t think it means what I think it means today.), and in the next calling them every profane and sickening curse he can. (So what is his mental illness, do ya think?) His other two sons are just the same: Lenny, who’s described as a pimp but doesn’t DO much pimping in the play, and Joey, who’s training to be a boxer. Max’s sons give it right back to him, word for word. Swearing and cursing but then suddenly asking if he’s going to make supper? There’s also Sam, Max’s unmarried brother, a chauffeur who likes to brag about who he’s chauffeuring around – including Max’s late wife.
It’s a house of mad people, I tell you – and that’s true with the other definition of the word. These guys are really, intolerably angry with each other. There’s barely two among this group – all men – who can stand one another. But then there’s Teddy, soft and sensitive, who brings into all this his wife and she’s – well, she’s something else altogether. Gorgeous and very forward, and Teddy’s manly family is quite taken with her.
It’s a short play, but intense, and sort of rocked the theater world back in the 60’s – and that was a time when many ‘shocking’ plays were being written and staged. Truthfully, I think if I were one of the first to see this play, and hadn’t read about it, I’d have been shocked myself and I’m fairly tolerant (blasé?) when it comes to language, politics, the whole shebang. Anyhow, something to think about long after reading – or viewing it, I’d imagine.
Four stars
This is a mad play – a mad, mad, mad play. Mad as in the old-fashioned, before-we-had-names-for-every-kind-of-mental-illness mad. Like before 1980 or thereabouts. Mad as in ‘he’s going mad,’ or ‘what, is he mad?’ Acting outside of all acceptable moral and societal expectations – like way outside. And so…
Teddy is coming home to his working class roots, his family in England. He’s a professor of philosophy in the US and has brought his wife with him. Max, his father, is crazy-mad, one moment doling out the lovey-dovey-ness and even ‘cuddling’ with his sons, (I don’t think it means what I think it means today.), and in the next calling them every profane and sickening curse he can. (So what is his mental illness, do ya think?) His other two sons are just the same: Lenny, who’s described as a pimp but doesn’t DO much pimping in the play, and Joey, who’s training to be a boxer. Max’s sons give it right back to him, word for word. Swearing and cursing but then suddenly asking if he’s going to make supper? There’s also Sam, Max’s unmarried brother, a chauffeur who likes to brag about who he’s chauffeuring around – including Max’s late wife.
It’s a house of mad people, I tell you – and that’s true with the other definition of the word. These guys are really, intolerably angry with each other. There’s barely two among this group – all men – who can stand one another. But then there’s Teddy, soft and sensitive, who brings into all this his wife and she’s – well, she’s something else altogether. Gorgeous and very forward, and Teddy’s manly family is quite taken with her.
It’s a short play, but intense, and sort of rocked the theater world back in the 60’s – and that was a time when many ‘shocking’ plays were being written and staged. Truthfully, I think if I were one of the first to see this play, and hadn’t read about it, I’d have been shocked myself and I’m fairly tolerant (blasé?) when it comes to language, politics, the whole shebang. Anyhow, something to think about long after reading – or viewing it, I’d imagine.
Four stars
January 10, 2009
Sick. Just Sick. I don't care if there's a deeper meaning to this book. To make up a story so immensely wrong is unbelievable.
Great job, Harold. You just proved yourself one of the most twisted-in-the-head people on Earth. Oh, sorry my mistake. In the afterlife. Hopefully this strange imagination of yours didnt go with you... rest in peace.
Great job, Harold. You just proved yourself one of the most twisted-in-the-head people on Earth. Oh, sorry my mistake. In the afterlife. Hopefully this strange imagination of yours didnt go with you... rest in peace.
October 22, 2017
what did i just read ???
Read
March 21, 2023well, that was definitely something.
February 5, 2016
"The Homecoming" was labeled by one early critic as a "comedy of menace", and I feel that sums it up better than anything else I have heard. This is a dark, deeply ambiguous, and funny play. I first read this play in college, and then again recently, soon after seeing an excellent production of it at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario Canada staring Brian Dennehy. Being older and more experienced, I feel much better about the play then I did when I first encountered it years ago.
I am hesitant to say what the play is about, because even after seeing a very good production, and reading the text closely, there are a myriad of possibilities about how to interpret the script, and the nuances therein. The play certainly is about family relationships, sexual jealousy, gender power dynamics, and many other things to boot. And yet, Pinter never gives us an insight into what he really thinks about these things, and at times I am not even sure the characters do. And it works!
A strength of the play are the characters Max and Lenny. In Lenny especially Pinter has created a daunting and very intriguing character that can make the audience squirm in their seats. He is dark, funny, smart, and a pimp. A wonderful role for a talented performer to sink his teeth into. In fact, all of the roles have wonderful possibilities in performance.
However, the greatest power in the play lies not in what is said, but rather in what is NOT said. It is there that the reader is stimulated into following up on hints in the text, and making up most of the story for themselves in their head. The infamous "Pinter pause" is certainly on display in this work. I can imagine many interesting conversations to be had while arguing about what the play is really saying.
Some readers hate that ambiguity, I love it. It is a personal preference so be warned, if you pick up "The Homecoming" you will be left with more questions than answers.
I am hesitant to say what the play is about, because even after seeing a very good production, and reading the text closely, there are a myriad of possibilities about how to interpret the script, and the nuances therein. The play certainly is about family relationships, sexual jealousy, gender power dynamics, and many other things to boot. And yet, Pinter never gives us an insight into what he really thinks about these things, and at times I am not even sure the characters do. And it works!
A strength of the play are the characters Max and Lenny. In Lenny especially Pinter has created a daunting and very intriguing character that can make the audience squirm in their seats. He is dark, funny, smart, and a pimp. A wonderful role for a talented performer to sink his teeth into. In fact, all of the roles have wonderful possibilities in performance.
However, the greatest power in the play lies not in what is said, but rather in what is NOT said. It is there that the reader is stimulated into following up on hints in the text, and making up most of the story for themselves in their head. The infamous "Pinter pause" is certainly on display in this work. I can imagine many interesting conversations to be had while arguing about what the play is really saying.
Some readers hate that ambiguity, I love it. It is a personal preference so be warned, if you pick up "The Homecoming" you will be left with more questions than answers.
January 19, 2017
I didn't like this play. It's seedy and mean, full of horrible characters treating each other badly. That doesn't mean that it's not a good play, maybe even a great one, because that was exactly what Pinter was going for, in his so called comedy menace period.
There are power plays and power shifts. There are threats and responses, as well as sparse pointed dialogue, increasingly absurd behaviour and a nasty spin in the tail.
There are power plays and power shifts. There are threats and responses, as well as sparse pointed dialogue, increasingly absurd behaviour and a nasty spin in the tail.
September 26, 2016
بذاريد اعتراف كنم، بعد از خوندن اين نمايشنامه اين به ذهنم اومد:
"who the ... gave you the noble prize, you pervert ... of the ....., we are not at all interested in you sexual fantasies"
انقدر حرص خوردم ميخواستم سر كلاس نررررم، امروز اما قطعا يكي از نمايشنامه هاي مورد علاقمه. در مقابل پينتر نبايد مقاومت نشون داد، فقط كافيه يكم بهش وقت بديد.
"who the ... gave you the noble prize, you pervert ... of the ....., we are not at all interested in you sexual fantasies"
انقدر حرص خوردم ميخواستم سر كلاس نررررم، امروز اما قطعا يكي از نمايشنامه هاي مورد علاقمه. در مقابل پينتر نبايد مقاومت نشون داد، فقط كافيه يكم بهش وقت بديد.
April 29, 2023
what in the actual f*ck
March 13, 2016
This wasn't as good as The Birthday Party, and it's much more cryptic, but Pinter really can rip the mask off of human interaction. This one's much more realistic than The Birthday Party; it depicts a dysfunctional London family, whose oldest son, who's been in America for six years with his wife (who he eloped with immediately before leaving London). No spoilers, but the strange ending depicts the same kind of isolation as that of The Birthday Party. Pinter is definitely becoming a favorite.
January 20, 2021
I just saw this play at The Cort in Manhattan. I can't imagine a better production. Superb acting, excellent staging & timing. What a terrific play, my favorite of Pinter.
April 4, 2018
Man, this play. I only have three words: what the hell?
April 19, 2021
Not sure how I feel about this tbh.
February 14, 2009
Ok sure Ruth likes to get around. Yes this might never happen and yes the play is very twisted. It includes profanity and just plain wrong scenes, conversations, actions etc; but I don't see the need to label it as horrible or the worst ever. It has its beauty: complex plot and amazing characters that kept true to themselves from beginning to end.I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they would say next and I was always wrong. Well it did make me kind of sick and embarrassed but that was because we were force to read it in class and there were some parts in witch i wish we would have stop reading, but I enjoyed it. Amazingly enough this is one of the plays i best understood. I tap into mankind dark side and I don't know after struggling throw I grew to enjoy it. I think it was just to go against the whole class but it just plain has it's own beauty and art in it -its just not that easy to find it.
August 25, 2016
this is the fourth pinter play that i have read. and, from my reading experience, i can tell you that he can create some beautifully disturbing universe in the relationships between the characters. this play is no exception to that. the pace got slightly slackened at times but it keeps its momentum intact in excellent and fissured conversations between the characters. the main soul of this play is its characters. but also, this play reached its peak in the last scene when ruth came down and the following scenes (did i give away a tiny bit of a spoiler?) happened. it was brilliant, the ending. absolutely brilliant!
March 19, 2007
Truly great. An icy stiletto of a play.
November 19, 2014
Absurdity at its finest. I do not know whether to be appalled or sad or mad or grief-stricken by this play. Truly Pinteresque!
October 16, 2022
I never thought I would give anything I read a one-star review but here we are.
April 7, 2024
The story is absolutely bizarre and absolutely absurd; strangely, its absolutely spellbinding and terrifying also. I need to read it again.
Read
March 15, 2023A ver, a ver, a ver.
Punto 1. Digo yo que igual se han tomado lo de que entre hermanos hay que compartir muy al pie de la letra, no?
Punto 2. Entender no habré entendido ni papa, pero aprender sinónimos de puta? De esos unos cuantos.
Punto 3. Yo no sé si soy una mal pensada pero todo lo que dicen suena hiper sexual.
For example:
"First of all I gave Lenny a bath, the Teddy a bath, then Joey a bath. What fun we used to have in the bath, eh, boys?"
Mmm, that's weird. That's supicious... (Pedo alert ?)
Pd: estoy full convinced que Max quería a Mac más que como un amigo. Fight me.
Punto 1. Digo yo que igual se han tomado lo de que entre hermanos hay que compartir muy al pie de la letra, no?
Punto 2. Entender no habré entendido ni papa, pero aprender sinónimos de puta? De esos unos cuantos.
Punto 3. Yo no sé si soy una mal pensada pero todo lo que dicen suena hiper sexual.
For example:
"First of all I gave Lenny a bath, the Teddy a bath, then Joey a bath. What fun we used to have in the bath, eh, boys?"
Mmm, that's weird. That's supicious... (Pedo alert ?)
Pd: estoy full convinced que Max quería a Mac más que como un amigo. Fight me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 19, 2022
Meet the Brothers
13-14 August - London
This is probably a very London play to read while I’m in London. Well, I’m not actually in London at the moment, rather I’m sitting on a train that happens to be travelling something like 300 kph (or a bit higher). I was planning on sitting in cafe and write this while waiting to board the train, but it turned out that passport control was absolutely chaotic, and I managed to get to my seat with only 10 minutes to spare. I suspect that this might have something to do with half the flights in Europe being cancelled. Also, the wifi on this train is pretty awful (and I also note that half of them don’t like you using VPNs to connect, which kind of defeats the purpose of a VPN).
Anyway, this feels like a very London play, though the plays of Harold Pinter tend to be vastly different to the plays of William Shakespeare. Sure, both can be rather dark, but I get the feel that a lot of modern plays end up competing with television, so the directors end up going to extremes, whether it be a stage that simply consists of seats, such as in the version of the Seagull that I saw recently, or whether it be some form of modern dance that is wrapped in the story of Julius Caeser.
Honestly, I don’t think that this play is either, though we are told that it is set entirely in a north London house that is inhabited by three men, Max and his two sons Lenny and Joey. Max’s brother Sam also pops in occasionally. However, the action starts when Teddy, the third son, arrives in the middle of the night with his wife Ruth. It turns out that none of them have met her. In fact none of them have seen him in the six years he had been away from London.
One thing I noticed in the play is that the characters are listed, but we are only told their ages, which I suspect is on purpose. The thing is that if the character’s relationships, and occupations, were given away at the beginning, then no doubt it would ruin what happens in the play. I suspect that the occupations of some of the characters, particularly Lenny, who’s occupation is never spelled out by the way, only implied, would spoil the surprise.
I’m sort of wondering whether this play is a drama or a comedy, and I’ll actually put it into the sphere of a comedy. I guess it has a lot to do with the discussion that Lenny, Joey, and Max have about the role Ruth will play considering that she is going to stay in London as opposed to returning to New York with Teddy. The thing that is really good about this discussion, despite the fact that Ruth isn’t present, is that it is entirely innuendo. In fact, if you don’t pick up some of the hints early on in the play, then you will end up being completely lost.
It is an interesting play though, and the idea of the homecoming is basically that, Teddy, who has left his North London working class roots, decides that after six years that he will return, and immediately realises why he left in the first place. Yet the interaction between Ruth and Teddy is somewhat interesting as well. I don’t get the impression that the marriage is a failure, though the suggestion is that Teddy is a bit of a sop, which is why Ruth decides to remain with his family. Actually, the cigar scene seems to suggest that as well.
One thing that stands out is that Ruth is the only female in the play, which kind of suggests that the family really has little interaction with women. Well, they do, but only one type of woman. It is interesting to see Max’s reaction to Ruth’s presence when he awakes in the morning. It suggests that really only one type of women ever comes into the home, and even then Max doesn’t actually want them around. In a way he doesn’t seem to be able to accept that Teddy has left his working class roots.
Actually, that is definitely a thing – you don’t betray your class. This isn’t just an upper class thing where they look down on the lower classes, but there is also a lot of antagonism towards the intellectual and leisure classes. I suspect this is the main reason that Teddy didn’t want to return home, and that it took him so long to do so – he had basically become a class traitor. Yet where Teddy went from the working class to the intellectual class, we see Ruth making the decision to become a member of the working class. In fact, I do get the impression that Teddy had been somewhat concerned that Ruth would desert him, while Ruth had been continually pressuring him to take her back to his home (even though the kids remained overseas). It is a rather interesting play, and I suspect it would actually be pretty cool to see performed.
13-14 August - London
This is probably a very London play to read while I’m in London. Well, I’m not actually in London at the moment, rather I’m sitting on a train that happens to be travelling something like 300 kph (or a bit higher). I was planning on sitting in cafe and write this while waiting to board the train, but it turned out that passport control was absolutely chaotic, and I managed to get to my seat with only 10 minutes to spare. I suspect that this might have something to do with half the flights in Europe being cancelled. Also, the wifi on this train is pretty awful (and I also note that half of them don’t like you using VPNs to connect, which kind of defeats the purpose of a VPN).
Anyway, this feels like a very London play, though the plays of Harold Pinter tend to be vastly different to the plays of William Shakespeare. Sure, both can be rather dark, but I get the feel that a lot of modern plays end up competing with television, so the directors end up going to extremes, whether it be a stage that simply consists of seats, such as in the version of the Seagull that I saw recently, or whether it be some form of modern dance that is wrapped in the story of Julius Caeser.
Honestly, I don’t think that this play is either, though we are told that it is set entirely in a north London house that is inhabited by three men, Max and his two sons Lenny and Joey. Max’s brother Sam also pops in occasionally. However, the action starts when Teddy, the third son, arrives in the middle of the night with his wife Ruth. It turns out that none of them have met her. In fact none of them have seen him in the six years he had been away from London.
One thing I noticed in the play is that the characters are listed, but we are only told their ages, which I suspect is on purpose. The thing is that if the character’s relationships, and occupations, were given away at the beginning, then no doubt it would ruin what happens in the play. I suspect that the occupations of some of the characters, particularly Lenny, who’s occupation is never spelled out by the way, only implied, would spoil the surprise.
I’m sort of wondering whether this play is a drama or a comedy, and I’ll actually put it into the sphere of a comedy. I guess it has a lot to do with the discussion that Lenny, Joey, and Max have about the role Ruth will play considering that she is going to stay in London as opposed to returning to New York with Teddy. The thing that is really good about this discussion, despite the fact that Ruth isn’t present, is that it is entirely innuendo. In fact, if you don’t pick up some of the hints early on in the play, then you will end up being completely lost.
It is an interesting play though, and the idea of the homecoming is basically that, Teddy, who has left his North London working class roots, decides that after six years that he will return, and immediately realises why he left in the first place. Yet the interaction between Ruth and Teddy is somewhat interesting as well. I don’t get the impression that the marriage is a failure, though the suggestion is that Teddy is a bit of a sop, which is why Ruth decides to remain with his family. Actually, the cigar scene seems to suggest that as well.
One thing that stands out is that Ruth is the only female in the play, which kind of suggests that the family really has little interaction with women. Well, they do, but only one type of woman. It is interesting to see Max’s reaction to Ruth’s presence when he awakes in the morning. It suggests that really only one type of women ever comes into the home, and even then Max doesn’t actually want them around. In a way he doesn’t seem to be able to accept that Teddy has left his working class roots.
Actually, that is definitely a thing – you don’t betray your class. This isn’t just an upper class thing where they look down on the lower classes, but there is also a lot of antagonism towards the intellectual and leisure classes. I suspect this is the main reason that Teddy didn’t want to return home, and that it took him so long to do so – he had basically become a class traitor. Yet where Teddy went from the working class to the intellectual class, we see Ruth making the decision to become a member of the working class. In fact, I do get the impression that Teddy had been somewhat concerned that Ruth would desert him, while Ruth had been continually pressuring him to take her back to his home (even though the kids remained overseas). It is a rather interesting play, and I suspect it would actually be pretty cool to see performed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews