What do you think?
Rate this book
The Boys in the Band
Drama 9 male Interior Set This seminal work of the Off-Broadway movement premiered in 1968 and was a long-running hit onstage, later filmed with the original cast. In 2010, the play made a triumphant return to New York City in an highly praised production produced by Drama Desk and Obie Award winning Transport Group. In his upper eastside Manhattan apartment, Michael is throwing a birthday party for Harold, a self-awoved "32 year-old, pock-marked, Jew fairy", compl
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
13 people are currently reading
1429 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 - 30 of 127 reviews
April 25, 2025
You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be, but there's nothing you can do to change it. Not all the prayers to your god, not all the analysis you can buy in all the years you've go left to live. You may one day be able to know a heterosexual life if you want it desperately enough. If you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you'll always be homosexual as well. Always Michael. Always. Until the day you die.
The Boys in the Band ~~ Mart Crowley
During my senior year of university, we were discussing The Boys in the Band. When asked to give my initial opinion of this play I said. Mart Crowley saw Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf on Tuesday, and wrote The Boys in the Band on Wednesday. I received an A in Modern Theatre for that remark alone.
All these years later, I still stand by this quip. This does not imply that The Boys in the Band is a bad play, or a substandard work. Quite the contrary ~~ The Boys in the Band is quite good ~~ if not wholly original.
The Boys in the Band is sharply written by Crowley. The lived-in exchanges of dialogue between this friend group hits not dissimilarly from little needles pricking exposed patches of skin slowly, one at a time. Almost everyone in the apartment uses their years of closeness as a vector to toxically relieve the self-resentment they’ve amassed in their years of survival in a homophobic society that only makes the inadequacy of their personal and professional lives hurt more.
Friendship is one of few reliable remedies for life’s pains. The Boys in the Band sees that commiseration warping into something ugly, tastes of emotional power over one another proving too empowering to stop indulging in for characters who rarely feel like they have the upper hand. The night’s emotional brutality isn’t made equal among members, though. Forced to bear the most callous strain of it is Bernard, who is the friend group’s sole Black member ~~ everyone else is white ~~ and is confronted with some racist insults that instantaneously make you wonder how self-loathing are these men?
Playwright Mart Crowley with his best friend & financial backer, Natalie Wood, and the original cast of The Boys in the Band.
The Boys in the Band was the first mainstream American drama to focus exclusively on gay male characters. It is an intense, frequently searing portrait of a group of men nakedly showing the toll of living in a world typically inclined to greet you with hatred, and picking on their differences and insufficiencies. It’s still powerful to see a play about gay men where insecurities and frustrations are laid so bare, where there is no deference to a straight gaze concerned with whether a character is likable or not. It did however conclude that homosexuality is more so a miserable life sentence than something worth embracing ~~ thankfully, the world has changed. It embraces the old-fashioned notion that gay men are to be pitied ~~ someone who would give anything not to be who he is and is seen as more human because of that recognition of wrongness. Sadly, there are many gay men who feel this way today.
The frustrations The Boys in the Band might inspire have a silver lining. That this play has lost some of its immediate identification with many modern gay readers only speaks to how much times have changed ~~ that's a good thing. Today The Boys in the Band feels more like a vivid glimpse into the past than a document doomed to feel eternally of the present; now it can be seen as part of a tapestry of gay theatre showing different facets of gay life.
And if you're lucky, it may even cast a demon or two out of you ...
The Boys in the Band ~~ Mart Crowley
During my senior year of university, we were discussing The Boys in the Band. When asked to give my initial opinion of this play I said. Mart Crowley saw Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf on Tuesday, and wrote The Boys in the Band on Wednesday. I received an A in Modern Theatre for that remark alone.
All these years later, I still stand by this quip. This does not imply that The Boys in the Band is a bad play, or a substandard work. Quite the contrary ~~ The Boys in the Band is quite good ~~ if not wholly original.
The Boys in the Band is sharply written by Crowley. The lived-in exchanges of dialogue between this friend group hits not dissimilarly from little needles pricking exposed patches of skin slowly, one at a time. Almost everyone in the apartment uses their years of closeness as a vector to toxically relieve the self-resentment they’ve amassed in their years of survival in a homophobic society that only makes the inadequacy of their personal and professional lives hurt more.
Friendship is one of few reliable remedies for life’s pains. The Boys in the Band sees that commiseration warping into something ugly, tastes of emotional power over one another proving too empowering to stop indulging in for characters who rarely feel like they have the upper hand. The night’s emotional brutality isn’t made equal among members, though. Forced to bear the most callous strain of it is Bernard, who is the friend group’s sole Black member ~~ everyone else is white ~~ and is confronted with some racist insults that instantaneously make you wonder how self-loathing are these men?
Playwright Mart Crowley with his best friend & financial backer, Natalie Wood, and the original cast of The Boys in the Band.
The Boys in the Band was the first mainstream American drama to focus exclusively on gay male characters. It is an intense, frequently searing portrait of a group of men nakedly showing the toll of living in a world typically inclined to greet you with hatred, and picking on their differences and insufficiencies. It’s still powerful to see a play about gay men where insecurities and frustrations are laid so bare, where there is no deference to a straight gaze concerned with whether a character is likable or not. It did however conclude that homosexuality is more so a miserable life sentence than something worth embracing ~~ thankfully, the world has changed. It embraces the old-fashioned notion that gay men are to be pitied ~~ someone who would give anything not to be who he is and is seen as more human because of that recognition of wrongness. Sadly, there are many gay men who feel this way today.
The frustrations The Boys in the Band might inspire have a silver lining. That this play has lost some of its immediate identification with many modern gay readers only speaks to how much times have changed ~~ that's a good thing. Today The Boys in the Band feels more like a vivid glimpse into the past than a document doomed to feel eternally of the present; now it can be seen as part of a tapestry of gay theatre showing different facets of gay life.
And if you're lucky, it may even cast a demon or two out of you ...
October 6, 2009
You can love this play or you can hate it, but you should try to take away something meaningful from it, and that is not difficult to do. One of my personal favorite plots in books and plays is taking a few disfunctional people and making them stay in a room together, forcing out great and awkward dialogue, witty banter and even sometimes forcing out some characters' more "evil" human traits.
The Boys in the Band does all of this, and does it well. Nasty well. I cringed, I took a step back, I laughed heartily, I felt awful. I watched in morbid curiosity as a few gay friends ripped each other to pieces. The friends are distinct, well written and vastly deep.
It centers around a birthday party at an apartment where a group of closely knit friends are invited but there is a straight man in their midst, making the all ready unbearable tension way worse. What starts out as a funny evening plummets into an angsty rollercoaster ride of emotion, which nosedives into one of the most disturbing climaxes I have read.
Yes, it is a piece of its time, but that is not to say that it doesn't ring true today.
(I also highly recommend the biting, dark film.)
The Boys in the Band does all of this, and does it well. Nasty well. I cringed, I took a step back, I laughed heartily, I felt awful. I watched in morbid curiosity as a few gay friends ripped each other to pieces. The friends are distinct, well written and vastly deep.
It centers around a birthday party at an apartment where a group of closely knit friends are invited but there is a straight man in their midst, making the all ready unbearable tension way worse. What starts out as a funny evening plummets into an angsty rollercoaster ride of emotion, which nosedives into one of the most disturbing climaxes I have read.
Yes, it is a piece of its time, but that is not to say that it doesn't ring true today.
(I also highly recommend the biting, dark film.)
February 7, 2009
I first heard about this play some time in the 90s. The "Gay Community" was protesting it because it made gay men look bad in the public eye, or something to that effect. Since I am the kind of person who needs to think for myself and whose opinions are not mockingbird echoes of trendy magazine reviews, I read the play as published in book form.
And I liked it. On one hand, I can understand why most queer folk don't want to be represented by Matt Crowley's characters, or would prefer to be fictionalized in a more "positive light". However, what I liked so much about it was that it was an extremely accurate portrayal of the gay life that I've been exposed to for the last 20 years. ALL of those characters EACH remind me of AT LEAST A DOZEN gay men that I have known then and now. To this day, there are men re-enacting those stereotypes, no matter how much I complain about them. (And when I complain, some one tells me, "those stereotypes are there for a reason") Well, my complaining is really more like loud wishing that there was some thing else out there than what the mainstream gay community has to offer. Even most "radical queer" men are the exact same, but with a different style of clothing according to their financial means and pretense to alternative politics (meaning: whatever notions are "avant-garde popular" at the time).
I watched the entire five seasons of "Queer As Folk" (US version), and found those people a little less real than Mart Crowley's "Boys", and in many cases more offensive.
In all the queer movies/tv shows I've viewed and novels I've read, I'm having a very hard time finding any positive role models, and only a few that I sympathize with or admire, outside of "Dykes To Watch Out For". And before I am accused of internalized homophobia, I have to say that I have indeed met a few queer men and women who I really look up to- I know they are out there, but those kinds of people are often ignored. Until media can do better, at least this play was accurate and honest.
And I liked it. On one hand, I can understand why most queer folk don't want to be represented by Matt Crowley's characters, or would prefer to be fictionalized in a more "positive light". However, what I liked so much about it was that it was an extremely accurate portrayal of the gay life that I've been exposed to for the last 20 years. ALL of those characters EACH remind me of AT LEAST A DOZEN gay men that I have known then and now. To this day, there are men re-enacting those stereotypes, no matter how much I complain about them. (And when I complain, some one tells me, "those stereotypes are there for a reason") Well, my complaining is really more like loud wishing that there was some thing else out there than what the mainstream gay community has to offer. Even most "radical queer" men are the exact same, but with a different style of clothing according to their financial means and pretense to alternative politics (meaning: whatever notions are "avant-garde popular" at the time).
I watched the entire five seasons of "Queer As Folk" (US version), and found those people a little less real than Mart Crowley's "Boys", and in many cases more offensive.
In all the queer movies/tv shows I've viewed and novels I've read, I'm having a very hard time finding any positive role models, and only a few that I sympathize with or admire, outside of "Dykes To Watch Out For". And before I am accused of internalized homophobia, I have to say that I have indeed met a few queer men and women who I really look up to- I know they are out there, but those kinds of people are often ignored. Until media can do better, at least this play was accurate and honest.
December 10, 2020
Featuring:
- What homosexuals were like in the past (little has changed)
- The way homosexuals cling to the facade of heterosexuality they might have. The way they agree to hide their homosexuality even tho they’re the majority (even allowing one of their number to be beaten up by someone that’s apparently heterosexual) is p telling. Compelling!
- The way the innocent and rather idealistic game of calling one’s first loves (effectively) turns nightmarish for our gay cast feels realistic and poignant because 😌 homosexual life is sad.
- I *did* like the surprisingly romantic resolution to Hank and Larry’s storylines.
- There’s a certain toxicity to these gays that I find rather ?? realistic too? Michael really shows this because he descends into racism and alcoholism when his plans fall through. But also it’s basically explicitly stated that it stems from internalised homophobia and discrimination from society, so it’s cool enough.
- I read it because I didn’t want to watch an entire movie on Netflix and honestly it probably wasn’t the worst choice.
- What homosexuals were like in the past (little has changed)
- The way homosexuals cling to the facade of heterosexuality they might have. The way they agree to hide their homosexuality even tho they’re the majority (even allowing one of their number to be beaten up by someone that’s apparently heterosexual) is p telling. Compelling!
- The way the innocent and rather idealistic game of calling one’s first loves (effectively) turns nightmarish for our gay cast feels realistic and poignant because 😌 homosexual life is sad.
- I *did* like the surprisingly romantic resolution to Hank and Larry’s storylines.
- There’s a certain toxicity to these gays that I find rather ?? realistic too? Michael really shows this because he descends into racism and alcoholism when his plans fall through. But also it’s basically explicitly stated that it stems from internalised homophobia and discrimination from society, so it’s cool enough.
- I read it because I didn’t want to watch an entire movie on Netflix and honestly it probably wasn’t the worst choice.
June 17, 2018
I haven't read this script in...well, let's just say a long time. I can see how some people would find it a tough read - there's a lot of self loathing in this story. It's pre-AIDS, pre-Stonewall. Things have certainly changed but as I read this, I was struck by how much they have also stayed the same.
Having said all of that, the play is also HILARIOUS. I laughed out loud a lot. It's also beautifully structured.
Anyone who writes gay fiction/plays/stories owes a debt of gratitude to Mart Crowley. We stand on his shoulders.
Having said all of that, the play is also HILARIOUS. I laughed out loud a lot. It's also beautifully structured.
Anyone who writes gay fiction/plays/stories owes a debt of gratitude to Mart Crowley. We stand on his shoulders.
July 16, 2019
Assisted with a local staged reading over the weekend. A good script, and I can easily understand how groundbreaking it might have been at the time of publication/original performance.
Some loosely-wired corner of my brain always confuses this with THE BOYS IN THE BOAT - with the end result being a flamingly-queer gold-medal-winning Olympic rowing team in Hitler's Berlin. Amusing, brain.
Some loosely-wired corner of my brain always confuses this with THE BOYS IN THE BOAT - with the end result being a flamingly-queer gold-medal-winning Olympic rowing team in Hitler's Berlin. Amusing, brain.
July 28, 2018
Brilliantly written and unapologetic, this is a realistic depiction of what friends are like behind closed doors and left to their own devices.
It is less of a time capsule and arguable more relevant than ever.
It is less of a time capsule and arguable more relevant than ever.
June 3, 2018
I'm cheating because I saw the movie and just saw the play (with Zachary Quinto, Andrew Rannells, and JIM PARSONS), but I've never read the play. The actors were amazing, but I think the play is troubled and it was clear that there were a lot of flaws the actors had to try to elide. Like why do all these gay men really want to be with straight men? Michael wants Alan, his old college pal; Larry is in love with Hank, the very straight seeming formerly straight buttoned up older teacher; Bernard yearns for the son of his old employer who is extremely closeted and serially marrying women; and Emory is still in love with a straight dentist he knows from high school. Donald is in therapy to understand why he is gay and blames his parents through some incomprehensible outdated logic. On the stage, the character that plays most real is Emory when he describes his humiliation at the hands of the dentist. The other problem with the play is that it feels like a set piece -- there is one of everything. As my husband said at the end, why are these people even friends? There is an explanation that they are the only out people they know pretty much. But you wish there were more clues to how they ended up friends in the first place -- how did they meet? Why did they click? The play was written before the AIDS epidemic so you don't have that shadow over everything, but they very cleverly put in foreshadowings using language from the play. Whenever anyone mentions being sick or someone else being sick, there is an emphasis that is chilling. And Harold is saving medication to end his life if it gets too bad. It is meant to show what a shallow pathetic neurotic person he is, but in the context of what we know it sounds like an intelligent escape strategy. If becomes when and you think not a bad hedge against the inevitable.
So I would give the performance five stars -- it is mesmerizing -- but the play itself is so profoundly flawed, even in the context of its time, that I have to give it three stars. Go see the show.
So I would give the performance five stars -- it is mesmerizing -- but the play itself is so profoundly flawed, even in the context of its time, that I have to give it three stars. Go see the show.
July 29, 2018
While reading this I could definitely picture actor Jim Parsons playing Michael (he did in the recent Broadway revival). In a way this story takes us down a short rabbit hole of how some straight people perceive gay men, and how gay men even perceive themselves. Be prepared for a few old movie quotes that some millennials might not get. Otherwise, a brilliant play of its time (late 1960s) and of now.
July 13, 2020
Basically, this is the gay dinner party from hell. Still as powerful today as it was when it was written and performed 50 years ago!
April 12, 2019
Wow! An excellent read. Spare, quick, witty and profound.
February 26, 2020
I love this play there are some funny asf oneliners!
December 8, 2022
this was so good!!!
January 20, 2026
My favourite play. I lost count of the amount of times I’ve rewatched and reread it.
”You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be, but there's nothing you can do to change it. Not all the prayers to your god, not all the analysts you can buy in all the years you've got left to live. You may one day be able to know a heterosexual life if you want it desperately enough. If you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you'll always be homosexual as well. Always Michael. Always. Until the day you die.”
”You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be, but there's nothing you can do to change it. Not all the prayers to your god, not all the analysts you can buy in all the years you've got left to live. You may one day be able to know a heterosexual life if you want it desperately enough. If you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you'll always be homosexual as well. Always Michael. Always. Until the day you die.”
August 18, 2018
I first saw the movie about 15 years ago. I remember walking away from the film wondering how these men could be friends after the horrendous ways they treat each other during a birthday celebration for one of the nine friends. The main character of Michael who is hosting the party is such a despicable human being that I wanted to seriously punch him out. I was very aware of how the film was viewed by many gay and lesbian people, but because I really didn't know the whole story, I went into the movie knowing nothing. That was a wise choice because while I found the characters and the story sad and tragic, I highly loved the film. I found it to be a snapshot of a certain time in America when many gay men were filled with self-loathing, where they could only be free within the confines of their own homes, and gay men often times were friends with people they didn't necessarily like but the fact of their being gay brought them together and kept them together.
Now 50 years later, Broadway was staging an anniversary staging with the unheard of casting of nine out and proud gay men filling out the roles. I knew I had to be there in New York to see the show. Once there, I bought the novelization of the play. What's really interesting is that this book contains two versions of the play - the new one act version and the original two act play. They are both very similar, but the new version has pared down some of the lines and removed some monologues. It still works, but I noticed when I was reading the original version I found myself flipping back and forth to see how things were changed.
The play is still powerful, upsetting, and funny as hell. It's so worth reading as a time capsule piece of art and literature.
Now 50 years later, Broadway was staging an anniversary staging with the unheard of casting of nine out and proud gay men filling out the roles. I knew I had to be there in New York to see the show. Once there, I bought the novelization of the play. What's really interesting is that this book contains two versions of the play - the new one act version and the original two act play. They are both very similar, but the new version has pared down some of the lines and removed some monologues. It still works, but I noticed when I was reading the original version I found myself flipping back and forth to see how things were changed.
The play is still powerful, upsetting, and funny as hell. It's so worth reading as a time capsule piece of art and literature.
March 11, 2025
I read this for my ENG2324 Homotextuality: Queer Literature in English class. It was an interesting read, that’s for sure
July 30, 2012
Written in the late 60ies, The Boys in the Band is a funny play with serious undertones. Michael is a self-loathing Catholic, who struggles with his sexuality, and takes his insecurities out on other people. This has both humorous and sad results. The play has been critizised for reinforcing gay stereotypes, but this could also be seen as Crowley's way of wanting to include and represent all gay men in their various incarnations. Truth be told, there are such people as the flaboyant, eternally irreverent Emory, the promiscuous Larry, and the self-hating Michael. But there are also straight-acting, monogamous men like Hank. The play makes some interesting points as well as raises some questions about gay identity, and is highly enjoyable.
September 21, 2014
Clearly a gay camp masterpiece, the play is marvelous in it's historic groundbreaking look at homosexuals as they "actually are." Of course, this play shows them at their bitchiest and high strung, and most will say it furthers unhealthy stereotypes about gay men. But to have a play with only gay men discussing their problems and actually NORMALIZING them is quite an achievement. I myself was very moved by the piece and think it an important one for any gay man or any person interested in studying gay history in America. Very brave. Very honest.
January 31, 2018
This play was just amazing. I decided to read it after watching the movie and I am blown away by just how raw the play feels. Crowley is able to craft a situation that explores the dark spaces in a gay man’s life with the utmost humor and wit. The ensemble of characters that he develops allows him to perfectly tackle the internalized homophobia, ambivalence towards commitment and the immense capacity for self-loathing that was, and can still be, part and parcel of the gay experience. I cannot stress how much I would recommend this play to any gay man.
April 2, 2017
Considering this play was written and produced in the 60s featured out gay characters is groundbreaking. I would love to see this done now as a lot of the issues faced are still prevalent today in the queer community. I'd love to see it also because there are so many people talking usually it got a bit confusing as to who was who, but overall I enjoyed this play. More people should know about it and why won't anyone produce it again? Let's do it!
July 3, 2017
I *adore* this play and I'll have nothing to do with the damned crinkum-crankum of 21st century LGBTs who hold disdain for its negative stereotypes and repeated (and hilarious) use of words like 'queen', 'nelly', 'fairy', 'fag', etc. It's a masterpiece. I reread it (or rewatch the film) almost monthly (lately I've watched it weekly) and Crowley's original script is marvellous.
April 10, 2019
As heartbreaking to read as it was to watch on stage.
June 4, 2020
What's better'n this? Guys bein' dudes!
December 22, 2024
Finally READ my favorite play
You have to watch this play performed to really understand how beautiful it is. But the text does let you focus in on the foundation of these characters and relationships that are truly the only driving force of this play. I don’t think this play is… groundbreakingly composed. It’s quite simple, although I do appreciate how Michael takes on a narrative role in the 2nd Act. That being said, the content is ground breaking… EVEN. STILL. TODAY. I crave complex and problematic queer representation, and this play, from 1968, scratched that itch that we still haven’t mastered in modern queer media.
I tabbed this book because it has so many good one liners and quips between characters. My favorite line is easily:
HAROLD: Who is she? Who was she? Who does she hope to be?
He is referring to the homophobic straight man who has been trapped at this party by Micheal. Reading the play really made me appreciate that Emory-Bernard & Larry-Hank subplots. The content is so important, dialogue that we still haven’t digested in the queer community, AND THIS 1968 PLAY LIES IT ALL ON THE TABLE. We must not get complacent in our pride.
MICHAEL: If we could just learn not to hate ourselves so much.
You have to watch this play performed to really understand how beautiful it is. But the text does let you focus in on the foundation of these characters and relationships that are truly the only driving force of this play. I don’t think this play is… groundbreakingly composed. It’s quite simple, although I do appreciate how Michael takes on a narrative role in the 2nd Act. That being said, the content is ground breaking… EVEN. STILL. TODAY. I crave complex and problematic queer representation, and this play, from 1968, scratched that itch that we still haven’t mastered in modern queer media.
I tabbed this book because it has so many good one liners and quips between characters. My favorite line is easily:
HAROLD: Who is she? Who was she? Who does she hope to be?
He is referring to the homophobic straight man who has been trapped at this party by Micheal. Reading the play really made me appreciate that Emory-Bernard & Larry-Hank subplots. The content is so important, dialogue that we still haven’t digested in the queer community, AND THIS 1968 PLAY LIES IT ALL ON THE TABLE. We must not get complacent in our pride.
MICHAEL: If we could just learn not to hate ourselves so much.
March 15, 2021
Heartbreaking, mordant and desperately hopeful. I'd be a more complete fan of this play if its protagonist didn't trade in racial pejoratives to make certain points, but I can't say that that is exactly dated; racism hasn't aged out, and what we might excoriate in public discourse still happens readily behind closed doors among friends and 'friends'. And the men you meet in this unsettling narrative *are* friends. There's so much bad behaviour here that I think it must sting for readers and viewers who see the same in themselves, who know they're no better with the lights off and the drinks downed. That, too, is the point, how much we can't hide from ourselves.
This play is dark and funny and it will fuck you up, at least a little. It's good. Go be with it.
This play is dark and funny and it will fuck you up, at least a little. It's good. Go be with it.
September 12, 2020
I have a strange relationship with this play. As a gay man in 2020, it's hard not to feel bad for these queer men that treat each other so bad. That doesn't mean that it's difficult to feel empathy for them. Society makes us outcasts that sometimes don't know how to handle self-indulged hate that is the product of all the things that we heard about the LGBTQ+ community while growing up.
As a play, I think that the two acts are really different from one another, and that transition isn't as smooth as I would want to. But I don't know. I still feel intrigued by this story thanks to its humor and the complexity of its characters. Maybe we don't see happy gay men on stage, but that could make us think why so many queer men are that unhappy.
As a play, I think that the two acts are really different from one another, and that transition isn't as smooth as I would want to. But I don't know. I still feel intrigued by this story thanks to its humor and the complexity of its characters. Maybe we don't see happy gay men on stage, but that could make us think why so many queer men are that unhappy.
January 6, 2023
I can’t even begin to articulate just how impactful this play is half as eloquently as Tony Kushner did in the introduction…all I know is that this is the type of literature that leaves you reeling as you chew on what you have read. So many powerful quotes. I’ve already seen the movie a million times and yet the quotes still hit me like a truck as I was reading this—even more so with the addition of being able to pay attention to character’s interactions via stage directions. okay.
(note that this play uses a lot of homophobic slurs/jokes—both jokingly and seriously—uses racial slurs, and makes quite a few racial jokes)
(note that this play uses a lot of homophobic slurs/jokes—both jokingly and seriously—uses racial slurs, and makes quite a few racial jokes)
January 9, 2024
this was something I had to read for school, and I had absolutely no idea what I'd think of it, but honestly I enjoyed every second of this! it was messy and toxic and half the characters sort of sucked, but it was fun, and it was compelling, and there was something about it that just felt true somehow
February 9, 2021
I admit that I had only seen the original movie, the new movie, and the Broadway production but I had never read this play. The introductory remarks from Tony Kushner are brilliantly helpful to contextualize everything that is celebrated and contentious about this work. Having both the Broadway version and the original version together in one volume gives a different sense of pacing and drama, comparing the two. But the sharp wit and devastating emotion are all still there. I’m glad I finally came to terms with a work that is so legendary.
January 5, 2021
2021 52 Book Challenge
32) A Character Who Is Selfish
Honestly, I don’t think I can accurate describe how much I love this book.
32) A Character Who Is Selfish
Honestly, I don’t think I can accurate describe how much I love this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews