Scan barcode
nipqueen's review against another edition
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
essentiallyene's review
challenging
dark
funny
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
nottclaudiasboat's review
2.0
Such a tough book to read... I just couldn't handle such strong scenes so I definitely know now that I won't be reading more in-yer-face theatre.
amandalina's review
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? No
1.0
emsemsems's review
3.0
“Rule number one. Never believe a junkie. Because a junkie is a cunt. And when a junkie looks you in the eyes and says ‘I love you’ that’s when you know he’s gonna fill you full of shit.”
Are all Ravenhill's plays like that? I'm still processing how I feel about it. Great concept, shabby execution. I actually appreciate how the play plays on the whole consumerist society, and how relationships are manoeuvred in a neoliberalist culture/society. It's smart enough but not mind-blowing. Surely, it can be done better. It reminds me of Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' (1998). It's a brilliant concept, but not much effort innit? And personally I'm just someone who appreciates effort is all.
“Pretty regular. The important thing for me right now, for my needs, is that this doesn’t actually mean anything, you know? Which is why I wanted something that was a transaction. Because I thought if I pay then it won’t mean anything. Do you think that’s right – in your experience?”
The 'age' thing bothered me. I feel like if one were to use that sort of thing in a work of art, it should be impactful/like contribute to the art/play in a significant way. I feel like if the 'age' thing was taken out of the play, it would not have changed the play much. So it made me think that (esp. because it felt so redundant) that was so careless - and a cheap/weak attempt to add some kind of 'shock' element to the play. I'm intentionally calling it the 'age' thing so that I don't accidentally give away too much.
“And I take you both away and I take you to my house. And you see the house and when you see the house you know it. You understand? You know this place.And I’ve been keeping a room for you and I take you into this room. And there’s food. And it’s warm. And we live out our days fat and content and happy.”
It is a rather dark and grimy play. I usually like that sort of thing (when it's done well), but this one just didn't deliver enough. It was okay, not bad. Would I recommend it? Probably not.
Are all Ravenhill's plays like that? I'm still processing how I feel about it. Great concept, shabby execution. I actually appreciate how the play plays on the whole consumerist society, and how relationships are manoeuvred in a neoliberalist culture/society. It's smart enough but not mind-blowing. Surely, it can be done better. It reminds me of Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' (1998). It's a brilliant concept, but not much effort innit? And personally I'm just someone who appreciates effort is all.
“Pretty regular. The important thing for me right now, for my needs, is that this doesn’t actually mean anything, you know? Which is why I wanted something that was a transaction. Because I thought if I pay then it won’t mean anything. Do you think that’s right – in your experience?”
The 'age' thing bothered me. I feel like if one were to use that sort of thing in a work of art, it should be impactful/like contribute to the art/play in a significant way. I feel like if the 'age' thing was taken out of the play, it would not have changed the play much. So it made me think that (esp. because it felt so redundant) that was so careless - and a cheap/weak attempt to add some kind of 'shock' element to the play. I'm intentionally calling it the 'age' thing so that I don't accidentally give away too much.
“And I take you both away and I take you to my house. And you see the house and when you see the house you know it. You understand? You know this place.And I’ve been keeping a room for you and I take you into this room. And there’s food. And it’s warm. And we live out our days fat and content and happy.”
It is a rather dark and grimy play. I usually like that sort of thing (when it's done well), but this one just didn't deliver enough. It was okay, not bad. Would I recommend it? Probably not.
annataeko's review
2.0
Can someone arrange a friendship between Cormac McCarthy, Mark Manson and Mark Ravenhill? I feel like they would get along quite well given how much their oeuvres have in common. It's very unlikely that I'd enjoy joining in, though.
Even though this is at first sight an uber-straight-forward and easy read, there is a sense of unity of effect closure wise. The play orbits around three main characters (and two more) who struggle to make ends meet. Although it presents a slice-of-life style, this is conveyed from the perspective of the underdogs in society. And because it does not specify the location, this can transcend to any first-world suburb.
Themes:
I'd highly recommend this book to be analysed in a Popular Culture or Ethics class.
Even though this is at first sight an uber-straight-forward and easy read, there is a sense of unity of effect closure wise. The play orbits around three main characters (and two more) who struggle to make ends meet. Although it presents a slice-of-life style, this is conveyed from the perspective of the underdogs in society. And because it does not specify the location, this can transcend to any first-world suburb.
Themes:
Spoiler
PTSD, capitalism, drug abuse, sex abuse (incest and paedophilia)I'd highly recommend this book to be analysed in a Popular Culture or Ethics class.