Have you ever read a book and not know how you felt about it? That's my experience while sifting through Alexi Campbell's "The Pride" - a play set in two time periods, one the 1950's and the other more modern times. The book is bizarre, especially since the 1950's piece seems somewhat more interesting. Though, not by much. The story kind of drags, but I suppose that's to be expected in a play. Especially one with homosexual content where you want the readers or viewers of the work to be moved emotionally, which ultimately takes time.
If I wasn't used to reading plays (remember my wondeful work with
The Rivier Theater Company?), I probably wouldn't like "The Pride" very much. As it happens, I'm slightly into it. It's also a pretty quick read, and in dramatic stage setting terms wouldn't be that hard to produce; you would just need to find three characters to play the lead parts and learn a buttload of lines. I also think the female character, who plays an important role in the '50s story as the wife of a gay man, is a little forced in the modern version; she supposedly has one of those co-dependent relationships that gay men and straight women form that are always doomed to fail. Hmmm... maybe I'm being oddly pessimistic there? Anyway, she's just not that interesting in the modern version but then, none of the characters are. Had this book stuck to one time period, I may have liked it more. It also makes it slightly confusing, what the the characters in the past and in the future having the same names and all. Still, I'm not sad that I read it, and I might even recommend it to someone looking to do an offbeat and bizarre play.
Also, is it just me... or does "The Pride" seem like a really bad a title?