4 of 11 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The Woman Who Cooked Her Husband (Paperback)
The first thing I will say about this play is that the grammar is thoroughly appalling. And this is an issue that recurs throughout the text. If you have no patience for this sort of thing then I would strongly advice you stay well away from it. For a published play, this sort of thing should not happen. Monologues written entirely in block capitals and multiple exclamation marks leaves one wondering how exactly the author envisioned the piece originally be portrayed. I believe that such an apparent difficulty in conveying subtext through ill use of grammar may point to a very shallow understanding of human emotion - which certainly does not bode well for a play of this nature.
Isitt also seems quite undecided as to the message of the play in several places. Whether Isitt had penned a tale of feminism or wanted women to see how it was their own folly that brought about the undesirable behaviour in their male partners (which is brave indeed) I am still quite uncertain.
However, there are a lot of good monologues for women. There are at least a few that would make for acceptable audition pieces.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Dec 2010 04:13:46 GMT
Bryan Johnston says:
hahahah it's a play meant to be performed and heard, not solely read, how many people speak in perfect grammer all the time - none. CAP's lock monologues may indicate the person is shouting - you hate this one - try and read some of Sarah Kanes work.
Posted on 25 Oct 2012 03:31:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Oct 2012 03:33:25 BDT
Drama Queen says:
How can you criticise grammar when you don't know the difference between advice and advise?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›