This play has been described as “absurdist” by its own author and by the jacket of the book. That alone should have strayed me from approaching this. Any play I have read that claims to be “absurdist” is simply a masquerading term for “nonsensical” and “contrived”.
Other than brief sparks of dark humor that made me laugh out loud a couple times, I overall found this play very boring, muddled, and weird in not a very good way. Why do playwriters think they’re being creative by interrupting dialogue with weird instances of soliloquy or meandering monologues? I feel this only works if it’s used a mere once as a plot twist or to explain an occurrence of the past, but here, it’s used quite frequently, creating this confusing mish-mash of a plot(?) that was incredibly difficult to follow.
One of the references that made me laugh was in homage to Harold Pinter’s The Birthday Party. I feel that it doesn’t really count though since I felt quite bitter afterwards. It merely served as a reminder that I could be reading a much better, well-written play.
Here’s to hoping The Agony & The Agony provides for a better read. Otherwise, I’ll be avoiding Silver like the plague going forward.