Customer Reviews

Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

I often read a book and then, once I've seen the author read from his own stuff, had to go back and read it again with a different tone of voice. That applies to this book. It's much funnier and rueful than I realize the first time.

It's also not recommended unless you have a dark sense of humor, and understand that it's not about Rent or Broadway really, but about some of the subtle ways that history gets revised by the winners. It's a brilliant book and I often had those moments of recognition where I got goose bumps reading a paragraph. Then I would laugh at the next paragraph.

I think that people who read this ONLY because they are fans of Rent will be mystified or offended. Rent is a moving show, but it IS sort of odd for urban gays - it's kind of like reading a Hitler biography devoted solely to his being a wonderful father and compassionate family man. . . It may be true, but you have to scratch your head and wonder how the author managed to completely avoid mentioning the holocaust even once in 1000 pages, and just what was his agenda in doing so.

It is clear that Ms. Schulman's book was completely stolen by Larson. However! As she points out, the theft of the plot is not really a problem, cause plot borrowing and character theft is common practice; what she regards as the sore spot is that, in stealing those elements, Larson inadvertently did the same thing that bigots and the media often deliberately do to gays and lesbians: in the same way that the winning side of a war gets to decide what version of the war goes down in history as the TRUE version, Jonathan Larson's made-up version of the AIDS epidemic will be written on most people's hearts as the true version, when in reality it is a powerful distortion of who and what actually happened - unfortunately wrapped in some excellent theater so it is more likely to burn into people's brains as the truth.

I didn't expect so much humor from a book that makes those sorts of points. I laughed repeatedly when reading this book, starting with the introduction.

Also, as I've come to expect with her books, Ms. Schulman manages to find the words to explain things I've always sensed but not been able to articulate. The section on marketing to gays (who, as she puts it, are still struggling with post-traumatic stress as a result of being raised in this society) was brilliant, and funny. An instance where she really stopped me in my tracks: when she compared gays and lesbians to a older relative of hers who was freed from a Nazi concentration camp and shortly afterwards had a small breakdown when trying to choose what color drinking glass to buy from a shelf of glassware that came in too many colors, sizes and shapes.

My advice to potential readers: Schulman is more like Sondheim than the Sound of Music. If you're a Broadway boy with a good heart and not much critical faculty, don't read it and you'll live happy. If you're a Broadway fan with a brain, you'll find it's not really about Broadway but rather an interesting tap dance on the subject of how things get twisted around. If you've got a political sensibility of any type, and maybe you're much older and wiser -- and you read the book with a tone of voice that's rueful and ironic much more than just angry, you'll love it. It brings out all the humor, which appears on every page, and makes me laugh even in public places.

People in Trouble were not one of my favorite novels of hers, but having read stage-struck, I now enjoyed it much more. Empathy is her funniest novel, but most experimental, and Rat Bohemia a truly angry ranting novel (and I mean it in the best Victor Hugo-if-he-were-a women sense of the word).

I'd recommend Shimmer as a more 'traditional' linear story line sort of novel - it's quite beautiful. I give this book 4 stars not because it's not wonderful, but because I liked Empathy better and so needed to keep one star extra if I ever review that book online. :-)

I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Sarah Schulman is a pioneer in the world of lesbian fiction. Schulman has written countless articles, novels, and non-fiction, yet still maintains her edge.

It doesn't matter whether or not RENT was taken from the pages of "People in Trouble." I think that is beside the point, even for Schulman. She uses her own personal experience to discuss the broader issues that face our society, and the gay movement as a whole.

Looking for "proof" for what Schulman suggests in her text? Proof can be found in our own lives as gay people: from the patriarchal system of gender roles and power that dominate our society, to the pandering for gay votes and gay money. Further proof exists in the writings of such scholars as Gayle Rubin and Urvashi Vaid, among others. Schulman's book should be used as a jumping off point for other things. The book itself is call to re-examine our inner homophobia, our subconscious desire to be "normal," and our ability to be manipulated by the mainstream. If one cannot recognize these things in one's daily life, then one is not looking.

Schulman shares TRUTH and, although that is hard for some to deal with, who's going to do it, if she doesn't.

Sarah Schulman certainly has a lot to be angry about and this book helps to explain why. Viewing another persons supposed "creation" only to learn it is very similar to your own work must be infuriating. Schulman makes very valid points throughout the text. After viewing "RENT" and reading "People in Trouble", I was able to see the similarities between the two. The book was not the script, but a mutation of an excellent piece of literature. Although "Stagestruck..." contained many fascinating and important arguments, the style was very difficult to follow. Schulman appears so engulfed in her anger that she can barely finish one sentence at a time. Grammatically speaking the book was disappointing. However, in Schulmans' defense I can not even begin to imagine the betrayl she felt when not only was an interpretation of her work put on stage, recieving phenomenal reviews, but also having her own work put out of print to seemingly silence her arguments. Having met Sarah Schulman in 1998 at an OUTWRITE conference, I believe she is not a babbling bitter person, but simply a strong, influential woman who has had her dreams squelched by an oppressive society.

Also, as I've come to expect with her books, Ms. Schulman manages to find the words to explain things I've always sensed but not been able to articulate. The section on marketing to gays (who, as she puts it, are still struggling with post-traumatic stress as a result of being raised in this society) was brilliant, and funny. An instance where she really stopped me in my tracks: when she compared gays and lesbians to a older relative of hers who was freed from a Nazi concentration camp and shortly afterwards had a small breakdown when trying to choose what color drinking glass to buy from a shelf of glassware that came in too many colors, sizes and shapes.

Blunt, well written, and not afraid to step on some toes! Ms. Schulman gives us a front-row view of the way our profit-crazed popular culture operates at the turn of the century. With all the sycophantic praise that has been heaped on RENT, it was high time someone looked at the darker side of what this show represents. This is crucial reading for anyone interested in the commercial arts (theatre, film, publisheing, etc.)and the way they can cynically co-opt a minority's viewpoint to fit their needs.

Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Having read "People in Trouble", I can't see how her book was used as a basis for RENT. Without that connection, the thesis of this book falls apart. She seems to be angry that a straight male wrote a hit play with gay charcters.

Oh Sarah you disappoint so!

I bought this book after hearing a snippet of an interview with Ms. Schulman on NPR. The prospect of getting the dish on how RENT was plagiarized and how RENT is emblematic of widespread dominant (hetero) culture co-option of homosexuality was too good to pass up.

So, I read the book. As a result, I was (1) insulted; (2) befuddled; and (3) bored -- not necessarily in that order.

INSULTED: Schulman indulges in repeated bashing of straight males (read: me), which is gratuitous. Name calling gets no one anywhere. She also insults her reader's intelligences. In several instances, she introduces clever and (I believe) original ideas but then suddenly drops them (saving her the difficulty of actualling developing her thoughts beyond the embryonic, bullet-point stage). Doesn't Schulman believe her readers deserve more? Sloppy editing in several areas -- including several typos -- irked me too.

BEFUDDLED: I could not sift through the myriad points, remarks, and asides of Ms. Schulman to get to what her message is. What is she trying to say? I found myself asking that question all the time... I found no answer.

BORED: In a (worthwhile) attempt to provide theatrical context for RENT, Schulman digresses into page after page after page of unspectacular writing about dull works that she only sometimes adequately brings to life for the reader. She drops unknown names and sprinkles soporific asides into this utterly painful part of her book.

Having said all that, I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that shes meanders from point to point.

As a self-professed RENThead, I'll be the first to admit that I may be biased. However, I did actually borrow this book from the library with a fairly open-mind. I started perusing the details of Jonathan Larson's alledged plagiarizing of "People In Trouble", a novel by Sarah Schulman, with the idea that it wouldn't matter to me if Larson DID steal the plot of RENT, the way the show reached me was enough. However, after reading halfway into "Stagestruck", I realized the absolute futility of keeping an open-mind: I didn't need to.

Schulman presents her case in this book as well as she probably could. Not only does she point out the similarities between "People in Trouble" and "RENT", she also relates the "fact" that straight writers cannot write about gay people; it is evident that all heterosexuals are deeply homophobic. She points out the virtues of gay playwrights and always bashes the white, straight, and male ones. In fact, Schulman's original review of RENT, though not the best, was positive to a certain extent ("Larson's heart is clearly with the queers" she wrote) but after finding out that Larson was NOT gay and did not die of AIDS, well, then of course RENT contains many obvious homophobic themes, among them, allowing the Angel, who is gay, to die but allowing Mimi, who is straight, to live.

But even if Schulman's allegations that RENT is gay-bashing and homophobic seem preposterous, there must be something said about her other, and more "important" belief. RENT is a blatant rip-off of her book, right? Well, maybe but not conclusively. While Schulman presents her case in such a way as to make it sound like the plot of RENT is exactly like "People In Trouble", in reality the similarities she points out are almost always just vague passing references in the actual novel and very often simply incorrect. Such mistakes may seem ridiculous, but there are enough misquotes from RENT and even characters who are named incorrectly in "Stagestruck" that make it seem obvious that Schulman has seen the show about once (if even) and did not bother to even find a copy of the script.

While there are many other preposterous allegations in "Stagestruck", they are too much to list here. Schulman's whiny prose is hard to sustain the reader, and her theory is trivialized by contradictions and bitter prejudice. The basic premise of the book is not ridiculous- Jonathan Larson may have lifted a few of the more unimportant details in "People In Trouble"- but Sarah Schulman's angry presentation of it is.