The concept of a "literary prize for best dysfunctional family" is an interesting and unique one. It could potentially recognize and celebrate the complex and often chaotic dynamics within families that are depicted in literature.

Such a prize would encourage authors to explore the darker and more troubled aspects of family life, shining a light on the hidden dramas and conflicts that exist beneath the surface.

It would also give readers a chance to engage with these stories and gain a deeper understanding of the human experience within the context of family.

By awarding this prize, the literary community could highlight the importance of representing diverse family structures and experiences, and encourage more nuanced and realistic portrayals of family in literature.

Overall, a literary prize for best dysfunctional family has the potential to be a valuable addition to the literary landscape, promoting creativity and innovation in the exploration of family relationships.

Cold weather can have a significant impact on our daily lives.

It makes us bundle up in thick coats, scarves, and gloves to stay warm.

The cold can also affect our mood, making us feel sluggish or even a bit down.

In addition, it can cause various health problems such as colds, flu, and joint pain.

However, there are also some positive aspects of cold weather.

For example, it gives us the opportunity to enjoy winter sports like skiing, skating, and snowboarding.

It can also make the scenery look beautiful, with snow-covered landscapes and frozen lakes.

Despite the challenges, we can take steps to stay healthy and comfortable during the cold season.

We can dress appropriately, eat a healthy diet, and get enough exercise.

We can also find ways to enjoy the cold weather and make the most of this unique season.

So, while the cold may be inconvenient at times, it can also bring some wonderful experiences and memories.

Meet the Brothers

13 - 14 August - London


This is likely a very London play to read while I'm in London. Currently, I'm not actually in the city but sitting on a train hurtling along at around 300 kph (or perhaps a bit faster). I had intended to sit in a café and write this while waiting to board the train. However, passport control was in complete chaos, and I only managed to reach my seat with a mere 10 minutes to spare. I suspect this might be related to half the flights in Europe being cancelled. Additionally, the wifi on this train is rather糟糕 (and I also notice that half of them don't allow the use of VPNs to connect, which somewhat defeats the purpose of a VPN).


Anyway, this play feels quintessentially London, although the works of Harold Pinter are vastly different from those of William Shakespeare. Both can be quite dark, but I sense that many modern plays end up competing with television, leading directors to go to extremes. This could be a stage that simply consists of seats, like in the version of The Seagull that I saw recently, or it could be some form of modern dance incorporated into the story of Julius Caesar.


Honestly, I don't think this play is either of those. We are told that it is set entirely in a north London house inhabited by three men: Max and his two sons, Lenny and Joey. Max's brother Sam also drops in occasionally. The action commences when Teddy, the third son, arrives in the middle of the night with his wife, Ruth. It turns out that none of them have met her, and in fact, none of them have seen Teddy in the six years he has been away from London.


One aspect I noticed in the play is that the characters are listed, but only their ages are provided, which I suspect is deliberate. The reason is that if the characters' relationships and occupations were revealed at the beginning, it would undoubtedly spoil the plot. I suspect that the occupations of some of the characters, particularly Lenny, whose occupation is never explicitly stated but only implied, would ruin the surprise.


I'm somewhat wondering whether this play is a drama or a comedy, and I would actually classify it as a comedy. I think this has a lot to do with the discussion that Lenny, Joey, and Max have about the role Ruth will play since she is going to stay in London instead of returning to New York with Teddy. What's really interesting about this discussion, despite Ruth's absence, is that it is entirely filled with innuendo. In fact, if you don't pick up on some of the hints early in the play, you will end up completely confused.


It is an interesting play, and the concept of the homecoming is that Teddy, who has left his North London working-class roots, decides to return after six years and immediately realizes why he left in the first place. The interaction between Ruth and Teddy is also somewhat intriguing. I don't get the impression that the marriage is a failure, but the suggestion is that Teddy is a bit of a pushover, which is why Ruth decides to stay with his family. The cigar scene seems to imply this as well.


One thing that stands out is that Ruth is the only female in the play, suggesting that the family has very little interaction with women. Well, they do, but only with one type of woman. It is interesting to see Max's reaction to Ruth's presence when he wakes up in the morning. It implies that really only one type of woman ever enters the home, and even then, Max doesn't actually want them around. In a way, he doesn't seem able to accept that Teddy has left his working-class roots.


Actually, that is definitely a theme - you don't betray your class. This isn't just an upper-class thing where they look down on the lower classes; there is also a lot of antagonism towards the intellectual and leisure classes. I suspect this is the main reason Teddy didn't want to return home and why it took him so long to do so - he had essentially become a class traitor. However, while Teddy went from the working class to the intellectual class, we see Ruth making the decision to become a member of the working class. In fact, I do get the impression that Teddy had been somewhat concerned that Ruth would leave him, while Ruth had been continuously pressuring him to take her back to his home (even though the kids remained overseas). It is a rather interesting play, and I suspect it would actually be quite cool to see it performed.

This play truly left a rather sour taste lingering in my mouth. It is extremely cleverly written, which is both its strength and, in a way, its drawback. I found act 2 to be particularly arduous to read. Interestingly, there are no blatant or explicit scenes of violence or abuse within the play. Instead, the discomfort that it induces is mainly crafted through the power of language and the inherent unpredictability of the characters. The way the words are strung together and the actions of the characters keep the reader on edge, constantly wondering what will happen next. It is indeed a smart play, with its intricate plot and well-developed characters. However, it is an uneasy read nonetheless. The unease stems from the fact that it forces the reader to confront uncomfortable emotions and ideas, making it a thought-provoking but somewhat unsettling experience.

Overall, while I can appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship that went into creating this play, it is not one that I would easily recommend to others. It requires a certain level of mental and emotional fortitude to fully engage with and understand.

No sé què acabo de llegir.

It seems like a jumble of words that don't quite make sense at first glance.

Maybe it's a random thought or a sentence that was cut off mid-stream.

But as I try to make sense of it, I start to wonder if there's some hidden meaning or message.

Could it be a code or a hint of something to come?

I find myself staring at these words, trying to decipher their significance.

It's a bit like a puzzle that I can't quite solve.

But despite the confusion, there's something intriguing about this mysterious phrase.

It makes me want to keep digging and exploring, hoping to uncover the truth behind it.

Maybe with a little more effort and some creative thinking, I'll be able to figure out what it means.

Until then, it will remain a mystery, waiting to be解开.

I have never been pleased with the theater that has declined. No matter what, when it comes to being accompanied by elements such as the precious classic style between humans and the non-aristocratic nature of gender, it has become just a nerve-wracking joke for me. The bitter play has also simply turned into such a joke. I hope it has become very little for the painter as well.

The theater that has lost its former glory seems to have deviated from its original path. Instead of presenting profound and thought-provoking works, it now often focuses on some superficial and vulgar elements. This not only disappoints the audience but also makes people question the value and significance of the theater.

I long for the return of the golden age of the theater, when it could touch people's hearts and inspire their souls with its excellent works. Maybe it's time for the theater industry to reflect on itself and make some positive changes to regain the trust and love of the audience.

What did I just read?

I must admit that I didn't have a positive experience with this piece. I really didn't like it at all. The characters' motivations remained completely unclear to me. I simply couldn't fathom what was driving them to do the things they did. As a result, I also had no understanding of what was actually going on in the story. It was all so confusing and disorienting that it just made me feel really bad.

Maybe, just maybe, if I had seen it performed instead of just reading it. Or perhaps I misinterpreted the meaning behind the words. But still, there was something undeniably creepy and weird about the whole thing.

I feel like in a well-written work, I should be able to clearly tell whether the father molested his sons or not. That should be a straightforward and obvious conclusion by the end, shouldn't it? Or does the fact that it's this ambivalent part of the play say something about me? Am I missing something crucial?

And that's really the crux of the matter - I just didn't really get it. I'm left feeling frustrated and unsatisfied, wondering what I might have overlooked or misunderstood.

This is the fourth Pinter play that I have read.

From my reading experience, I can firmly assert that he has an extraordinary ability to craft some exquisitely disturbing universes within the relationships among the characters.

This play is no different in that regard. Although the pace does slacken slightly at certain moments, it manages to maintain its overall momentum intact through the excellent and often fractured conversations between the characters.

The main essence of this play lies in its characters. However, it is also worth noting that this play reaches its zenith in the last scene when Ruth descends and the subsequent scenes (oh dear, did I perhaps give away a teensy bit of a spoiler?) unfold.

It is truly brilliant, that ending. Absolutely and undeniably brilliant!

Quite a few books that you read and movies and plays that you watched in your youth often have a tendency to disappoint when you reach a "ripe" or "mature" age. However, this particular play, which I had the opportunity to see on stage in London when I was eighteen years old, has not lost any of its riveting qualities even now, thirty-six years later, as I read it tonight within the space of less than two hours.

In just under a hundred pages, Pinter accomplishes the remarkable feat of transforming the grotesque into the plausible. He does this by bringing to life an eerily antisocial milieu in a way that is both captivating and believable. It is truly a remarkable achievement, and my hat goes off to him. "Chapeau"! This play continues to hold its power and charm, proving that some works of art are timeless and can still have a profound impact on us even after many years have passed.

Brilliant.

"Very few people in the world understand this play, and Harold Pinter refuses to let anyone in on his secret." Dr. Magidson told my class. "When I directed this play, a couple of people threw up."

The setting of this play is rather simple: a grown-up, educated man and wife visit his dad and brothers in the house where they grew up. However, right from the start, the reader realizes that even this simple plot is intertwined with this absurd "Waiting For Godot" like conversation.

A highlight of the absurdity is as follows: The dad treats the sons like animals. When the dad sees the wife, he shouts for her to leave, exclaiming, "There hasn't been a whore in this house since your mother died!" Moreover, the brothers try to "have their way with his wife" while the man watches.

This play is truly a must-read. It simultaneously fills you with marvel and disgust. It makes you question the very nature of human relationships and the absurdity that can sometimes exist within them. The unique style and the complex characters make it a captivating and thought-provoking piece of literature.

I recently reread this after having read The Birthday Party & The Room: Two Plays just a few days ago. It's truly a natural progression for both Pinter and the reader.

The shabby boardinghouses of the two earlier plays have now transformed into an old family home. The characters are more fully developed, and the dialogue is not only richer but also more and less nuanced. The woman remains a focal point, yet she no longer chatters to herself as the men in her life ignore her. Instead, she is reflective, quietly assertive, and silent when their sordid needs surface and they demand an answer from her.

I first read this for a class over thirty years ago. I have no recollection of what my 18- or 19-year-old self thought of it (or what I was instructed to think). I reread my now cover-less copy from that time and noticed I'd bracketed a few lines (even back then I detested the look of underlining or, worse yet, highlighting) and made a minimal number of notes in the margins. Next to a speech by Teddy (the homecoming son), I'd written \\"he's like Clov, not Hamm\\" - a reference to Beckett's Endgame, which perhaps I read for the same class.

This was the first Pinter I read, but definitely not the last. I consider him one of my favorite playwrights. So, something must have gone right in that course, regardless of what it was called and whoever the professor was. Maybe it was the old Jesuit priest from Ireland who also taught me Joyce. He adored James Joyce and disliked Joyce Cary. It seemed to me that we only read The Horse's Mouth so he could criticize it. Or perhaps it was me who didn't like Cary, or maybe it was because of him. Sorry for the rambling, as this is not one of Pinter's so-called memory plays, but even here truth is pliable and memory does not unlock it.

The Homecoming by Harold Pinter is a truly captivating play.

It presents a seemingly classic narrative that takes an unexpected turn into the realm of the absurd.

Unlike The Rhinoceros, it doesn't have strange beasts roaming the streets of London.

However, it does have moments where the "normal, common life" aspects transform into something otherworldly.

Max, the dominant character, is a former butcher who enjoys insulting and using violent language, only to become inexplicably reasonable later.

Sam, his brother, is a likeable car driver.

Lenny, one of the sons, initially appears intelligent and assertive but later reveals himself to be a pimp.

The arrival of Teddy and his wife Ruth after six years in America sets the stage for a series of strange events.

Max's foul mouth and bad temper make him a typical villain, and his suggestion to take Ruth into sexual bondage is both shocking and disturbing.

The characters are complex, with dark sides and even murderous tendencies in some cases.

Yet, they also have a surprising predilection for philosophical contemplation.

The play's ending, with Max wanting to keep Ruth and Lenny proposing she work as a prostitute, is absurd and open to interpretation.

Is it a commentary on the decadence of postmodern society or something else entirely?

It's up to the audience to decide.