What a truly remarkable play this is!

My absolute favorite character is Roma. He is just so hilarious, bringing a great deal of entertainment to the story.

Levene, on the other hand, reminds me strongly of Willy Loman. He is deluded, living firmly in the past rather than facing the present. It's quite a sad state of affairs really. He believed that the only way he could get back to the top was by lying and cheating Mitch and Murray.

Also, when he thought he had landed the biggest deal that would put him right back where he thought he deserved to be, at the very top of the list to win that free Cadillac, it must have completely shattered him inside when Williamson delivered the bad news that it was not a sale at all.

Anyway, overall, I really, really enjoyed reading this play. I simply couldn't put it down. I have a newfound appreciation for Mamet's style of writing. This is the first work of his that I've read, and it has left a lasting impression on me.

If you ever find yourself thinking that your job is bad, then you should definitely read Glengarry Glen Ross. In fact, it would be even better if you could watch the incredible 1992 movie adaptation. This movie is extremely faithful to the play, right down to every single pause and "hmm". However, Mamet did add the famous "set of steak knives" scene with Alec Baldwin, which has become quite iconic.

Personally, I have a great love for reading plays. The reason for this is that in a play, everything is stripped away except for the essentials. All you have is a setting and the dialog. This allows the imagination to run wild and be completely free. There is no need to wrestle with the author's description or interpretation. You can simply let your mind create the world and the characters based on the words on the page. It's a truly immersive and engaging experience.

The saddest part of rereading this play for the first time in about 20 years is that it doesn't include the fantastic speech by Alec Baldwin from the film. I bet I had the exact same thought when I read it the first time. I saw the movie when I was like 12 and well, I can't say I really understood what was happening, and especially what "leads" were, but I liked a lot of what I was seeing. It's one of those movies where you can just tell a bunch of actors are acting the shit out of things.

The play is based on David Mamet's experiences as a salesman in the late 1960s. And I am sorry if you are in sales, but it just seems like the most miserable job in the world to me. It is often filled with some real... well, characters. The play is set on the day of a sales contest, where the top salesman of the day will receive a bonus. There's a sense of desperation going around the office. Things are dire for Shelley, an older salesman who used to be very successful but is now in a slump. They're also bad for Moss and Aaranow, who believe things are being divided evenly in the office. So they hatch a plan to rob the office, taking the leads and anything else of value and selling it to a competitor. A final thread in the play is Ricky Roma, the best salesman in the company. He is closing in on a sale but has to deal with a customer's hesitation. Central to all of this is John Williamson, the office manager whose job is to distribute the leads according to the directives from his superiors.

It was truly a challenge for me to completely envision the characters merely by reading the play in its written form.

I am extremely eager to witness how the live play would bring these characters to life and offer its own unique interpretations.

Although the characters seemed a bit incomplete or lacking in some aspects for me, I still found them to be remarkable.

The story itself was presented in a fast-paced manner, which kept me highly engaged from start to finish.

I am now eagerly looking forward to watching the movie adaptation, hoping to gain a different perspective and further immerse myself in this captivating narrative.

It will be interesting to see how the movie directors and actors bring the story and characters to the big screen and whether they will be able to capture the essence and excitement that I felt while reading the play.

I have high expectations for the movie and cannot wait to experience it.

I really hated it.

It was a truly unpleasant experience that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Every moment of it felt like a struggle, and I couldn't wait for it to end.

The thing that I hated the most was the way it made me feel.

It was frustrating, annoying, and just plain miserable.

I tried to find some redeeming qualities, but there were none.

It was a complete waste of my time and energy.

I will never forget how much I hated it, and I hope to never have to go through something like that again.

This is an extremely engaging play that I simply could not put down.

It essentially delves into two days within the highly stressful lives of high-end real estate salesmen.

The entire play revolves around them constantly arguing and yelling at each other, with the plot gradually unfolding in this intense atmosphere.

I assume it's similar to any other play in that regard, but it has its own unique charm.

Reading this play was a truly great experience.

Now, I am eagerly looking forward to seeing the movie adaptation.

I wonder how the filmmakers will bring this vivid and intense story to the big screen.

Will they be able to capture the essence of the characters and the tension of their interactions?

Only time will tell, but I have high hopes for it.

Wow. Move over House of Leaves! This is truly the worst thing I’ve read all year.

It is borderline nonsensical. The six characters in this play all seem to have the exact same personality and they talk and swear as if they are sixth graders who just learned to curse for the very first time. I have never before come across such poorly written characters in a Pulitzer Prize winner. It’s truly astonishing.

I’m actually convinced that this serves as proof that white men can produce subpar work and still receive awards for it. There is simply no way that there were no other better entries for the year this play was written. I refuse to believe that this was the “best” of anything, aside from perhaps being the “best” worst play of all time.

The writing in this play is so disjointed and the ellipses are misused to an extreme extent for no apparent reason. It definitely gives the impression of being written by a cishet white man trying to appear prophetic or deep. I can’t name a single character, moment, or anything else that was in any way well written.

I couldn’t even begin to tell you what the plot was because it was just that badly written. At least with House of Leaves, I could give you a basic plot overview.

Do you have a desire to read one of the worst plays of all time? Well, here it is! By the end of this, you’ll be pleading with someone to read you Shakespeare instead!

**"F-Bombs: A Look at Their Impact and Usage"**

In today's society, the use of "f-bombs" has become a somewhat common occurrence.

These explosive words can have a powerful impact, both positive and negative. On one hand, they can be used to express strong emotions such as anger, frustration, or excitement. For example, when someone is really passionate about a particular topic, they might let out an "f-bomb" to emphasize their point.

However, on the other hand, the overuse or inappropriate use of these words can be offensive and disrespectful. It can create a negative atmosphere and damage relationships.

It's important to be aware of the context in which we use such language and to consider the feelings of others. While it may seem liberating to use "f-bombs" at times, we should also strive to communicate in a more respectful and appropriate manner.

By being mindful of our language, we can build better connections with those around us and create a more harmonious environment.

So, the next time you feel the urge to drop an "f-bomb," think twice and consider if there might be a better way to express yourself.

I remember being deeply impressed by the movie adaptation of this modern classic and thoroughly enjoying reading the stage script.

Inspired by Mamet's own experiences working in an office where he sold risky investments to gullible customers, the play Glengarry Glen Ross is a unique blend of tautness and rambling.

There is a captivating story that unfolds against the backdrop of the most intense and desperate competition among salesmen. Two of them will be handsomely rewarded, while two others will face the harsh reality of being fired. Their work is a constant struggle, both money-grubbing and insecure, which prompts their long and rambling rants of self-justification and delusional individualism. These rants are laced with the kind of unsubtle pleading and conspiracy that one might expect to find in a school playground.

Aside from Mamet's personal lived experience, the antecedents of Glengarry Glen Ross (the title has a connection to real estate developments) are quite clear. Shelly Levine is essentially a more hard-edged version of Willy Loman from Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. Just as Willy pleaded with Howard, Shelly pleads with Williamson, but at the same time, he lays into him for his lack of front-line experience. This is a raw and harsh portrayal of capitalism, especially considering its negative impacts on Levine's customers. At one point, he even acknowledges that he is selling people something they don't really want.

Overall, Glengarry Glen Ross offers a fascinating and thought-provoking look at the world of sales and the cutthroat nature of capitalism.

Audiobook #10

I have always been a big fan of the movie. It left such a profound impression on me that I was determined to explore the original play, whether by reading it or listening to it in the form of an audiobook. Finally, I got my hands on the audiobook of the play.

After listening to it, I have to say that the play is indeed solid. It has its own charm and merits. However, in my personal opinion, the movie is still so much better. The movie has the ability to bring the story to life in a more vivid and immersive way. The visual and auditory effects in the movie enhance the overall experience and make the story even more engaging. While the play has its own beauty, it lacks the added dimension that the movie provides. Nevertheless, listening to the audiobook of the play has given me a deeper understanding and appreciation of the source material, and I am still glad that I took the time to listen to it.

I have never witnessed this play or its movie adaptation. And truly, it was not in the slightest what I had anticipated solely based on the title.

I suspect that this satire would have made a far greater impact in the theater compared to its written form. The reason being that the characters' speech patterns were frequently rather difficult to comprehend in the written format. They would often break off mid-sentence or repeat phrases, which made it a bit of a challenge for the reader to follow the flow of their conversations.

Perhaps in a live theatrical performance, the actors' expressions, gestures, and the overall stage presence would have enhanced the understanding of these unique speech patterns and added more depth and nuance to the satire. It's a pity that I couldn't experience it in that context to fully appreciate its true potential.

Nonetheless, it has still given me food for thought and made me realize the importance of considering different mediums when evaluating a work of art.

I didn't even have a clue about what they were selling throughout the whole process.

Moreover, the entire event took place within an office environment.

It was truly not an enjoyable experience for me.

I found myself completely lost and confused, not being able to understand the purpose or the nature of the products they were trying to promote.

The office setting added an additional layer of discomfort, perhaps due to the formal atmosphere or the unfamiliar surroundings.

Overall, it was a rather disappointing encounter that left me with a negative impression.

I hope to avoid similar situations in the future and have more fulfilling experiences instead.