Community Reviews

Rating(4.1 / 5.0, 80 votes)
5 stars
32(40%)
4 stars
23(29%)
3 stars
25(31%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
80 reviews
April 26,2025
... Show More
Spoilers!
Holy cow. How have I missed this play before??

Upon the first reading of all three in a row, I was absolutely FLOORED by how much I connected to this story and felt for our main character, Arnold. The first show opens in Arnold’s drag bar (The International Stud ) and has a few monologues from both he and his new love interest, Ed. Arnold immediately endears himself to the audience by not being a caricature of a gay man or a drag queen. He is a balanced, fully fleshed-out character that skates a fun line between his constant witticisms (“Try as I may, I just can’t walk in flats”) and painful truths. He does not see himself as particularly stunning (“I will never be young and beautiful”), but he is a romantic. I typically am not a fan of long monologues in plays because I find it does not always do the pacing any favors, but I have yet to stumble across such masterfully crafted ones as here.

The first moment of heartbreak occurs on a painful phone call to his (now ex) lover, Ed, though it seems clear from the beginning that Arnold knows exactly how this call will go. Ed struggles through the entire trilogy with his sexuality and what it means to be an out gay or bisexual man in the 1970s. Arnold calls him out on his secret shame, proclaiming that he knows Ed isn’t scared for his parents to meet Arnold- “...you weren’t scared for them to meet me. You’re scared they’ll meet you.”

Facing who he is and what he wants is Ed’s inner turmoil, but his unwillingness to introduce Arnold to the people in his life is a choice they can not move forward from together. Towards the end of this painful scene, Ed asks Arnold what he is thinking, and is met with the deeply sad line, “I am thinking about how it feels to be a no one in the life of someone you love.”

Arnold tries to move forward in the arms of other lovers in the backroom of the club, a place he had sworn to himself never to go. And again, has a hilarious and tragic monologue while engaging in full-blown intercourse with a man who doesn’t know his name (and never speaks to him). The disconnect of Arnold’s deep desire for true intimacy and love is at war with his need to feel wanted in this moment. He tries to foster some sort of connection within the dark shadows of the backroom, the stranger thrusting behind him. He remarks candidly- “You know, I really like you. Maybe that’s a stupid thing to say in a place like this.”

In the final scene of Act 1, Arnold holds his ground as Ed returns to confront him. He has grown during these months apart and accepted that they can’t go backwards, only forward- “I have never done time in the closet and I sure as hell ain’t gettin’ in one for you.”

Part 2 (Fugue in a Nursery) picks up a year later to introduce us to Ed’s female partner, Laurel, and Arnold’s new 18-year old boytoy, Alan. Laurel, to my surprise, enters as a fun foil for both Arnold and Ed to play off of. The way Ed describes her initially presents the character as an unattractive dullard, who is no more than a “safe” way for him to hide under the guise of a heterosexual relationship. But Laurel comes in straight out the gate to invite her lover’s ex (Arnold) and his new partner to their farm upstate for the weekend. In fact, she almost revels in the situation. She remarks to Ed, “Imagine being a hostess to your lover’s ex and his new boyfriend. Now if that isn’t civilized then what is?” She is a force of nature in her own way.

The four of them begin a very complex dance over the course of this segment where we see every combination of pairings, testing the waters and their individual boundaries. Alan is young and naive, fighting for the same love and attention from Arnold that Arnold once did with Ed. He continually asks Arnold why he loved Ed (but doesn’t love him), and Arnold responds yet again with such a universal human truth- “Because…I did. Because...he let me.” What is a more honest way to describe why you love someone?

Ed ends up seducing Alan in the barn, making him believe that the terms of their open relationship allow for this, while Arnold and Laurel form an unlikely friendship of their own. This portion of the play dances around some poly concepts, to which Arnold remarks “I can’t tell with these “Make ‘em up as you go along' rules. Monogamy’s a much easier system to keep track of.” Though we know he deeply yearms for a true love connection, he is still sexually engaging with the man in the backroom of International Stud. Part 2 concludes with the couples still firmly intact, Laurel and Ed are engaged to be married and Arnold and Alan have signed a contract to adopt a dog together.

The third and final installment (Widows and Children First!), continues their story five years down the road. We learn quite quickly that Ed is now separated from his wife and sleeping on Arnold’s couch, and that Alan has died. In this installment, we meet Arnold’s mother and his new, soon-to-be adopted son, David. David’s witty banter is a carbon copy of his new father’s and he more than keeps up with the adults in the room. He is non-stop quips and wisecracks, but also seems to be the only person that truly “gets” Arnold. Paralleling the technique of the revolving door in part 2, all the characters find little moments to interact just the two of them. We gain far more insight into the nuances of their relationships through this fast-paced scene structure.

Arnold and his mother’s relationship starts in a light-hearted, fun realm. The traditional Jewish mother nagging her son, making latkes, and criticizing his place. But, their conversations quickly get heated as she sneers over his loss of Alan, deeming it substandard to the loss she felt at his father’s death. Her lack of understanding of love in all its forms is clear as Arnold points out how alone he has felt- “You have thirty-five years to remember, I have five. You had your children and friends to comfort you, I had me!” It’s not about comparing pain, but her invalidating their love as if it is less meaningful or genuine than her heterosexual marriage. It all comes to a head as he screams at her and we find out the horrific, violent truth of Alan’s death. He condemns his mother for being part of the problem, her and people like her who believe they are different- “Cause everyone knows that queers don’t matter! Queers don’t love! And those that do deserve what they get.”

His mother grows increasingly cruel, claiming that he was the source of his father’s illness and that had she known that he’d be gay, she would not have bothered bringing him into the world. We see finally why Arnold is so desperate for the same unconditional love and acceptance he gives others, he has never had it before. In her mind, he is sick and can not be trusted to raise a healthy child.

Ed reveals his true feelings for Arnold to David, who encourages him to go after Arnold one last time. Arnold again laments about the new dynamic they are proposing, cohabiting men in a relationship with an adopted gay son (“I don’t even know what this is supposed to be. I can’t exactly buy a book or study some Reader’s Digest article that’s gonna tell me.”). Not being able to legally marry or even legitimize their relationship to their families is a tragedy in and of itself.

Arnold’s core principles are love and acceptance, which he uses as a guide throughout his life and in raising his new son. There is no one way to be a man anymore than there is one way to have a good relationship. Even today, 50 years later, people who do not fit society’s molds are still ostracized and discriminated against for any kind of alternative lifestyles. But when we truly respect and love ourselves, as Arnold does by the final show’s completion, what the rest of the world thinks pales in comparison. He is older now, knows his worth, and is grateful for the people in his life that accept him as the deeply funny, loving, beautiful queen he is. Five stars for a reason ya'll.

“I guess a drag queen’s like a oil painting: You gotta stand back from it to get the full effect.”

April 26,2025
... Show More
*4.5
i first saw this as a play in käfigturm theater in bern, im german. i loved it. i think it is the newer, abbreviated version, or maybe the shortened one that is not in this book? defs not the three one act plays though.
anyways, i think this is great. it is heartfelt brutal and kind and evil and lovely and nasty.
i don't quite feel it's my place to say too much about this, as i have no experience whatsoever relevant to what this story tells. there are things that are icky about it (like alan being underage when he and arnold meet, ed's red flags), but then it's like 40 years old. i was amazed when i realised harvey fierstein is the gay uncle from mrs doubtfire.
the fight with ma in the end is brutal.
i felt like the shortened version didn't do laurel justice.
but i wish i had a family like david finds at the end.

well this was a ramble, but it won't get amy more coherent tonight :)
April 26,2025
... Show More
Wow. This was the most beautiful, real story I've ever read. I was 20 when the movie came out and didn't even know it was first a play. I enjoyed the movie and since I've been in a play-reading state of mind, scooped this up for nostalgia's sake. Who knew that this was so phenomenal?!?! I guess the Tony Awards did when they awarded this Best Play so many years ago.
These days, Mr. Fierstein is so involved with hit musicals, but even 30 years ago, the man knew how to craft a touching, hysterically funny, heartwarming, sad, rewarding story about a man who just wants to be loved. Is that so wrong?
April 26,2025
... Show More
Heartbreaking, moving, inspiring and true. It has been a revelation, and has been keeping me guiding, provoking and comforting me through the last 15 years.
April 26,2025
... Show More
I'm not qualified to rate this, as I've not read enough plays nor am I an urban gay male. But I found it melodramatic and simplistic. So... I would say, no, it doesn't have universal appeal. Still, since it's brief, accessible, and predates AIDS, I admit that it has historical relevance. And I've no doubt that it speaks Truth to many. Let me just say, thank you to all activists and voters who are helping everyone to realize that people are people, love is love, and family is family, no matter the flavor.
April 26,2025
... Show More
A witty and thoughtful representation of a very specific period in gay history and the ideas of different ways of being a family, whether those involved are gay, straight or bi. There are lots of little truths hidden in what the characters say to each other, and plenty of humour.

I am currently in between seeing the two parts of Angels in America at the National Theatre and it's interesting to some extent to compare the two since they are set probably less than a decade apart in what might well be pretty much the same New York scene. There is more dividing them though than the intervention of HIV, all-encompassing as that was. Torch Song Trilogy is far smaller in focus and more personal, in terms of thinking about relationships between individuals: lovers, exes, parents and children. Angels in America seems almost to focus on where individuals fail to relate to each other, as well as touching far more on bigger picture politics. The former appeals to me more, although that's not to say it's necessarily a better play.

In fact, I would resist judging it at all based on reading on paper: I'm not really a fan of reading plays and only ever do it when one is selected for book club. At some points the cleverness of the scripting - four people having concurrent conversations, sometimes at different time points - made it quite difficult to understand on the page, but I would say it is certainly worth picking up if you can't see it on stage.
April 26,2025
... Show More
The love Fierstein has for his characters despite all their flaws and foibles makes these plays both affecting and delightful.
April 26,2025
... Show More
I don't typically read drama, but I had an absolutely blast with this book and was so easily able to visualize it (I have also never seen this performed). 4 plays in total (three that loosely follow each other and 1 that combines all three), my favorites were the first two in the trilogy, and was bummed that the second one probably received the most cuts in the final condensed version. But I love the interplay of dialogue, particularly in the second play, and how different conversations intersect each other. I imagine the blocking could have added a whole extra layer to those juxtapositions. From a queer perspective, I love how the subject matter in these books is somewhat counter to other queer books of the time, in the sense that it is more focused on the idea of queer romance and family as opposed to the radical exposure of sex. That said, it doesn't reject the prominence of sex in queer culture-- it just treats it as more matter of fact rather than trying to shock the reader with it (see: Faggots by Larry Kramer). This is a book I will buy a bunch of and give to my friends as gifts.
April 26,2025
... Show More
Edited and tightened up, this play still reads and well and is absolutely relevant!
The characters come alive and are complete relatable.
April 26,2025
... Show More
just finished the play and i feel like screaming. the last act was multiple punches to the throat. first act was sweet if unremarkable (for today, not 1978). the staging of the second was delightful but i did not enjoy the content much. it ended with unanswered questions. the third act... aauaaaaugh... i think Ma was incredibly well written and her homophobia & mindset cut daggers because they are so tangible. yet the play is hopeful. sad but sweet, as all aids era art seem to be.

i am also very grateful that i am reading queer writing from the (cusp of) the 80s that is for once from someone who is still alive.
April 26,2025
... Show More
Interesting read. Hoping to see the Broadway play in the future.
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.