#i hope they play shakespeare.......

[imabiscuitinthousandworlds]

i'm going to he so fucking insufferae about theatre btw. just started my job at the theatre, with which i'm already obsessed bc their plays and stuff are just plain brilliant i could go on rants for hours and boy am i gonna know these plays by heart once i've sat through one half a dozen times. AND i joined a theatre class at school. with four other people but. i'm so incredibly motivated. i NEED. anyway it's tumblr y'all know i regularly go full obsessed nerd on things i am a Freak when it comes to these things and BOY is it gonna be Bad with the theatre

[paulandjohn]

John & Paul: A Love Story In Songs tells the story of the tempestuous, tender, intimate, phenomenally creative relationship between John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It’s about how two damaged young men merged their souls and multiplied their talents to create one of the greatest bodies of music in history.

It starts in 1957, when the two of them meet, before taking us through their rise to fame, stupendous success, acrimonious split and aftermath. I tell the story through songs, since it’s my belief that it’s impossible to understand the music of the Beatles except through the alchemy between John and Paul - and you can’t understand that alchemy except through the songs. John & Paul offers a whole new narrative of the Beatles; one which scrapes away the clichés in order to reveal the group and its two principals afresh. It’s a story full of joy, love, pain and pathos. But don’t take my word for it…

The first new Beatles story in decades - and the one that will make your heart burst.

Caitlin Moran

No writer has ever gotten to the heart of the John/Paul saga as brilliantly as Ian Leslie. This extraordinary book sheds light on a cultural mystery: how two nowhere boys from Liverpool formed a teenage bond that transformed the future, and in so many ways, invented it. John and Paul is a bold, original, empathetic revelation of why our world is still fascinated by this friendship-and still trying to live up to it.

Rob Sheffield

I’ve been working on this book for the last three years and it’s now pretty much done - we’re in the very last round of copy edits. It’s the best thing I’ve ever written and I can’t wait to share the whole thing with you. The notes section has been completed (I am so glad to say). The pages have been typeset. Most excitingly: we have a jacket design. Actually two, because John & Paul has two terrific publishers, one in the UK (Faber), one in the US (Celadon).

The Ruffian is deeply intertwined with John & Paul: A Love Story In Songs. The book sprang from a long piece that I wrote about McCartney on here back in 2020. It went so unexpectedly viral that I started to think, huh, what if…? I’d already been thinking, vaguely, of a book about the two of them, but now it seemed viable. I got a similar response to my piece on Peter Jackson’s Get Back, also published on The Ruffian. Those two pieces became my kind of standard for the book - I wanted the whole thing to elicit as powerful a response as they did.

It’s been a massive undertaking and without income from The Ruffian I simply wouldn’t have had time to do this story justice. Over the months to come, especially as we get nearer to publication, I’ll be sending J&P-related posts exclusively to paid subscribers. These will include pieces on the writing of the book, extra material I had to leave out, and perhaps some extracts. There will be other goodies too; my publishers have some exciting plans.

YOU CAN NOW PRE-ORDER ‘JOHN & PAUL’

Yes, it’s out there on the virtual shelves, waiting for you. And I would absolutely love you to pre-order (to those of you annoyed by this arguably redundant term, I apologise but it’s handy).

Every sale of this book counts but some sales count more than others. Pre-orders are simply more valuable to authors. Why? Because they move the algorithmic needles. The more orders a book receives before its publication date, the more prominence the retailers give it when it arrives, and so the better it does on release It’s all about the big mo. The prize is a spot on the bestseller lists in that first week. So let’s give it a go…

If you can afford it, please smash your preferred link and get your order in now (UK and US retailers below):

UK

Waterstones

Amazon

Foyles

Blackwells

U.S.

Amazon

Barnes & Noble

Bookshop

Audible

[sparklyshakespeare]

the case for hyper-femme hotspur

this is my tumblr blog and this is like kind of just what we do heresies

OK so basically okay so

first of all i think anytime there is a character who is so strongly associated with an extreme form of gender expression in our collective zeitgeist (i.e hotspur and hyper-masculinity) there’s something not only extremely fun to play with but incredibly valuable about analyzing the story from the opposite end of the gender performance specturm. also canonically there are like 3 female characters in 1h4 and that sucks. also also don’t you want to see hotspur in pink glitter? i know i do and this tumblr is not a democracy!!

in this hypothetical dream sparkly version of the play, both hotspur and worcester would be women. not played by women, i mean textually explicitly women. this is important!! 

worcester should be very nancy pelosi hillary clinton-esque in the way that this is a middle-aged woman who has been taught that to be successful in her field (politics) she will have to strip herself of most of her femininity and perform a certain level of masculinity in order to be taken seriously. this creates a whole other layer to the hotspur/worcester dynamic when all of a sudden this young, hyper-feminine woman is being taken more seriously and being given more praise than someone who has worked and fought through the bullshit and done it all “right”. she hasn’t earned her place, she hasn’t had to struggle - and worcester resents her for that. (there’s like a whole dissertation to be written about how much of 1h4 changes when only worcester is genderbent, i love you queen worcester you are everything not in this version here you kind of suck lowkey)

henry iv is just a misogynist he just kinda sucks but like this is something we all knew screw that guy

ok now we can talk about hal because i know hes like the one all you little gay people care about. 

to me, it’s never made sense why the Henriad is framed as hal’s hero’s journey. maybe it’s because i’m queer (i’m like actually positive that’s why), but leaving home and finding acceptance and family from a group of outsiders who society has deemed as worthless is the path i’ve watched so many friends walk. having to leave that and return to your shitty dad because “duty calls!” and THEN leaving behind and disavowing the same community that opened its arms to you? i don’t see that as an awesome coming-of-age about learning how to handle responsibility, that’s deeply, deeply tragic. and far farrrrr too true a reality for most members of our LGBTQ+ community here (Bible Belt). SO guess where this version of 1h4 is set!!!!!! anyways, its the Medieval Revival of the ‘70s in the Bible Belt south, the Boar’s Head is a gay bar, and hal is trans. 

hal is trans-masc in some way and this needs to be incredibly explicit (like pronouns pin with trans flag on costume explicit). and then when the news breaks, when “I’ll to the court in the morning.” (we’re cutting the text so this is where that scene ends. cool? cool. cool!), hal takes the pin off. it needs to be like A Moment. it should make me cry, and i cry really easily so that’ll probably be pretty easy to do, but this is a gut punch. 

oh and lady percy is still a woman, they’re gay, because i said so. blah blah blah because look hotspur and hal really were so alike all along and look hotspur is fighting so voraciously because she’s hungry for a world where she can openly and unabashedly be with the person she loves but ultimately because i love lady percy and i love lesbians and this play doesn’t need another man. but also because look hotspur is fighting so voraciously because she’s hungry for a world where she can openly and unabashedly be with the person she loves. worcester and vernon should also both be women and have the blossoming of a relationship but be a lot more discreet about it (worcester should be extremely hesitant). now we get a cool split between younger and older generations of activists in both the feminist and the gay rights movement oooo themes oooo motifs oooo lady gagita 

as far as hal/hotspur parallels go, it’s probably pretty obvious at this point. your dad constantly praising someone who represents, at least in his mind, the ideal concept of a woman, disappointed you can’t be more like her, all the while you’re coming to terms with the fact that you’re not a woman, but he’ll never see that, so what the fuck are you supposed to do?!? it’s a LOT! but i think there’s also something to be said about the less obvious parallel. which is that hyper-femininity is NOT an attempt at ideal polite womanhood or self-Stepfordization, hyper-femininity is in fact the extreme performance of womanhood in rejection of that. hyper-femininity is queer in nature (also hotspur quite literally has a wife but i guess hal wouldn’t be able to tell that just by looking at her) there’s something to be said about the moment hal and hotspur see each other, and then the moment hal and hotspur seeeeeee each other. and go hey, you’re just like me. this person who you’ve been constantly compared to and made out to be lesser than  because you dare to be deeply wildly madly truly you is in fact exactly the same. we’re the same. and oh my god, in another world wouldn’t it have been lovely to just like go dancing together? sucks it’s not another world now we’re going to gay fight each other i guess

[transsexualcoriolanus]

rereading hamlet and it really stands out in act 1 just how alone hamlet is. his only family is his mother and uncle, who completely refuse to acknowledge his depression, who he feels betrayed by. ophelia is being taken from him against his will because her father disapproves of the relationship. he desperately wants to return to wittenberg where he can see his friends, but his mother and uncle won’t let him. and when his best friend horatio comes to see him, he calls himself his “servant”, gives him his “duty”. hamlet tries to correct him throughout the scene - not servant but friend, not duty but love - desperately trying to form a connection with his friend and failing. his family look down on him for his depression, his friends fear him for his status, and he just wants to be treated as a normal person

[suits-of-woe]

the merry wives of windsor is the funniest shakespeare play purely in concept because the queen of shakespeare's entire country told him to write a play where falstaff fell in love and shakespeare did but he did not let that old man get a single bitch

[hamletunfortunately]

gonna ham post violently today

Have we ever EVER considered a Hamlet thats simply monotone? one that isn't screaming his emotions and crying in your face?

what about the Hamlet that only yells when hes truly angry? that just gets slightly aggressive body language and a stern voice when people annoy him?

maybe im just an idiot, maybe i just dont understand Shakespeare, but i genuinely have never been able to read TBONTB in this.. aggressive..loud, yelling manner! he seems dead! tired! like he's over it, clearly at some point in the play hes just OVER it, right?

it might not be good performance-wise, maybe not as interesting, but damn, it sure would be a joy to watch a quiet, dying Ham. maybe a guy who got worn out of talking with his entire body, or shouting every word, that maybe he just got *tired* and decided "i dont have the energy to put on a show right now".

[withasideofshakespeare]

Lennox’s Ambiguous Loyalties

I CAN’T GET THIS OUT OF MY HEAD so here’s a post about it! (Special thanks to the Hamlet Discord Server folks for sticking with me on this one!)

WHAT THE HELL IS LENNOX’S DEAL IN MACBETH?!

I remember vividly that the first time I read this play, one of our study questions was “what do Ross and Lennox respectively represent as characters?” and that it was the only question I couldn’t quite answer.

Ross seems fairly easy to understand. He’s sort of a Horatio-figure, a “narrator” in a play that isn’t his (to a lesser extent than Horatio, of course. No one beats Horatio in that regard.) He witnesses most of the play’s major events and comments on them (and it makes him fascinating as well as really sad). His loyalties seem to lie clearly on the side of goodness and justice. He’s relatively quick to turn on Macbeth once he realizes that he is guilty and seems to spearhead the rebel cause.

Lennox is an enigma in comparison! It’s entirely unclear where his loyalties lie and what his motives are. Most people (including my English teacher who wrote that study question) seem to view him as a foil to Ross—someone who stays loyal to Macbeth rather than rebelling, but I think it’s much more complex than that.

The only way I can think to explain this is to go through his appearances in order and try to glean what exactly his deal is and where his loyalties lie throughout the play.

1. Act 1 Scene 2

Lennox appears to announce Ross’ arrival. He notes the Ross looks in haste (which he probably does. When is he not in haste to deliver news to someone?)

This is his only line in the scene and it doesn’t tell us much about him. All we get from this is that he seems interested in whatever it is Ross has to say.

(2. Act 1 Scene 4)

Lennox doesn’t even speak in this scene, but his presence means that he overhears Malcolm’s haunting description of the execution of Cawdor (BUT GIVEN HIS LATER ACTIONS, IT MUST NOT STICK WITH HIM? He becomes a traitor in MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS!)

(3. Act 1 Scene 6)

Again, he says nothing but is among the party arriving at Inverness with Duncan.

4. Act 2 Scene 3

This is the first of Lennox’s significant appearances. He’s with Macduff when they’re harassed by the Porter but says nothing to him. His first line in this scene is in greeting to Macbeth. He proceeds to give a very Ross-like little speech regarding the strange occurrences of the night. I don’t read this as him being actively suspicious of Macbeth—I think it’s too early for suspicions. At this point, Macduff hasn’t even returned to report the murder. It seems Lennox is reporting on the facts of the night, maybe slightly shaken by what he saw (and presumably sleep-deprived like everybody in this scene). He tells us that he is young (“my young remembrance”), seems horrified when Macduff reports on the murder of Duncan, and is quick to accuse the guardsmen who Macbeth framed. He notes that they “stared and were distracted,” but seems to assume that their behavior was a result of their guilty consciences and not an altered state that would’ve left them unable to commit the crime.

What I take from this is that at this point, Lennox is fairly neutral. He’s quicker to blame the guards than most of the other Thanes (especially Macduff, of course), but I wouldn’t chalk that up to an active loyalty to Macbeth just yet. The fact that he doesn’t speak when Macbeth says he killed the guards in a fury is interesting, but I assume that’s because Macduff is easily doing ALL of the talking at that point (and perhaps because Lennox doesn’t want to publicly quarrel with the person whose house he’s staying in at the moment?)

(5. Act 3 Scene 1)

Lennox is present along with the other Thanes as Macbeth speaks to Banquo and begins his anti-Malcolm & Donalbain propaganda campaign (“bloody cousins”). Lennox seems to notice this language in particular because he will echo it later.

6. Act 3 Scene 4

Lennox attends the disaster banquet and is utterly confused by Macbeth’s behavior along with everyone else. He seems unsettled but unlike Ross, he seems to figure out when it’s time to stop asking questions and simply wishes Macbeth better health in the future.

I’ve always viewed this scene as a turning point for Ross in which he realizes that Macbeth is either personally behind the murder of Duncan or played some hand in it and follows his conscience by shifting his loyalties. Lennox seems to go a different direction. I’m not sure how, having attended the banquet, he could possibly be unaware of Macbeth’s suspiciousness or why he’d choose to overlook it in the long run. More on this later.

7. Act 3 Scene 6

THIS IS THE SCENE THAT DRIVES ME NUTS. I do not understand what is going on here or why (or if these lines are even supposed to be Lennox’s! For our purposes, I’m going to assume they are.)

Lennox enters mid-way through a conversation with an unnamed lord. He seems to be choosing his words carefully, saying far more between his lines than on them. He uses Macbeth’s language of propaganda to an exaggerated extent, accusing Fleance of murdering Banquo and Malcolm and Donalbain of killing Duncan.

Initially, he plausibly believes what he’s saying and has given in to the propaganda but it quickly becomes apparent that this is not the case. He gives a quick and ambiguous line about Fleance, Malc, and Don that seems to imply he’s glad Macbeth doesn’t have them in his grasps:

And I do think

That had he Duncan's sons under his key

(As, an 't please heaven, he shall not) they should find

What 'twere to kill a father. So should Fleance.

But peace.

Perhaps this means “he doesn’t have them because that’s not God’s plan,” but I read it as something more like “and, pray God, he never will have them.” If this is the case, everything he’s said previously is a sarcastic exaggeration and not an actual reflection of his beliefs.

He goes on to question the lord about Macduff’s whereabouts specifically, seemingly out of concern for a friend(?). It is implied that Macbeth already knows this information (WHICH IS WEIRD! But I won’t get ahead of myself!)

Lennox leaves us with his hopes that Macduff will be smart and stay far from Scotland for his own safety and wishes that an angel deliver to Malcolm Macduff’s report before he even arrives to haste them to free Scotland from Macbeth’s grasp.

As of this scene, Lennox seems to be acting just like Ross (if not even more extremely against Macbeth). He calls Macbeth “a hand accursed” and remarks that Scotland is suffering. It seems like he’s on the rebels’ side! But THEN THE NEXT SCENE HAPPENS AND TURNS THIS ON ITS HEAD???

8. Act 4 Scene 1

After Macbeth meets with the witches again, Lennox appears, apparently not heeding his own advice to Macduff about staying far from the Scottish court. He’s confused by Macbeth’s inquiries about the witches (who he either didn’t see or pretends not to have seen? Normally, I’d lean towards the former but given his history, WHO THE HELL KNOWS?!)

And THEN! He straight-up tells Macbeth that Macduff has fled to England which SEEMS TO SURPRISE HIM despite the fact that we learned in the last scene that learning of Macduff’s flight put him into a rage! And to further confuse matters, Lennox lies about the circumstances of his discovery of this information saying “'Tis two or three, my lord, that bring you word / Macduff is fled to England.” Assuming he’s talking about the previous scene (and what else would he be talking about unless there is a scene missing?), this is blatantly untrue! One guy came by and Lennox had a weirdly manipulative discussion with him in order to get Macduff’s location out of him. There were not “two or three” people and the one guy who did come certainly didn’t seem to be there to tell Macbeth (who he personally called a tyrant) about the whereabouts of his enemies.

Either this is a major editorial error or Lennox is playing some very weird game of shifty loyalties. The former interpretation may well be true given this play’s oddities (it’s strangely short and has some obvious non-Shakespeare additions like the Hecate/witch song scene which was added (probably) by Middleton), but that’s not very fun, so let’s go with the latter.

I think the best way to call everything we’ve learned in these scenes canon AND not directly contradictory is to say that what Macbeth was initially angry about was Malcolm’s flight to England, not Macduff’s. There is really no way to reconcile the idea that Macbeth has sent for Macduff to return from England with the idea that he is just finding out about his flight in the next scene. The only way I can make sense of this is that these scenes have been reversed or otherwise edited (perhaps 3.6’s Lennox is meant to be Ross, perhaps there is text missing that changes the meaning… WHO KNOWS.) but if we’re going to call it canon, I guess the best thing we can do to make this series of events make any sense without completely changing every line spoken is to say that Macbeth knows that Malcolm has fled to England and is upset and that he knows that Macduff did not attend the banquet and therefore sent to him to return, to which Macduff sent back the 1060 equivalent of “fuck off” and ran off to England.

(PLEASE tell me if I’m missing something here. This is driving me UP THE WALL and it seems nobody else has questioned it??)

Anyway, with this messy attempt to make the given canon make any sense, the implication is then that Lennox manipulated Unnamed Lord into giving him the information he wanted about Macduff’s whereabouts by pretending to be on the side of the rebels. He then double-crosses them by informing Macbeth and doesn’t argue in the slightest when Macbeth declares (in what is shockingly not an aside, at least in my text) that he’s going to murder Macduff’s entire family. Maybe he’s afraid to speak up, maybe this is where he changes his mind about Macbeth… but if that’s the case, why would hearing Macbeth’s propaganda—which he seems to know is wrong per the last scene—not be enough for him? Why can he recognize that Macbeth is a tyrant but only while trying to squeeze information out of someone? What does he want? I think the only reasonable explanation (beyond “this text is corrupt”) is that Lennox wants power and sides with whoever seems to be winning at the moment—and at this point, that’s Macbeth.

9. Act 5 Scene 2

To make everything a little extra confusing, the next time Lennox appears, he has suddenly joined the rebel army and seems to have a position of rank among them (he has a “file / Of all the gentry” in Malcolm’s army SOMEHOW—something that no one else seems to have).

WHY? WHAT IS HAPPENING? I AM LOSING MY MIND!

The only way I can think to explain this is that EITHER hearing Macbeth declare his plans to murder a woman and her children or realizing that Malcolm has become the most likely victor in the battle caused him to switch sides. That, or he was pretending to be on Macbeth’s side and therefore double-crossing Macbeth by pretending to double-cross the rebels (but if that was the case, why give him accurate intelligence?!)

With how incredibly wishy-washy Lennox’s loyalties (and, honestly, morals) have been up to this point, I think I interpret his joining of the rebel cause as a risk/gains assessment in which he decided he’s more likely to come out on top if he sides with Malcolm. Maybe my view is overly cynical, but I think Lennox is a character who is motivated by ambition just like Macbeth and will side with whoever seems to have power in the moment. He knows how to use rhetoric to his advantage and absolutely does so, regardless of morality.

10. (Later scenes in Act 5)

Depending on the editor, sometimes Lennox silently appears with the other Thanes in various scenes in act 5, but Folger does not include him, so I won’t cover this. It isn’t very important other than to confirm he survives the battle, which seems reasonably safe to assume either way.

…

Conclusions:

Overall, I’m not sure I answered any of my questions. I’m curious to see what others think about the 3.6/4.1 inconsistencies—is it an editorial error? Have I completely missed something obvious that makes it consistent somehow?

If I had to say what I think Lennox’s deal is at this point, I’d say he’s an ambitious young Thane who takes the side of the powerful for his own advancement but is shaken by Macbeth’s brutality which may turn him prematurely to the side of the rebels before their victory is quite secured.

If we are meant to take this scene ordering and allocation of lines as canon, I don’t think Lennox is faking his loyalty to Macbeth—why would he give up seemingly valuable information and put Macduff’s entire household in danger if that were the case? I think he is loyal, probably for his own sake (he seems to know that Macbeth is dangerous and disregards it), but doesn’t realize just how far Macbeth is willing to go for power. I imagine his role in the murders of Macduff’s family upsets him deeply and perhaps causes him to turn his back on Macbeth and join the rebels by act 5. He’s young, naive, and ambitious, clever with his use of rhetoric (see: 3.6 manipulation tactics), but inexperienced, leading him to underestimate Macbeth and try to justify his own loyalty by pretending he doesn’t suspect that Macbeth played a hand in Duncan and Banquo’s murders.

Aaaaand I wrote a whole fanfiction about this if you’d like a narrative version rather than this analytic one! Here’s a link: https://archiveofourown.org/works/54264247

[callixton]

not that i don't adore bill as a companion and am glad we got her, but narratively i sort of wish we'd gotten clara right before thirteen, bc i'd be a lot more willing to buy that her complete shut down of truly letting her companions into her life was a result/reaction to twelve's relationship with clara

[lakecoded]

okay honestly. and i promise i will stop thinking about the deeply mediocre film argylle after this. but people have been talking about how confusing and how meta it is. but it isn't even that weird or meta????? like grow up! watch weirder movies

[afieldinengland]

oh dear

[yeah-thats-probably-it]

say what you like about having your vocabulary ruined by bertie wooster but at least whenever I'm indecisive from now on I'll always be able to say that I'm letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would' and make everyone think I'm cultured

[girlspecimen]

hope jordan peterson’s daughter who married a guy that gets possessed by the spirit of a russian swordsman is doing fine

[withasideofshakespeare]

The Boars Head is giving gay bar owned by a lesbian.

[scorpiusmalfoylovesoscarwilde]

the straight up audacity of my uni to expect me to read and familiarise myself with a new play every damn week when we only look at it for two lectures (3 hours total) and it's not even in any exam???? you want me to read a whole damn play every week just to look at it for 3 hours and never see it again??!! no thank you?????

[toiletpotato]

Read some of August Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle (Century Cycle)

For a long time, the August Wilson Theatre used to be the only theatre on Broadway named after a Black person. Currently, only three out of forty-one theatres on Broadway are named after Black people, two of which were renamed in 2022 (The James Earl Jones Theatre and the Lena Horne Theatre respectively). The August Wilson Theatre was only renamed in 2005, just under two decades ago.

August Wilson was a very notable Black American playwright. One of his most notable series of works continues to be his Century Cycle (sometimes known as the Pittsburgh Cycle). It is a series of plays that focuses on the Black community in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (for nine plays) and Chicago, Illinois (for one of them) over the course of a century. Two of the works you may have heard of are Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and Fences as they have received film adaptations.

(Interestingly, James Earl Jones was in the original Broadway cast of Fences. His performance as Troy Maxson is absolutely masterful. You can watch a clip here.)

One of the better ways to experience plays is through watching them live or recorded. However, many plays are published so that they can be read as well! (In order to perform them, rights must be acquired).

These are contemporary plays, so the language is easier to understand than older plays that one might encounter in an English class. I have listed them in chronological order of when they were written. In parentheses, I have listed the year written and the year set.

If you click on a title, it will take you to a PDF.

Jitney (1982/1970s)

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (1984/1920s)

Fences (1985/1950s)

Joe Turner's Come and Gone (1986/1910s)

The Piano Lesson (1987/1930s)

Two Trains Running (1990/1960s)

Seven Guitars (1995/1940s)

King Hedley II (1999/1980s)

Gem of the Ocean (2003/1900s)

Radio Golf (2005/1990s)

I'm still trying to find PDFs for Seven Guitars, King Hedley II, and Gem of the Ocean. If anyone happens to have PDFs on hand I would really appreciate it if you could add them!!

I will leave you all with some quotes that Mr. Wilson told the Paris Review (interview here), that he and Rob Penny "founded the Black Horizons Theater in Pittsburgh with the idea of using the theater to politicize the community or, as we said in those days, to raise the consciousness of the people." (emphasis mine). He also told them that he thinks that "my plays offer (White Americans) a different way to look at Black Americans. For instance, in Fences they see a garbageman, a person they don't really look at, although they see a garbageman every day. By looking at Troy's life, White people find out that the content of this Black garbageman's life is affected by the same things – love, honor, beauty, betrayal, duty. Recognizing that these things are as much part of his life as theirs can affect how they think about and deal with Black people in their lives." (emphasis mine).

Thank you for taking the time to read this post, have a theatrical time of day!