First off, I will start off with my personal thoughts:
I won't say that I don't like this play (even though I really don't), but I will say that it was challenging. I was very confused for a while on the writing style he uses. Characters seem to jump in and out of scenes that they are not really in. It is only as I read a lot further that I realized lines do overlap from different scenes (and we are not warned). It also took me a while to find out who was who, and who was a couple or not a couple. It was stressful y'all.
This play is far off from a well-made play. Even though there are three acts, there is no secret the plot revolves around, no defined obligatory scene, no logical resolution, and there is no clear cause-and-effect moments; it is non-linear. It's kind of a slice-of-life play. Everything revolves around the relationships and encounters these men have during their summer holidays.
I think this historian would also notice these non-well-made play attributes. In contrary to The Children’s Hour, the historian would probably be shocked by how the acceptance of homosexuality is normal in this world.
The capital-T Truth in this world, I think, is their view of
what they think feels right from their own perspective – modern era truth. The relationships
vary in length and faithfulness. Arthur and Perry have been together the
longest, Gregory and Bobby have a relationship that was tested by Bobby’s temptation
with Ramon, and Buzz and John have some kind of desire for each other on their own.
The Truth seems to come from human point of view, where a modern way of living is
fully accepted.
