Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Rat Bohemia, 10 Jul 2003
This book paints a vivid picture of a time and a place which is shockingly different to now and even more shockingly not long ago. Schulman conveys both poignantly and with great humour, the atmosphere surrounding a community plagued with AIDS and abandoned by the parental generation. Schulman's characters are not heroes, they are a group of people who have had to survive despite the lack of support network and instead, support each other - somehow. For those of us who are in same-sex relationships, it is impossible not to feel extremely indebted to the people of whom this book reminds us. It is vital that this kind of story be out there.

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Rat Bohemia, 10 Jul 2003
This book paints a vivid picture of a time and a place which is shockingly different to now and even more shockingly not long ago. Schulman conveys both poignantly and with great humour, the atmosphere surrounding a community plagued with AIDS and abandoned by the parental generation. Schulman's characters are not heroes, they are a group of people who have had to survive despite the lack of support network and instead, support each other - somehow. For those of us who are in same-sex relationships, it is impossible not to feel extremely indebted to the people of whom this book reminds us. It is vital that this kind of story be out there.

Courtesy of Teens Read Too, 08 Jul 2007
Millions of people suffer from anxiety disorder (panic attacks) on a daily basis. Most suffer needlessly, either due to lack of medical treatment, misdiagnosis, or ignorance of the condition. I DON'T WANT TO BE CRAZY is one woman's brave confession of her struggles with the debilitating disorder.

Samantha Schutz was first diagnosed with anxiety disorder at age seventeen, after years of suffering with the problem. She uses this memoir to describe the devastating effects of the condition on her life and her relationships. The book chronicles the ups and downs of Samantha's life from age seventeen until she graduates from college and gets her first job in the publishing industry.

Told in verse, the story reveals everything from the gripping terror of the attacks to the many therapists she consulted for help. Samantha titles her entries with the current drugs (Klonopin, Serzone, Xanax, Paxil, etc.) and the dosages she was prescribed to treat her condition. She also explains her attempts to stop the medications, and her belief that things would get better, only to relapse with increasing frequency.

Samantha's honesty is evident throughout. She doesn't promise miracle cures, and she truly marvels at the support she received from her family and most of her friends. This is an inspiring book for anyone living with or connected to someone living with anxiety disorder.

Reviewed by: Sally Kruger, aka "Readingjunky"

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Rat Bohemia, 10 Jul 2003
This book paints a vivid picture of a time and a place which is shockingly different to now and even more shockingly not long ago. Schulman conveys both poignantly and with great humour, the atmosphere surrounding a community plagued with AIDS and abandoned by the parental generation. Schulman's characters are not heroes, they are a group of people who have had to survive despite the lack of support network and instead, support each other - somehow. For those of us who are in same-sex relationships, it is impossible not to feel extremely indebted to the people of whom this book reminds us. It is vital that this kind of story be out there.

Courtesy of Teens Read Too, 08 Jul 2007
Millions of people suffer from anxiety disorder (panic attacks) on a daily basis. Most suffer needlessly, either due to lack of medical treatment, misdiagnosis, or ignorance of the condition. I DON'T WANT TO BE CRAZY is one woman's brave confession of her struggles with the debilitating disorder.

Samantha Schutz was first diagnosed with anxiety disorder at age seventeen, after years of suffering with the problem. She uses this memoir to describe the devastating effects of the condition on her life and her relationships. The book chronicles the ups and downs of Samantha's life from age seventeen until she graduates from college and gets her first job in the publishing industry.

Told in verse, the story reveals everything from the gripping terror of the attacks to the many therapists she consulted for help. Samantha titles her entries with the current drugs (Klonopin, Serzone, Xanax, Paxil, etc.) and the dosages she was prescribed to treat her condition. She also explains her attempts to stop the medications, and her belief that things would get better, only to relapse with increasing frequency.

Samantha's honesty is evident throughout. She doesn't promise miracle cures, and she truly marvels at the support she received from her family and most of her friends. This is an inspiring book for anyone living with or connected to someone living with anxiety disorder.

Reviewed by: Sally Kruger, aka "Readingjunky"

"Gay children need parents, too, and sometimes gay adults are the only ones who can give that kind of knowing love", 19 Jul 2007
The 'child' of the (ironic) title is Stew, a typical, lonely, 15 year old gay male living with his self-involved parents. He meets a gay male couple though the internet and starts building a full relationship (including sexual elements) with them. For a brief moment he believes that he has found happiness and acceptance - perhaps life is worth living after all? On the way back from a visit with them, he is the subject of a entrapment scene is a public toilet; arrested, he is taken to a police station whereupon he is manipulated into revealing where he had been. The gay couple are arrested on charges of 'child abuse', and Stew's nightmare begins:

"He was surrounded by walls, his family, the police. No one was flexible. No one had a reasonable explanation for their behaviour, and no one had to."

A variety of characters and sub-plots populate this novel, with particular precedence given to Eva, a lesbian woman and a lawyer, who becomes involved in defending one of the partners in the gay couple detained on 'child abuse' charges. Indeed, the novel focuses not so much on the subsequent legal processes, but rather on the background cast of characters involved: Eva; her relationship with her partner Mary; Stew's family; the social worker assigned to Stew; and Hockey, an HIV+ lawyer working alongside Eva. This broader perspective enables the author to capture her primary theme: exposing the delusions that individuals create in order to satisfy their own egoistic desires.

Consequently, the various characters' façades are stripped away, and the author presents a myriad of iconoclastic images: the child who is not merely 'a child' but a human, with rights and desires; the parents whose 'love' for their child is instead a need to propagate their own sense of self-worth; the 'child welfare' infrastructure that does not genuinely care about the child; the lesbian social activist who desires love more than a successful outcome; the law enforcement officers (Gamble/CEOP) whose hatred of their perceived enemy far eclipses any professed concern for the child's well-being; the HIV+ lawyer who is unsympathetic to any hint of weakness in others; the judicial system that allows a young male to bear criminal responsibility for his actions but denies him the right to love freely.

Clearly this perspective will be unsettling to readers unused to confronting the darker reality of life. Nevertheless - and indeed, for this reason - the novel deserves the broadest possible audience. 'The Child' is an important work; as with Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', it is concerned to challenge the cosy self/group delusions that mainstream society most desires to cherish - and accordingly serves as a courageous assertion of independent writing, which is all-too-often suppressed in favour of promulgating society's false idealism. Sarah Schulman's novel is written with fluid, fearless originality, and is highly recommended.

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Rat Bohemia, 10 Jul 2003
This book paints a vivid picture of a time and a place which is shockingly different to now and even more shockingly not long ago. Schulman conveys both poignantly and with great humour, the atmosphere surrounding a community plagued with AIDS and abandoned by the parental generation. Schulman's characters are not heroes, they are a group of people who have had to survive despite the lack of support network and instead, support each other - somehow. For those of us who are in same-sex relationships, it is impossible not to feel extremely indebted to the people of whom this book reminds us. It is vital that this kind of story be out there.

Courtesy of Teens Read Too, 08 Jul 2007
Millions of people suffer from anxiety disorder (panic attacks) on a daily basis. Most suffer needlessly, either due to lack of medical treatment, misdiagnosis, or ignorance of the condition. I DON'T WANT TO BE CRAZY is one woman's brave confession of her struggles with the debilitating disorder.

Samantha Schutz was first diagnosed with anxiety disorder at age seventeen, after years of suffering with the problem. She uses this memoir to describe the devastating effects of the condition on her life and her relationships. The book chronicles the ups and downs of Samantha's life from age seventeen until she graduates from college and gets her first job in the publishing industry.

Told in verse, the story reveals everything from the gripping terror of the attacks to the many therapists she consulted for help. Samantha titles her entries with the current drugs (Klonopin, Serzone, Xanax, Paxil, etc.) and the dosages she was prescribed to treat her condition. She also explains her attempts to stop the medications, and her belief that things would get better, only to relapse with increasing frequency.

Samantha's honesty is evident throughout. She doesn't promise miracle cures, and she truly marvels at the support she received from her family and most of her friends. This is an inspiring book for anyone living with or connected to someone living with anxiety disorder.

Reviewed by: Sally Kruger, aka "Readingjunky"

"Gay children need parents, too, and sometimes gay adults are the only ones who can give that kind of knowing love", 19 Jul 2007
The 'child' of the (ironic) title is Stew, a typical, lonely, 15 year old gay male living with his self-involved parents. He meets a gay male couple though the internet and starts building a full relationship (including sexual elements) with them. For a brief moment he believes that he has found happiness and acceptance - perhaps life is worth living after all? On the way back from a visit with them, he is the subject of a entrapment scene is a public toilet; arrested, he is taken to a police station whereupon he is manipulated into revealing where he had been. The gay couple are arrested on charges of 'child abuse', and Stew's nightmare begins:

"He was surrounded by walls, his family, the police. No one was flexible. No one had a reasonable explanation for their behaviour, and no one had to."

A variety of characters and sub-plots populate this novel, with particular precedence given to Eva, a lesbian woman and a lawyer, who becomes involved in defending one of the partners in the gay couple detained on 'child abuse' charges. Indeed, the novel focuses not so much on the subsequent legal processes, but rather on the background cast of characters involved: Eva; her relationship with her partner Mary; Stew's family; the social worker assigned to Stew; and Hockey, an HIV+ lawyer working alongside Eva. This broader perspective enables the author to capture her primary theme: exposing the delusions that individuals create in order to satisfy their own egoistic desires.

Consequently, the various characters' façades are stripped away, and the author presents a myriad of iconoclastic images: the child who is not merely 'a child' but a human, with rights and desires; the parents whose 'love' for their child is instead a need to propagate their own sense of self-worth; the 'child welfare' infrastructure that does not genuinely care about the child; the lesbian social activist who desires love more than a successful outcome; the law enforcement officers (Gamble/CEOP) whose hatred of their perceived enemy far eclipses any professed concern for the child's well-being; the HIV+ lawyer who is unsympathetic to any hint of weakness in others; the judicial system that allows a young male to bear criminal responsibility for his actions but denies him the right to love freely.

Clearly this perspective will be unsettling to readers unused to confronting the darker reality of life. Nevertheless - and indeed, for this reason - the novel deserves the broadest possible audience. 'The Child' is an important work; as with Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', it is concerned to challenge the cosy self/group delusions that mainstream society most desires to cherish - and accordingly serves as a courageous assertion of independent writing, which is all-too-often suppressed in favour of promulgating society's false idealism. Sarah Schulman's novel is written with fluid, fearless originality, and is highly recommended.

Excellent, 03 Dec 2000
It is great to see a writer actually dealing with questions of class, gender and race as issues that are about social exclusion and disempowermnent, rather than exclusively matters of identity and self definition. This book belongs in the tradition of Steinbeck and Nelson Algren, and is in no way embarrassed to be in such good company. The characters are shaped as much by social circumstance as by happenstance, and it is quite marvellous to see a writer dealing with serious issues that relate to public power and its impact on individual lives. This is one of the best books I have read in the last couple of years, and for all its faults, at least it treats its readers as though they have some sort of conscience, and are capable of moral thought. I can't think of many other books in the last few years for which such a claim could be advanced. As always with Sarah Schulman, the characters are genuinely interesting, motivated by moral considerations as much as anything else, and for anyone who has even a passing interest in women's relationship to jazz music, as performers and listners, this book is well worth reading for that alone.

Too shetchy, 15 Aug 1999
A real disappointment. The story is sketchy, some of the characters one-dimensional and unmotivated. The nasty air of menace and evil that we associate with the McCarthy Era is well-evoked. But I'm never made to feel anything for the characters, which is too bad because lines between good and evil, and right and wrong are made so clear, so black and white.

We never really learn why sopme of the major characters do or feel anything they do or feel. The right-wing columnist and the black playwright are especially flat characters. Racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Communism: these are big topics that people have deep conflicts about, and there's not enough deep conflict within the characters in 'Shimmer.' People are who they seem to be and that's it.

Shimmer shimmers, 13 Jul 1999
This novel is a provocative depiction of McCarthy era New York. It is a departure, in a way, for Schulman, taking the form of a well researched historical novel. But in other ways it continues her previous themes and preoccupations--the disenfranchised, the marginal, the way gay children are treated by their parents. Schulman has a remarkable gift with language, and her tracking of the ways of the heart is equally remarkable. The characters are multidimensional and complex, and the story is told in a compelling narrative form. Highly recommended for anyone interested in contemporary fiction.

Book aims for too much..doesn't reach it's goals, 19 May 1999
Whatever happened to a good editor? This novel certainly lacked one. It is a mess of a story with the author trying to unite three characters together through the events that take place, but none of the characters are well-realized and the whole story comes across as seeming silly and false. The most moving character, a black playwrigh, writing at a time when there were hardly any black writers in the legit. theatre, would make an interesting character in a novel all by himself. But as it is his great scenes are momentary. The gossip columnist is an evil mess..apart from representing the worst in American society at the time of the McCarthy witch hunts, this man is so one-dimensional that he is totally unbelievable. And the heroine of the novel, part Jewish Little Dorrit, part coming out character, is all over the place. I think the author had some good ideas but tried to cram them all into one short book and add a strong political message not only about those times, but life in these times. IT's too much that produces too little and the reader feels jerked around and bored by most of it. A major disapointment. I rated the novel as high as I did simply because the portrait of the playwright was quite moving in parts. If only the author had focused on that one story.

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!

Rat Bohemia, 10 Jul 2003
This book paints a vivid picture of a time and a place which is shockingly different to now and even more shockingly not long ago. Schulman conveys both poignantly and with great humour, the atmosphere surrounding a community plagued with AIDS and abandoned by the parental generation. Schulman's characters are not heroes, they are a group of people who have had to survive despite the lack of support network and instead, support each other - somehow. For those of us who are in same-sex relationships, it is impossible not to feel extremely indebted to the people of whom this book reminds us. It is vital that this kind of story be out there.

Courtesy of Teens Read Too, 08 Jul 2007
Millions of people suffer from anxiety disorder (panic attacks) on a daily basis. Most suffer needlessly, either due to lack of medical treatment, misdiagnosis, or ignorance of the condition. I DON'T WANT TO BE CRAZY is one woman's brave confession of her struggles with the debilitating disorder.

Samantha Schutz was first diagnosed with anxiety disorder at age seventeen, after years of suffering with the problem. She uses this memoir to describe the devastating effects of the condition on her life and her relationships. The book chronicles the ups and downs of Samantha's life from age seventeen until she graduates from college and gets her first job in the publishing industry.

Told in verse, the story reveals everything from the gripping terror of the attacks to the many therapists she consulted for help. Samantha titles her entries with the current drugs (Klonopin, Serzone, Xanax, Paxil, etc.) and the dosages she was prescribed to treat her condition. She also explains her attempts to stop the medications, and her belief that things would get better, only to relapse with increasing frequency.

Samantha's honesty is evident throughout. She doesn't promise miracle cures, and she truly marvels at the support she received from her family and most of her friends. This is an inspiring book for anyone living with or connected to someone living with anxiety disorder.

Reviewed by: Sally Kruger, aka "Readingjunky"

"Gay children need parents, too, and sometimes gay adults are the only ones who can give that kind of knowing love", 19 Jul 2007
The 'child' of the (ironic) title is Stew, a typical, lonely, 15 year old gay male living with his self-involved parents. He meets a gay male couple though the internet and starts building a full relationship (including sexual elements) with them. For a brief moment he believes that he has found happiness and acceptance - perhaps life is worth living after all? On the way back from a visit with them, he is the subject of a entrapment scene is a public toilet; arrested, he is taken to a police station whereupon he is manipulated into revealing where he had been. The gay couple are arrested on charges of 'child abuse', and Stew's nightmare begins:

"He was surrounded by walls, his family, the police. No one was flexible. No one had a reasonable explanation for their behaviour, and no one had to."

A variety of characters and sub-plots populate this novel, with particular precedence given to Eva, a lesbian woman and a lawyer, who becomes involved in defending one of the partners in the gay couple detained on 'child abuse' charges. Indeed, the novel focuses not so much on the subsequent legal processes, but rather on the background cast of characters involved: Eva; her relationship with her partner Mary; Stew's family; the social worker assigned to Stew; and Hockey, an HIV+ lawyer working alongside Eva. This broader perspective enables the author to capture her primary theme: exposing the delusions that individuals create in order to satisfy their own egoistic desires.

Consequently, the various characters' façades are stripped away, and the author presents a myriad of iconoclastic images: the child who is not merely 'a child' but a human, with rights and desires; the parents whose 'love' for their child is instead a need to propagate their own sense of self-worth; the 'child welfare' infrastructure that does not genuinely care about the child; the lesbian social activist who desires love more than a successful outcome; the law enforcement officers (Gamble/CEOP) whose hatred of their perceived enemy far eclipses any professed concern for the child's well-being; the HIV+ lawyer who is unsympathetic to any hint of weakness in others; the judicial system that allows a young male to bear criminal responsibility for his actions but denies him the right to love freely.

Clearly this perspective will be unsettling to readers unused to confronting the darker reality of life. Nevertheless - and indeed, for this reason - the novel deserves the broadest possible audience. 'The Child' is an important work; as with Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', it is concerned to challenge the cosy self/group delusions that mainstream society most desires to cherish - and accordingly serves as a courageous assertion of independent writing, which is all-too-often suppressed in favour of promulgating society's false idealism. Sarah Schulman's novel is written with fluid, fearless originality, and is highly recommended.

Excellent, 03 Dec 2000
It is great to see a writer actually dealing with questions of class, gender and race as issues that are about social exclusion and disempowermnent, rather than exclusively matters of identity and self definition. This book belongs in the tradition of Steinbeck and Nelson Algren, and is in no way embarrassed to be in such good company. The characters are shaped as much by social circumstance as by happenstance, and it is quite marvellous to see a writer dealing with serious issues that relate to public power and its impact on individual lives. This is one of the best books I have read in the last couple of years, and for all its faults, at least it treats its readers as though they have some sort of conscience, and are capable of moral thought. I can't think of many other books in the last few years for which such a claim could be advanced. As always with Sarah Schulman, the characters are genuinely interesting, motivated by moral considerations as much as anything else, and for anyone who has even a passing interest in women's relationship to jazz music, as performers and listners, this book is well worth reading for that alone.

Too shetchy, 15 Aug 1999
A real disappointment. The story is sketchy, some of the characters one-dimensional and unmotivated. The nasty air of menace and evil that we associate with the McCarthy Era is well-evoked. But I'm never made to feel anything for the characters, which is too bad because lines between good and evil, and right and wrong are made so clear, so black and white.

We never really learn why sopme of the major characters do or feel anything they do or feel. The right-wing columnist and the black playwright are especially flat characters. Racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Communism: these are big topics that people have deep conflicts about, and there's not enough deep conflict within the characters in 'Shimmer.' People are who they seem to be and that's it.

Shimmer shimmers, 13 Jul 1999
This novel is a provocative depiction of McCarthy era New York. It is a departure, in a way, for Schulman, taking the form of a well researched historical novel. But in other ways it continues her previous themes and preoccupations--the disenfranchised, the marginal, the way gay children are treated by their parents. Schulman has a remarkable gift with language, and her tracking of the ways of the heart is equally remarkable. The characters are multidimensional and complex, and the story is told in a compelling narrative form. Highly recommended for anyone interested in contemporary fiction.

Book aims for too much..doesn't reach it's goals, 19 May 1999
Whatever happened to a good editor? This novel certainly lacked one. It is a mess of a story with the author trying to unite three characters together through the events that take place, but none of the characters are well-realized and the whole story comes across as seeming silly and false. The most moving character, a black playwrigh, writing at a time when there were hardly any black writers in the legit. theatre, would make an interesting character in a novel all by himself. But as it is his great scenes are momentary. The gossip columnist is an evil mess..apart from representing the worst in American society at the time of the McCarthy witch hunts, this man is so one-dimensional that he is totally unbelievable. And the heroine of the novel, part Jewish Little Dorrit, part coming out character, is all over the place. I think the author had some good ideas but tried to cram them all into one short book and add a strong political message not only about those times, but life in these times. IT's too much that produces too little and the reader feels jerked around and bored by most of it. A major disapointment. I rated the novel as high as I did simply because the portrait of the playwright was quite moving in parts. If only the author had focused on that one story.

Compelling Yet Annoying, 18 Jun 1999
I find Schulman's story completely fascinating: what it must have been like to summarily ignored and dismissed by people form several communitites in and around the RENT phenomena is nothing short of amazing. I also find her radical politics incredibly invigorating. Schulman really puts herself out on a limb, seemingly careless of whom she might offend. However, Schulman's tone (I just can't think of a better word for it) throughout the book creates a great amount of distance between author and reader (well, at least this reader). While reading, I couldn't help but think: "No wonder no one came to your defense---you're completely annoying." Now, that might sound pithy (or even personal if I actually knew her), but Schulman simply doesn't make it easy for me to empathize with her. Furthermore, she tends to contradict herself at it suits her particular argument. When discussing critical responses to lesbian theatre/performance, she complains of a period in time when there were no papers hiring lesbian critics (who would, ostensibly, be truly qualified). The next page (the VERY next page) sees Schulman complaining that when papaers sent lesbian critcs to lesbian theatre/performances, they were invariably "marginalizing" her work and the work of other lesbian artists. I applaud Schulman for her brave text, but I ultimately feel that the work as a whole is contradictory, lacks specificity (examples would help the section on marketing immensely), and suffers from her (though entirely justifiable) wronged/angered/violated tone.

Riveting, well-written work of cultural criticism, 27 May 1999
Schulman has the uncanny ability to: a) tell a personal story about the plagiarism of her work, her attempts for resolution, her experiences as a woman, a lesbian, an author in the fight against AIDS; b) write an insightful account of the state of the commercial theatre -- a late '90s version of the type of essay Miller and Albee wrote 40-50 years ago; c) create a remarkable context for unmasking homophobia and explaining the cultural position of gays and lesbians in contempory America; and d) give the reader something that's both challenging and easy to read. I found it to be entirely engaging and incredibly smart.

I am also one of the many people who saw "Rent" on Broadway during the week it won the Tony, and I'm not ashamed to say, I loved it. But a year or so later, when it came to LA, I took a couple of friends and saw it again -- and I have to admit, it seemed fake, packaged, forced. In her role as a critic, apart from her personal connection to the show, Schulman explains why parts of "Rent" seem false. She puts into words some of the fleeting, troubling thoughts I couldn't articulate for myself.

I'm an English professor and I teach drama -- I intend to use "Stagestruck" in future courses.

Sheer genius, 13 Mar 1999
Obviously the person here who has given this book two stars TWICE is very threatened by the book. Despite his claims of finding it dull and badly written, he's drawn back to read and review the book again! Sounds like Ms. Schulman struck a nerve!

This is a historic book about the commodification and fetishization of marginal experience. It's also a helluva good read -- alternately brilliant, trashy, gossipy, and academic.

The Book Remains Weak, 19 Feb 1999
I submitted a previous review of the book (giving it two stars) and, in the spirit of fairness, reviewed the work again recently.

I stand by my previous conclusion: I feel that there is a considerable amount of creativity as well as genuine orginality in Schulman's work (hence two stars and not none)... but I find it a pity that she doesn't develop her thoughts further and that she meanders from point to point.

I am not a white male, as a subsequent reviewer has suggested. I am a male who is a person of color. I resent the dispelling of my viewpoint because it disagrees with that of other reviewers, particularly on the grounds of some putative inherent gender/race difference.

Schulman's fan appear to share a weakness with Schulman (at least the Schulman who wrote Stagestruck) -- the predilection to assert supposed truths without developing the given thought further. Saying something forcefully doesn't necessarily make it true...

rjnjm@yahoo.com

A Deeper Analysis is Needed, 10 Jan 1999
The book divides into three sections, initially examining the similarities between her novel People In Trouble and the musical Rent, and then placing Aids performance in the contemporary theatre setting. By far the most successful section of the book is the dirt on Rent, the treatment of the author shocking, and she makes some excellent attacks on the shallowness of this musical. However, her demonstration of the assimulation of alternative culture and artists into the mainstream, and the harm caused to that alternative art, is uneven. The author has made some excellent points, yet they are often under- developed as she becomes involved in documenting her personal responses to the work discussed. For me, this is the problem with the book. I suspect she is a good writer, yet her personal experience with the powers behind Rent have understandably clouded her objectivity. A longer book (perhaps setting the background with a study of pre- 1990s Aids performance)may have aided her argument-after all she has lived and worked through this period. As it stands, this book is a great article extended too thinly. However, if you care in any way about the threat to performance by the twin pressures of Aids and Capitalism, then my conclusion is obvious-read it!