Hilarious and still holds up very well ( )

My very first exposure to David Mamet's work was About Last Night, the 1986 film adaptation of Sexual Perversity in Chicago, which I saw during a weekday summer double feature in 1986 - in hindsight, a very inappropriate choice for a twelve-year-old.

Since that fateful summer, I have been far more familiar with Mamet through his cinematic contributions than his published plays, so reading the source of one of his film adaptations is a literary treat for me. Whether it's a screenplay or a stage play, Mamet's main strength in my view is his dialogue. Stylized yet earthy, the characters in Mamet's works tend to wax philosophically at random about life, love, business, ducks, or whatever it is they are into at that moment, and often do so quite ineloquently. While the dialogue is rarely realistic, it manages to reflect the reality of the character, which to me is real the true focus of Mamet's art.

Of the two plays presented in this collection, I would lean towards Sexual Perversity in Chicago as the better of the two, if only for the fact that it is more of a full-circle story about modern day relationships, whereas Duck Variations, while charming and engaging, is little more that a collection of short dialogues. Having not read the entirety of Mamet's literary output (or even a large percentage of it), I can't speak to where these two plays stand as representative of his work as a whole, but I found them to be both entertaining and engaging, and together a contrasting examination of the passion of youth, and the reflection of age. ( )

These plays do not meet the definition of well-made plays. They are realistic in tone without realism in setting. They are chronological without being linear. They fail to have a recognizable arc or a solid three act structure. And if you think any of that is said as a negative, you would be wrong. These are solidly in the style of no style so popular during the latter part of the 20th century. The first, Sexual Perversity in Chicago, is really just like a very long SNL skit with two guys who want to get laid, and the two women with whom they cross paths. Mamet catches a breathtakingly astounding amount of misogyny, presents it matter-of-factly, and does not romanticize the youth; in fact, they are all rather unpleasant people. In Duck Variations, there is no story at all, just a series of vignettes, in some of which there are ducks. More philosophical than the other piece, it actually contains a fair amount of environmental consciousness. For those who are familiar with the path of Mamet, these pieces are obviously written during his liberal period, before he remade himself in the conservative mode. Unlike many of his conservative pieces (and some of his liberal pieces), these do not have a clear ideological basis, but instead appear to be more interested in the human condition. Mamet examines that, and seems definitely to find it wanting. Definitely worth a read. ( )

I love David Mamet's writing, he is the playwright equivalent of Aaron Sorkin for me. His dialogue is stylized, snappy and original. Of these two plays, I think Sexual Perversity in Chicago is superior. On the surface it seems to just be about a misogynist pig named Bernie and his slightly less perverse friend Dan. But when you dig into some of the dialogue and look for the subtle hints and tells, there's a much deeper story about the insecurities of men and how they handle them. I loved that it wasn't just spelled out and required the reader to really interpret what was going on.

The Duck Variations was good and had a decent message to it as well, but the pacing was much slower than I've come to expect from Mamet and as a result I was a little bored. Also it was much more straightforward, and having been so intrigued by the first play in this book, I was a bit underwhelmed.

That said, Mamet is one of my favorite playwrights and I'm going to continue reading through his catalog as time permits. ( )

one of the first plays I was really excited about owning and reading and acting in. ( )