Dianna Graham wrote, speaking of "dirt" and "dregs" in literature:
"Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes."

Dianna, may I ask for some reasons? I'm just curious. I actually love the entire play Angels in America. I wrote my masters thesis about the play. I've probably read it more times than I've read any other single piece of literature. the play actually professes some of the teachings that are inherent and important to Mormon doctrine. teachings about progress and hope and faith. beautiful truths. and i believe that with a close reading, a reader begins to understand things that an audience never will because of the innate differences between the experience of watching a play and reading a play (though watching the play will give you interesting perspective that couldn't be gained by reading it). I've never really had the chance to discuss the play with other latter-day saints very much. i'm sure many would object based purely on content. but my objections have little to do with that and much more to do with kushner's treatment of his mormon characters, both male and female. especially female. he creates double trajectories for all of his mormon characters. one trajectory of development can be seen in performance. the second, more subtle one can only be seen with a close reading. when read closely, joe is a much less villainous character. with a fast presentation of joe, a single presentation where one scene rapidly follows another, his anguish gets buried under his seemingly thoughtless treatment of his wife and his willingness to abandon all of his beliefs, life, etc. but when you read the play and think about the careful construction of the play both in its narrative and in its development through time on the stage, you begin to realize that joe's life is fraught with inability to reconcile all that he is. and kushner treats joe's mother hannah even worse than joe. she follows a trajectory of being liberated. of being somehow freed from her constraining mormon, patriarchal roots. and she becomes the real prophetic voice by the end of the play (interestingly enough teaching some important mormon doctrine). but when you stop and trace what happens to her you watch as one man denounces her as a mother. and immediately she adopts another man as her son. kushner doesn't free her. she remains unchanged, in spite of the appearance of a positive character development.

In spite of these very real objections i have to this piece of art (and there are others and this email is a very superficial treatment of my problems with the play), i love it as a work of art. it is a work that will substantiate many readings. a work that will ask very difficult questions of mormons and non-mormons alike. it draws fascinating parallels between our social, ecological, political, religious, and psychological worlds. parallels that have the potential to drive discussion and discovery. does it contain bad language? yes. quite a bit of it. does it portray behaviors and acts that i believe are wrong? yes. it does lots that i could see as objectionable. but i believe it is a moral piece. it is a work of art that makes a statement about the moral tenor of our world. and, although i cringed on my first readings of the play at the way kushner appropriates mormon history and joseph smith's experience, i do not believe he treated the sacred lightly. i think he used it very seriously, knowing full well what he was doing. i do not seek out or enjoy art that makes light of things i consider sacred. i don't think kushner does this. i think he very carefully uses a sacred heritage to illustrate his point, to make his viewers and his readers think about their world and hopefully understand it better. of course, my understanding of his intent and his work has been enhanced by my research and by reading interviews and such wherein kushner discusses the play. but i truly believe that this play is an amazing work of art. and i believe that in order to appreciate it, we need to get beyond the first shock of reading our religious heritage in such a light and really think about what he's getting at.

amelia parkin