3: Insightful exploration into the nature of luck versus choice, Margaret's a menace but other than that... in one ear out the other. What am I missing?

Good People strongly resembles kitchen-sink drama but lacks, in my opinion, interesting characters. The play does go to considerable lengths to show us that you can't classify people as 'the one who got lucky and got out' and 'the one who had no choice so stayed behind', it is way more complicated than that, an agonizing, often unbalanced combination of choice, circumstance and luck. I really liked that it spoke about these themes in such depth. And, true enough, the exploration of shame, desperation, self-loathing, and pride led me to draw an interesting comparison between Margaret and her friends and the characters from Shameless (US) so it did get me thinking about different types of people and where they're coming from and how they are dealing with their lot in life but... the characters still managed to feel like stereotypes plucked out of South Boston and thrown onto the page. Literally every other play, film or tv-series I have seen that features a rough neighbourhood and ordinary people trying to survive attributes said people the exact same qualities. They are deeply human and fragile but always self-hating, proud and prone to grudges. On the one hand, that is human too and exploring it in media like theatre reveals how vulnerable and flawed we are and how, more often than not, it is society that drives us to bitterness. On the other hand, there is more to a person born in a rough neighbourhood than pride, self-hate and grudges and I'd like to see more of that. There is, isn't there? There must be. 

Margaret is at the centre of it all and truly, the only character that keeps the play from being totally boring. Being the unreliable narrator to end all unreliable narrators, she keeps you on your feet. You cannot pin her down and though you may think you know what she will do or say next, you're always in for a surprise. I thoroughly enjoyed it when she put the ex-boyfriend in his place towards the end (he really needed to take it down a notch) but then, in true unreliable narrator style, she went and undid it all leaving the reader baffled. I will venture to say

I believe the baby was indeed the ex-boyfriend's. She revealed it in a moment of emotional upheaval but when confronted with the weight of that truth pride took over again and she took it back. The wife had started cornering her as well so it makes sense. That is my interpretation at least. I don't think she was just blurting out lies to trick him into helping.

I'm keeping this one open to re-evaluation in case I ever get to see it on stage. The play as text wasn't that interesting. Maybe it was not my cup of tea or maybe I read the characters all wrong, whatever the case I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a performance 😊