I remember wondering at the time how much my reaction was affected by the fact that I was reacting to words on a page, as opposed to a viewed performance. (I’ve never actually seen the play[s] performed.) For example, the “second skin” reference worked for me because I saw it as metaphoric, not intended to represent regular Mormon speech patterns. On the other hand, I wound up feeling like as a Mormon reader, I had invested more meaning in that scene than perhaps Kushner intended, viewing it as a sign of profound pain and inner conflict. I wonder how my interpretation of that scene might have been different if I had been reacting to a performed version of it.

I also have to say that I don’t find Hannah terribly persuasive as a mainstream Mormon, even before her apotheosis into a modern New Yorker. The phrase, “His prayer made an angel,” sounds to me like she’s justifying her belief as describing a psychological but not tangible reality. All that in addition to the initial cigarette drag, of course.

And for all of the characters, turning a visitor’s center into the primary locus of all things Mormon is both somewhat insulting (Mormon belief is best represented through mannequins) and not reflective of the reality of Mormon life, with its web of intimate social connections. Where are the home/visiting teachers in the middle of all this? Why doesn’t Harper have a Primary calling? In short, in my view Kushner’s Mormons are stand-ins rather than representations.

William, yeah, Angels in America is a problematic play, but there’s no question that it’s brilliant. There’s parts of it that I totally love, and other aspects to it that I think are totally hypocritical. But Kushner has made it completely clear in his essays that he is, above all, a political writer and that things like accuracy, moderation and fairness are not what he really cares about. He believes it’s all about arguing your side.

Also, your concern that Kushner is using Joe and Harper as “stand in” characters for Mormonism (and them DEFINITELY not resembling Mormons) I think is very important. Kushner somewhat points out Harper’s atypical background, by saying she had it kind of rough and that Joe was attracted to her vulnerability and the possibility of being her protector, but Kushner is playing on such a macrocosmic level that it’s impossible for me not to see these characters as a kind of universal representation of Mormons–which they are most certainly not.

“At any rate, I imagine you left out a few plays (Eric Samuelsen’s, for example) for the sake of time and space…” Yep. Although now that I think about it, I should have probably at least a mention of Samuelsen’s Borderlands. It’s an interesting play.

“I’m also not a fan of the scene that introduces Hannah–where she’s looking over Salt Lake City, sharing a cigarette with her friend (a sister in the church? a Catholic sister?), and talking about the low intelligence of the people in the city. It’s a cheap potshot to me and undercuts what would otherwise be a good Mormon characterization.”

I totally forgot to include Hannah’s random draw on a cigarette! Again, Kushner’s attempt to de-Mormonize Hannah, making her somehow more akin to someone he could recognize in himself and his culture.

His good friend, though, (the name is escaping me at the moment) was definitely in love with David, but it’s David firmly but kindly discouraging that kind of pursuit in his letters that makes me lean the way I do in my opinion. A person could definitely make a case out of it, though.

…or do you? (Time to reread the play…)

I think you right in your analysis of “Angels in America,” although I think Kushner succeeds more in that play than we give him credit for. (I’d say, for example, that he mostly succeeds in his use of Mormonism and mostly stumbles in his characterizations of them.) One problem I have with the play is its characterization of Joe and Harper, who wouldn’t be so bad as Mormon characters if they weren’t put on stage–as I think they are–and typical Mormons. That is, I think Kushner means for them to stand in for all Mormons in general, and that bothers me. And even if he didn’t intend for them to be that way, they come across that way regardless. Like you, they do not resemble the majority of Mormons I know–and I’ve known a few in my life.

I’m also bothered by the transformation of Hannah into a New Yorker at the end of the play. The sense I get is that Kushner is trying to create a diverse utopian-American space for the new millennium, but really he’s simply erasing the differences that make Hannah an interesting character. (But, at least the Mormons made the cut, right?) I’m also not a fan of the scene that introduces Hannah–where she’s looking over Salt Lake City, sharing a cigarette with her friend (a sister in the church? a Catholic sister?), and talking about the low intelligence of the people in the city. It’s a cheap potshot to me and undercuts what would otherwise be a good Mormon characterization.

I’m not too familiar with the other plays you present here, although if we were talking novels, I could bring in some insight. At any rate, I imagine you left out a few plays (Eric Samuelsen’s, for example) for the sake of time and space, but the impression I get is that there is a lot of lit out there that addresses the Mormon/LGBTQ issue and very few who know about it.

Do you have plans for your own contribution? (I know some have speculated that David Smith had homosexual inclinations, but you don’t address that in “The Fading Flower.”)