In reply to: Lordy lordy - Genealley01:20 am EDT 09/25/22
I found your characterization peculiar. That's not a dig: it was hard for me to fathom. It seemed like a non-sequitur to what Sergius wrote about the play, which I quote below (in large part because of its economy and eloquence):
"The idea that care, and caring for others in particular, is essential to a good life is rarely advanced these days.... COST OF LIVING exalts grace not in any religious sense but as a function of humanism. Everyone here, like everyone everywhere, is lost in some secluded sorrow. Two need others to literally help them move; the other two can move freely but they can’t. They’re stuck. Majok focuses on those who, for one reason or another—physical, emotional, economic—cannot get ahead. They can only find some motion forward when they realize an essential paradox: that it is dependency that enables independence, that the constraint of commitment to others is what makes freedom possible. If COST OF LIVING stalls a bit narratively—well, structurally really—it regularly provides moments that proceed, as devotion does, with care and awe. There is a kind of hushed wonder in these enactments of solicitude...."
Yes, finding that description "pleasant enough" strikes me as peculiar. You are free to own it however.