Editor’s Note

Abstract

This issue of The Harold Pinter Review remembers and acknowledges Dr. Steven Gale’s profound influence on Pinter Studies. When the news of Dr. Gale’s passing broke, I recall feeling a sense of profound loss, knowing that he dedicated his life to the formation of the Harold Pinter Society and The Pinter Review, published from 1987 to 2011 by the University of Tampa Press. So many of the articles and reviews that would inform my research—and indeed the work of Pinter scholars around the world—appeared in the journal’s issues. We all, whether we knew the man or not, benefited from his labor and fierce intellectual commitment to advance Pinter studies into the international field of research that it is today. Susan Hollis Merritt’s commemoration reminds us of this debt that none of us could ever repay, though we may try to do it justice in some small ways. The articles, book reviews, performance reviews, and conference proceedings contained in this issue attempt to do just that.The scholarship presented in this issue should excite readers. Graham Saunders (University of Birmingham) attends to compelling primary source material in his article, “#MeToo Pinter & David Mamet’s Oleanna.” A timely analysis of Harold Pinter’s direction of the 1993 London premiere of Oleanna, Saunders examines archival materials, including items from David Mamet’s papers at the Harry Ransom Center, to discuss how Pinter’s production gave the character of Carol greater agency than she appears to have in Mamet’s revised script. In “‘You looked quite different without a head’: A Slight Ache Revisited across Media,” Pim Verhulst (University of Antwerp) expands his research on Pinter’s radio and television plays. The essay juxtaposes the 2000 BBC Radio 4 broadcast of A Slight Ache to the work’s original recording, which aired on 29 July 1959. Verhulst compares how each production presented the match seller, Barnabas, and elaborates the piece’s transmedial, rather than purely radiophonic, properties. My own contribution, “The Dignity within Us: Harold Pinter’s Search for Truth,” wrestles with some of the ambiguities that appear in “Art, Truth and Politics.” While Pinter claims that citizens must envision a political reality founded on human dignity, he does not detail what this concept signifies. My article examines how Pinter’s discussion of human dignity corresponds with the existential poverty—what he calls “nakedness”—that becomes a dominant theme throughout his career.The issue includes some of the lively discussion that took place during the 2023 Louisville Conference on Literature and Culture (LCLC). Organized by the International Harold Pinter Society, the panels addressed the theme, “Pinter and Politics.” Abhinaba Chatterjee’s “Revitalizing the Political Avant-garde of the ‘Absurd’ in Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros and Harold Pinter’s The Room” discusses how absurdist theater subverts sociopolitical and economic inequalities. Ann C. Hall (University of Louisville) offers “Domesticating Menace: Harold Pinter’s The Servant (1963).” The presentation examines how Pinter’s screenplay and Robert Losey’s film The Servant subvert colonial and heteronormative forms of authority. Farah Ali (University of Hull) contributes “‘A Hydra with a Thousand Heads’: Dis(ease) and Wellness in Harold Pinter’s A Kind of Alaska and Brian Friel’s Molly Sweeney.” Ali notes how Pinter and Friel critique medical practices that amplify broader social issues. The contribution calls for compassionate medical practices that undo more traditional diagnostic medical techniques. Finally, Judith Roof’s, “The Totally Perceptive and Logical Illogic of the Avant-garde Dramatic Tradition; or Politics = Theater = Politics,” analyzes how Pinter replaces the exaggerated figures of political oppression that appear in Alfred Jarry’s works with invisible threats that underscore how the political is quintessentially theatrical. The conference proceedings illustrate how Pinter’s plays bear on contemporary sociopolitical issues and debates.Of course, it would not be an issue of The Harold Pinter Review without an array of book reviews. Grace Epstein (University of Cincinnati) examines Pinter and Stoppard: A Director’s View by Carey Perloff. David Chack (DePaul University) contributes an interview with Perloff that provides greater insight into the book and the author’s process. This unique pairing is a welcome addition to the issue. Ann C. Hall assesses Transdisciplinary Beckett: Visual Arts, Music, and the Creative Process by The Harold Pinter Review author Lucy Jeffery (University of Nottingham). Lastly, we provide a summation of Basil Chiasson (University of Western Ontario) and Catriona Fallow’s (University of the West of Scotland) edited collection, Harold Pinter: Stages, Networks, Collaborations. The volume not only advances Pinter studies into exciting new territory, but it is particularly noteworthy for including interviews with theater practitioners from around the world.The issue features several performance reviews that should delight readers and keep them informed of world-class productions. Nancy Jones (University of Louisville) takes us to the European continent with her review of three Ionesco plays produced in Paris during 2022. Judith Saunders (independent scholar) provides a review of Good by C. P. Taylor at the Harold Pinter Theatre in London’s West End. Saunders offers a compelling reading of the production, connecting it to how antisemitism marked Pinter’s early life and creative development. Charles Vincent Grimes (University of North Carolina Wilmington) examines the Broadway production of Leopoldstadt by Tom Stoppard. Though the play continues to enjoy commercial success in New York, Grimes offers a critical discussion of the production and its merits that may be at odds with readers. Last, but certainly not least, Mark Taylor-Batty (University of Leeds) offers his take on the 2022 performance of The Dwarfs as performed at The White Bear Theatre in London. Directed by longtime Pinter collaborator Harry Burton, the production drew attention from Pinter enthusiasts throughout the world. All in all, these reviews represent how Pinter’s plays and influence continue to inspire and challenge artists and audiences alike.Finally, I would be remiss if I did not offer a word of gratitude to Dr. Ann Hall. For several years, Professor Hall has championed Pinter’s work in the United States and abroad. As the editor of The Harold Pinter Review and President of the International Harold Pinter Society, Ann fostered a creative and scholarly community that advanced Pinter studies and enriched twentieth- and twenty-first century Anglo-European dramatic criticism. I am forever grateful that she offered me the opportunity to edit this issue of The Harold Pinter Review.