Crack/Thread
Privacy vs consent. My favorite thing about The Book Club Play is the theme of privacy versus consent which is also what connects all of the characters and themes. Someone opening up their life to the world is brave and daring, but also often comes with stressful, if not disastrous, moments. Everyone has times in their life which they would not want witnessed by others, but many have done and will continue to put their lives on display which makes the premise of this play so able to relate to. And just as with social media, members of the book club at different times feel a sense of fear and/or betrayal of and from the camera. So why choose to be a willing participant? What is to be gained? The characters in the play leave themselves extremely vulnerable from the start and remain that way until everyone is harmed.
Ana’s book is another example of the thin but clear line between consent and privacy being breached. While everyone signed up for the documentary where their actual lives would be on display, they did not agree to Ana writing a fictitious book about fictitious characters who are only loosely based on them. And while I initially felt Ana’s book was an invasion of privacy, upon second thought, how bad was her betrayal really? The characters in her book are vastly different from the book club members in many ways, yet they are clearly based on them. So, the betrayal must lie within the lack of consent. But they did agree to be filmed for the documentary so regardless of what parts of their personal life are exposed, they must be accountable and cannot blame anyone else. That’s just the way life is supposed to work. But with Ana’s book they did not agree to anything. They were not even consulted or asked. The pain of that betrayal for something only loosely based on reality is a grand statement of human emotion and shows just how important consent is.
Even with some of the pundits, the relationship between privacy and consent is prevalent. Sam-Walmart Guy mentions how the book clubs among the Walmart workforce have made unions irrelevant. That is clearly a statement on workers not having control over what they do. If you do not have control of yourself then you cannot consent to any action done upon or taken against you. It may seem like a simple joke, but it will likely ring powerfully to our audience due their knowledge of and experience with unions. Carl Banks, the Correctional Center Book Dealer’s monologue about how being part of a system that has a monopoly on information puts people in a vulnerable state, making them desperate enough to exploit themselves and give consent to situations when they normally wouldn’t. There may be more examples of this with the other pundits as well, but these are the too that stood out to me on my first reading.
Ana’s book is another example of the thin but clear line between consent and privacy being breached. While everyone signed up for the documentary where their actual lives would be on display, they did not agree to Ana writing a fictitious book about fictitious characters who are only loosely based on them. And while I initially felt Ana’s book was an invasion of privacy, upon second thought, how bad was her betrayal really? The characters in her book are vastly different from the book club members in many ways, yet they are clearly based on them. So, the betrayal must lie within the lack of consent. But they did agree to be filmed for the documentary so regardless of what parts of their personal life are exposed, they must be accountable and cannot blame anyone else. That’s just the way life is supposed to work. But with Ana’s book they did not agree to anything. They were not even consulted or asked. The pain of that betrayal for something only loosely based on reality is a grand statement of human emotion and shows just how important consent is.
Even with some of the pundits, the relationship between privacy and consent is prevalent. Sam-Walmart Guy mentions how the book clubs among the Walmart workforce have made unions irrelevant. That is clearly a statement on workers not having control over what they do. If you do not have control of yourself then you cannot consent to any action done upon or taken against you. It may seem like a simple joke, but it will likely ring powerfully to our audience due their knowledge of and experience with unions. Carl Banks, the Correctional Center Book Dealer’s monologue about how being part of a system that has a monopoly on information puts people in a vulnerable state, making them desperate enough to exploit themselves and give consent to situations when they normally wouldn’t. There may be more examples of this with the other pundits as well, but these are the too that stood out to me on my first reading.