spinofflive
Robert Lord (Photo: Supplied)
Robert Lord (Photo: Supplied)

BooksNovember 21, 2023

The very relatable diaries of New Zealand playwright Robert Lord

Robert Lord (Photo: Supplied)
Robert Lord (Photo: Supplied)

Messy gay playwright Sam Brooks reviews the newly-published diaries of one of New Zealand’s original messy gay playwrights.

Early on in the diaries of Robert Lord, I found a kindred spirit. It was in this one simple sentence, written during the New Zealand playwright’s time in New York, where he bounced to and from across the 1970s and 80s.

“Got v drunk watching tele and rang Craig & Donna in Sydney.”

I nodded sagely as I read this, over a glass of cheap sauvignon blanc, glancing from the diaries to my gossip groupchat blowing up on my phone. Another sentence, later on in the book, has a very similar level of relatability: “Another Christmas come and gone. Money spent. Liquor consumed.”

Robert Lord is not a household name, although arguably no playwright in our country is except Roger Hall. Lord’s most famous (adjust for inflation) plays include The Travelling Squirrel, Bert and Maisie, and his best play, perhaps the best family drama ever written in New Zealand, Joyful and Triumphant, which holds up decades later. His heyday was the 1970s and 80s, which his published diaries helpfully cover, until he died of Aids-related causes in 1991.

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’
Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

When it comes to projects like these, I often question the purpose. Diaries are perhaps the one form of writing that are not intended to be read by any audience. Diaries are winks in the dark, whispers into the wind, secrets buried in the ground. I think of an audience reading my own diaries only in so far as that I cannot imagine an audience being interested in reading my diaries in the slightest. It feels like taking a look behind a curtain that should remain firmly closed, no observers please, the wizard is not at work today.

Which is not to say there is no purpose here. Robert Lord was not our country’s first queer playwright, but definitely its most prominent queer playwright for his time, give or take a Renée. His work is not revived as often as it should be, although you could say the same for any NZ playwright from his era. What the diaries reveal, more than anything, is the struggle of a brilliant, tireless artist who wanted so badly to be a commercial success, often at the expense of reaching his own brilliance.

Compared to most published diaries, Lord’s are, to be frank, an absolute mess. He is hilariously inconsistent with keeping a diary, and even admits in one entry that “it is becoming clear [he] is not a great diarist.” Hell, he literally also writes:

“There is no way this diary can provide a cohesive narrative of the past four months. The prospect of flashback covering the past is too daunting.”

He’s right! It doesn’t. It does though, somewhat ironically, put him in a similar place to most diarists. There is no way this man truly expected anybody to be reading his diaries, 40 years later, and that’s what makes them feel weirdly more tangible, more human. 

It’s not as though he only lived his life when he wasn’t writing his diary – the entries that we do have are full of parties, strife, jaunts across the world and a decades-long love for a man he treated pretty badly. There are so many famous names dropped from across the world and country, although somewhat hilariously, not Meryl Streep, who only features in a photograph of a workshop of one of Lord’s plays that she participated in (perhaps he wasn’t a fan?). It is also a portrait of the rare writer who spent as much time writing, it seems, as he did partying. That writing just wasn’t into his diary.

Meryl Streep (third from left) at a workshop held by Robert Lord. (Photo: Supplied)

As with any diary, part of the value is in its snapshot of history. The entries tell us what life was like for the writer, and about the world around them. Across the decade, Lord doesn’t just give us a window into his life, he also shows what it was like to be a gay man in New York in the 80s (albeit an outsider) and a playwright in New Zealand, and a man who loved a family which couldn’t quite comprehend his sexuality.

Which is all pretty bleak, to be honest. But perhaps the bleakest things are not bleak because they’re depressing in context, but because Lord (or anybody) could have written them today and they’d be no less true. To wit:

“Why can’t a summer theatre start in Auckland?”

“Another major problem is how to write the play without a cast of thousands.”

“… a very competent version of the old amateur groups doing plays which seem to be daring but which really are not.”

Also? He paid $34,000 for a house in the 80s. That house remains the Robert Lord Cottage to this day and hosts writers on residencies year-round. I stayed there last year, and wish that I had brilliant observations that I gleaned about the man from my time there. Alas, the only observation I have is that Lord was a very tall man, and like many men of great height, he does not mention that in his diaries, probably because, also like many men of great height, everybody else did it for him.

Robert Lord at work. (Photo: Supplied)

That’s all pretty Inside Baseball, though. While I can’t imagine a general audience who might be interested in Lord’s diaries – no shade on anybody involved, including Lord, it’s just a niche product – there’s definite value in the observations that Lord makes not just of his specific milieu and country, but on life in general and work in general.

He describes Wellington as a “neurotic city” that is “turned in on itself with no natural way out”; as beautiful, harrowing and correct a description of our capital as I’ve ever heard. His little bon mots are even better than those he delivered in his scripts; just listen to the way the words in this phrase knock against each other:

“Life is better than I have allowed myself to think.”

But honestly, the thing that resonates with me, treading a similar path to the one that Lord didn’t just blaze, but paved after him, is all the things that aren’t in the diary. Lord’s untimely death hangs over the entire endeavour, and moments like those where he separates his projects into categories (“Major Projects, Revision Projects, Future Projects”) don’t so much tug at the heartstrings as yank the organ against the ribcage. The last line, which I refuse to spoil here, is equally potent. If only we could all be so eloquent – and witty – towards our ends.

I’ve heard about Robert Lord (the person) a lot throughout my career. Many of his friends, including those in the books, are still pillars of the industry today. Some of those friends have mentioned how much he would’ve liked me, which seems a very unfair thing to put on a person who isn’t around to object. There are some moments of savagery towards his colleagues here that I can definitely empathise with, and which make me thankful that nobody will ever unearth my diaries and publish them, edited or otherwise. One of New Zealand’s most successful plays is referred to as “an awful creepy-crawly play with some good moments”, and at least three of our most well-known playwrights are given the kind of linguistic side-eye that only a well-schooled homosexual is equipped to deliver.

A Robert Lord selfie. (Photo: Supplied)

However, the beauty, and the tragedy, of these diaries lies in how much Lord pivoted, reworked, and sanded down the beautiful rough edges of his work for the sake of success; and how his plays, while often brilliant, feel mediated by the need to appeal to an audience who was so far behind him they hadn’t even started the race.

“So many ideas at present and simply must get to work on them.” Same.

Robert Lord Diaries, edited by Chris Brickell, Vanessa Manhire and Nonnita Rees, ($45, Otago University Press) can be purchased from Unity Books Wellington and Auckland.

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

BooksNovember 20, 2023

Women, madness and Britney Spears: A book review

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Much has been made of the hot celeb goss in Britney Spears first memoir, The Woman in Me, but the most interesting revelations are about how deeply patriarchy lingers.

Britney Spears was not only America’s sweetheart, but also mine. What little girl could deny her braids, secured with some sort of fluff, in the ‘Baby One More Time’ video? Not me. And then there was the red pleather number in ‘Oops!… I Did It Again’. In the nineties and noughties, there were plenty of other pop stars in itty bitty tops, baggy pants and shimmery eyeshadow, but no one else could do it quite like Britney (even though they tried). For a long time, my Britney was paused at the start of her career, in her teenage years. For me, that sugary sweetness and flirtatious grin was peak Britney. 

But after her teen rise to fame, Britney Spears’ life was defined by a series of embarrassing disasters. Justin Timberlake vilified her after their break up, she had a Vegas wedding which was annulled in 55 hours, then she married, had kids with and then divorced Kevin Fed-something who everyone thought was a drop-kick, battled him for child custody, shaved her head in front of the paparazzi in 2007, hit a car with an umbrella, and got involved with a paparazzi photographer. The sweetheart had gone “crazy”. 

Britney Spears performs at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards in New York on September 7, 2000. (Photo: Scott Gries/Getty Images)

Relegating women to craziness has a history as long as patriarchy, and despite all the feminist waves, still happens. We laugh now at the treatments for hysteria (a diagnosis with roots in 1900 BC Egypt, which was abandoned in the 1950s). Instead of considering that maybe women were angry, irritated and frustrated because they were disempowered and oppressed, male doctors went about inventing treatments like pelvic massages, vibrators, and intense smells. Hilarious and also tragic. But the definition of hysteria is almost interchangeable with that of borderline personality disorder (BPD), a common contemporary diagnosis, especially for young women. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hysteria as behaviour exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess.” The US National Institute of Mental Health definition of BPD reads like an echo:a mental illness that severely impacts a person’s ability to manage their emotions.”

I do not want to minimise the difficult and very real experience of having a mental illness. But I do think any treatment should be aimed at supporting people to have agency, not taking it away. I also question the casual and widespread labelling of women as “crazy” which serves patriarchy. Women tend to be called “crazy” when they refuse to conform to the social order which does not serve them. It is most obvious in romantic heterosexual relationships. If women get angry at, or stand up to, previous partners for being shit, they’re a “crazy ex”. If they demand too much they’re judged on the hot/crazy matrix and should they be considered to fall on the wrong side of the line, they’re undateable. I certainly have been dismissed as “crazy” and maybe on a good day with soft lighting “hot”.

For the most part, these days women dismissed as “crazy” suffer social punishments like ostracism rather than being locked in asylums. Unfortunately, Spears’ punishment was the latter. “They kept me locked up against my will for months,” she writes. In the mental health facility her father put her in, “If I got upset and asserted myself, I was out of control and crazy,” writes Spears. The doctors took her off her regular medication, Prozac, and put her on lithium. Usually lithium is prescribed to stabilise a person’s mood, especially if they suffer from bipolar disorder. Because of the lithium, “I didn’t know where I was or even who I was sometimes,” writes Spears, insisting she didn’t need it. “It wasn’t lost on me that lithium was the drug my grandmother Jean, who later committed suicide, had been put on in Manderville [asylum].” 

It’s the kind of thing we would like to think was left in the early 20th century. And yet it happened to one the world’s most visible, and loved, women – who has the privilege of being white, beautiful and rich. Now her account is published in an elegantly designed hardback book, or if you prefer listening, in Michelle Williams’ dulcet tones.

The Woman in Me starts in Kentwood, Louisiana, the rural town in the deep south of the US bible belt, where the Spears are from. “Tragedy runs in my family,” she writes early on. Over a sparse page, an abusive grandfather and a grandmother’s suicide are recounted. The suicide, usually an act seen as being a result of mental illness, is explained instead by the abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband.

Throughout, there are references to the way Spears, a young woman in the public eye, was treated, for example, “Everyone kept making strange comments about my breasts”. That was only the beginning. Soon men were leveraging her fame for their own careers, “I think that both Justin and Kevin were very clever. They knew what they were doing, and I played right into it.” And then comes her father and the conservatorship, “I looked at him with a growing sense of horror. ‘I’m Britney Spears now,’ he said.”

Photographers mob Britney in 2007. Photo: Robyn Beck, Getty.

Time passes quickly in the book. Though it’s a substantial feeling hard-back, the font is large, and surrounded by generous margins. And there’s another emptiness in the book. Specifics about Spears’ life become generalised, as she tries to reach for universal truths in a life that most of us will never know – like “running into Madonna all around the world”. There isn’t much glitz and glam in the book, as Spears instead focuses on her family, her two boys, the relentless paparazzi, and finally, her freedom.

The prose is simple to the point of sometimes being vacuous, it rattles around in an empty dark space. It describes what happened, “Suddenly there was a SWAT team of what seemed like twenty cops in my house,” as if through a thick screen. There’s helicopters, but not a mention of how close they were, or how loud. The retelling is at times dispassionate and removed, rather than the intimacy we might expect from a memoir. Perhaps it’s a distance necessary for traumatic events, or perhaps Spears has had enough of being a consumer product.

Still, it’s a reclamation of moments which have for so long belonged not to Spears, but to a celebrity obsessed culture which sent the paparazzi after her to circle “like sharks when there’s blood in the water”. 

 

View this post on Instagram

On Instagram, Spears is reclaiming her image by posting videos she’s made herself, of herself dancing (yes, sometimes with knives), cheeky nudes on the beach, and videos of a fluffy white dog. Others are re-posts of some pretty cringe content, like miniature food and drink and inspirational quotes. The captions are infamous for their manic quality, littered with exclamation points and emojis. Comments have been turned off. 

Let’s not make a meal of the fact that the book is ghost written. Britney Spears is a pop star and not everyone can be good at everything. There are a few parts of the book with glimmers of what I think is Spears’ voice: “cute as hell”, “my little heart”, “my prissy dancing in my cute little outfits.” They are the best parts, but they are far and few between. Most of the writing feels sanitised, as if she fears that revealing her true self will have her dismissed as “crazy” (again). Given her past, it’s hard to judge this decision too harshly, but I’d love to see more Britney on the pages.

I began the book looking for signs of madness, the image of Spears’ partially shaved head in my mind. There was “postpartum depression”, “serious social anxiety”, “I’d become weird” and “I was having a panic attack”. But these don’t seem like madness when she could see paparazzi photographers waiting in the hospital car park after she gave birth, her family treated her like shit, her rights were stripped away for 13 years, and worst of all she seemed to be losing custody of her children. “I feel like I was having a very human reaction,” she writes, and it’s hard to not agree.

The Woman in Me is a sobering read, and not exactly a towering literary achievement. It’s absolutely no fun and nothing at all like the video clips I adore. The sugary sweetness and flirtatious grin have gone; now I see Spears now as a traumatised woman in her 40s belatedly discovering freedom. The book is an account of a victim of patriarchal systems and is valuable for its insight into how society treats women seen as “crazy”. And yet the question of whether or not Spears is “crazy” faded from my mind the more I read. On June 23 2021, in her address to the Los Angeles probate court, Spears said, via phone, “I deserve to have the same rights as anybody does”. Crazy or not, I agree.

Britney in 2018