A question about 'Angels in America' — Page 3

Ok EMcee you reeally need to read my posts before quoting them. In the last one, the whole second half was about how you don't know really what the intent was or what happens for sure.

Also keep in mind that I said it was possible, not that it was law. And because you don't know, it's POSSIBLE. It was just doing a virtual nod in agreement to the poster before me who said it's possible for Joe to be gone. Thats all

I think ur taking the 2 posts I made and combining them. What I said doesn't make sense was that "nothing in the play supports Joe going back to his old ways". That was to insomiak's comment. NOt to the fact that Joe NOT going to washington was nonsensical. If you read my posts you would have read the part where I say that I didn't necessarily think Joe went to Washington. I also go on to say why I think the play DOES support Joe reverting to his ways. Playwrights also use antithesis to prove a point. Joe going back to his old ways is proving a point which says this guy's got nothing going for him because he went back, everyone else moves forward. Celebrate that.
I DO think this idea can be used to make either point. Just make sure you are clear on my intent and that you quote it properly. As for the reading of my posting, I think impressions are subjective just like plays.