THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM a visitor to your beautiful island having been here over 26 years ago when I was a student. I am so thrilled to be back and I feel so blessed for the opportunity to rekindle memories of what I consider my childhood playground and adopted home. I have been having a wonderful time and promise not to ever stay away so long again.
One of the memorable experiences has been a visit to the theatre, I had the privilege of seeing A Gift For Mom at the Little Little Theatre (cute name). Standing to the sound of Jamaica's National Anthem once again produced a cascade of emotions of pride, pleasure and pain. I was reminded again how much I love this beautiful country and its people who had been so good to me.
A Gift For Mom is not just a good Jamaican play it is world-class theatre at its best. I could never have imagined the treat I was in for, A Gift For Mom, was a gift for me, a widowed mother trying to raise my teenage son in the absence of his deceased father. I understand fully the emotions of a mother's love in the midst of crisis and tension so aptly portrayed by Miss Bell she was wonderful - the entire cast was. Good story, good direction, good execution, pleasing set.
I was a little disturbed, however, when I read your critic's review (January 5) and I ran into lines like the following, "... it seemed to have either missed its point or Dawkins decided to abort the original plot" and "... making you forget that the original destination had been changed."
My recollection is that in the first scene the obligatory dramatic question was raised: 'Will the son get his desire to learn to fly in face of his mother's strong objections?' This question was logically plotted with apt servings of major turning points and quite correctly, not answered until the last sequence of the final scene. That certainly makes for wonderfully gripping theatre and keeps you at the edge of your seat. That the critic had a preference for the play going in a direction the writer did not choose to go does not make for an 'abortion of the original plot idea', nor does it in my view, 'render the first half of the play almost meaningless, other than as a lot of smoke and mirrors to get to the end'.
Yes, I concur with your critic: I found the play 'sweet and entertaining' but where we part company, I did find A Gift For Mom 'a superb drama which tickled the mind'. I encourage theatregoers to read your review, see the play, judge for themselves and write you about what they think. Such dialogue is desirable, good for theatre and benefits all.
I am, etc.,
GAYNELL HAYWARD
Southampton, Bermuda
