One of the standard conventions in theater is that a place takes place now, regardless of when it was written, it is meant to be read as “the present.” Of course there are historical plays, and plays that are so specific to their time that they no longer can be based in the present for which they were written, but if a person were to put on, say, Alan Ball’s Five Women Wearing the Same Dress it would likely be set in 2023 (or whenever) rather than 1993, when it was first produced.

So it is always interesting to see a play that self-consciously is set in the recent past to when it was written, because it says a lot about the playwright’s thinking: this story can’t be told now, it has to be told two, three, five years ago. How did we get here? The playwright asks, it starts just over that hill, it seems to say.

The Monogamist by Christopher Kyle was written in 1994, but takes place in 1991. As in, I’ve never heard so many characters say “It’s 1991, Dennis, the rules are different now.” As though 91 was a turning point and no one ever told me about it.

I think whatever that point was in onle in Kyle’s head though, because as funny as this play is, and as sincerely as it seems to take itself, I can really only call it empty in that it wants to say something, and it wants it desperately, but it doesn’t seem to follow through on actually saying it (at least, not as far as I can tell.)

We’re plopped into the life of Dennis, a 40-year old poet of little recognition whose latest work is about how he’s looked up and realized he’s only been with one woman his entire adult life, not that he minds it, he just finds it interesting, and unlike the values he would have professed in his youth.

Soon after, he catches his wife in bed with one of her student’s, which sends Dennis reeling, both his relationship and his art leaving him all at once. He soon finds himself sleeping with a young student, perhaps in retaliation, and we round out the ensemble with a late 20’s cable access host who has always been interested in Dennis, professionally (and sexually.)

According to Kyle the play is about Dennis trying to find a way for his art and his personal relationships to co-exist meaningfully with one another. With that in mind the show can be read that way, but it wasn’t my experience as I went through it blind. The play seems to want to ask questions about how the youth movement of the 60’s ended up producing the 90’s, but without a lot of actual insights to give.

The play itself is perfectly funny, although our characters are a bit archetypal, I could see passing an enjoyable evening with this show, though I can’t see what would move an artistic director to select it.

Even now I find myself wanting to write more about it, but without a lot of amterial to draw from.