I saw this at its first run at The National Theatre in 1993. I certainly enjoyed it a lot but even at fifteen my feeling was that it was a kind of imaginative con job making people think they had understood something complex when in fact one came away understanding nothing at all, but having enjoyed a good story and some beautiful but empty analogies.
> It feels as though Stoppard read James Gleick's Chaos (or a similar popular text), misunderstood it, forgot half of it, and then wrote the play on this basis of what remained.
If I might offer a different view, he did read Chaos, understood it well, and wrote a masterpiece that connects different strands of science to each other and to broader themes of culture and history. There’s no accounting for taste, and if you don’t like the play, no one can make you, but on the science he is always correct. If you’re interested in knowing more, I recommend Hermione Lee’s deep take on Arcadia in her new biography, Tom Stoppard: A Life.
Okay but I think that if James Gleick made a new HN profile just to respond to a quote of a comment by the user 'nostalgebraist' on 'Good Reads' he might read the actual comment he was responding to and realize that it had nothing to do with Tom Stoppard.
