Entertainment

Two of America’s most infamous artistic frictions – the 1930‑era clash between Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes, and the 1993 televised showdown between Larry Kramer and Dr. Anthony Fauci – are back onstage, reminding audiences that “historical frenemy” dynamics still shape American theatre today. In Trenton, New Jersey, David Robson’s Muleheaded dramatizes the aborted collaboration that birthed the ill‑fated play Mule Bone, whereas at NYU’s Skirball Center, Daniel Fish’s Kramer/Fauci reenacts the heated C‑SPAN interview that defined the early AIDS debate. Both productions explore how personal rivalry and public responsibility can collide on the boards.

The resurgence of these stories comes at a moment when theatre companies are revisiting the cultural battles that forged, and sometimes fractured, twentieth‑century American art. By staging the unfinished business of Hurston and Hughes alongside the fraught partnership of Kramer and Fauci, the two shows offer a rare double‑header on how “historical frenemy” relationships have rippled through literature, public health, and the stage.

Muleheaded revives a Harlem Renaissance feud

In 1930‑31 Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes attempted to turn Hurston’s short story “Mule Bone” into a folk‑epic play that would confront minstrel stereotypes and celebrate Black Southern life. Funded by white patron Charlotte van der Veer Quick Mason – known in the community as “the Godmother” for her generous support of Harlem Renaissance artists – the project also enlisted typist Louise Thompson to record the duo’s drafts.

The collaboration quickly unraveled. Disagreements over authorship, creative control, and financial terms led to a bitter copyright dispute that halted the play’s production. The fallout not only ended Hurston’s and Hughes’s friendship but also sent shockwaves through their tightly‑knit artistic network, which included Bessie Smith, painter Aaron Douglas, and magazine Fire!! co‑founder Wallace Thurman.

“Many writers who have written about the Harlem Renaissance, as well as Langston Hughes himself, said their friendship both began and ended the Harlem Renaissance,” says Brishen Miller, artistic director of Passage Theatre, which is presenting Robson’s Muleheaded through Feb. 15, 2024 [Passage Theatre]. The production compresses the 1930‑31 timeline, focusing on the intimate trio of Hurston, Hughes, and Thompson, and sidesteps the legal letters that dominated the real‑world drama.

Critics have noted that the original Mule Bone was conceived as an “anti‑minstrel” work, aiming to reclaim Southern archetypes from racist caricature. Henry Louis Gates Jr. Later wrote that the play “would have allowed Black art to speak in its own voice, without prior restraint” [PBS]. Although the play never reached Broadway, a staged reading at Lincoln Center in 1991 finally gave audiences a glimpse of what might have been [NYT Review].

Robson, a writing professor at Delaware County Community College, says his aim was to “show how intimacy creates tension and secrets, which in turn fuels drama.” The result is a tightly paced courtroom‑like narrative that lets modern viewers hear Hurston and Hughes argue, collaborate, and ultimately part ways – all within the span of a single New Jersey living room.

Kramer/Fauci stages a 1993 public‑health showdown

On a November 1993 C‑SPAN broadcast, playwright‑activist Larry Kramer and National Institute of Health director Dr. Anthony Fauci sparred over the federal response to the AIDS crisis. Kramer, whose earlier work The Normal Heart dramatized the epidemic, accused the government of moving “as slow as a snail” while Fauci defended the scientific process and urged a measured approach.

Director Daniel Fish translates that televised exchange into a stage piece that runs at NYU’s Skirball Center from Feb. 11‑21, 2024 [Skirball Center]. Will Brill portrays a buttoned‑up Fauci, while Thomas Jay Ryan embodies a passionate Kramer. The production uses in‑ear monitors to sync actors’ lines with the original audio, and a minimalist set of 54 house‑aimed lights, designed by Scott Zielinski, creates an almost clinical atmosphere.

“That TV interview is an act of performance from those guys,” Fish explains. “They know each other’s roles, and the tension comes from that awareness.” The play also incorporates callers voiced by Jennifer Seastone and a C‑SPAN interviewer played by Greig Sargent, adding layers of audience interaction that were absent from the original broadcast.

Beyond the theatrical spectacle, the show resonates amid today’s public‑health debates. Funding for the National Institutes of Health was recently preserved by Congress after a series of legal challenges [Congressional Record], and Dr. Fauci remains a polarizing figure in the national conversation on vaccines and pandemic response.

In the original 1993 interview, Kramer repeatedly urged President Clinton to invoke “emergency powers” to combat AIDS, likening the crisis to the military response in Desert Storm. While such powers were never formally applied, three years later the FDA approved Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART), dramatically reducing AIDS mortality in the United States [FDA History]. Both men, though at odds, contributed to that turning point.

Why these frenemy stories matter today

Both productions underscore how personal conflict can catalyze, or cripple, cultural progress. The Hurston‑Hughes rift illustrates the fragility of artistic networks during the Great Depression, while the Kramer‑Fauci clash highlights the tension between activist urgency and bureaucratic caution in a public‑health emergency.

“The circles were so tight that one rift rippled out,” Miller notes of the Harlem Renaissance community. Likewise, Fish observes that “the way these two men are able to disagree with each other, and be able to do that in a meaningful way—that is something we seem to have lost.” Both shows invite audiences to reconsider how “historical frenemy” dynamics shape not only the past but also contemporary discourse.

At a glance:

• Muleheaded – Trenton’s Passage Theatre (through Feb. 15, 2024); director Brishen Miller; focuses on Hurston, Hughes, and typist Louise Thompson.
• Kramer/Fauci – NYU Skirball Center (Feb. 11‑21, 2024); director Daniel Fish; reconstructs the 1993 C‑SPAN interview.
• Both productions explore the impact of personal rivalry on broader cultural movements.
• Historical context spans the Harlem Renaissance (c. 1925‑1935) to the AIDS crisis of the early 1990s.

As these “historical frenemy” narratives accept the stage, they remind us that artistic and scientific breakthroughs often emerge from conflict as much as collaboration. Both Muleheaded and Kramer/Fauci will run for limited engagements, but their relevance endures as we continue to grapple with questions of representation, public policy, and the power of dissent.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on how past conflicts shape today’s cultural landscape. Share your comments below and spread the word on social media.

Romance readers have long relied on a familiar shorthand to spot the next page‑turner: a list of tropes that promise exactly what they want. From “opposites attract” and “fake dating” to the ever‑popular “there’s only one bed,” these plot devices have grow the marketing language of the genre, guiding everything from cover art on Instagram to the blurbs on Amazon.

Publishers, agents and even readers now treat tropes as a kind‑of GPS for love stories, instantly signalling the setting, the heat level and the emotional payoff. As Lucy Stewart, commissioning editor for romance at Hodder, explains, “they are the easiest way to signpost what a book is.”article on romance tropes.

From “Enemies‑to‑Lovers” to “One‑Bed” – The Rise of Categorised Romance

Whereas classic literature has always leaned on recurring motifs, the modern romance market has taken this a step further, turning vague ideas into precise categories. “Hot billionaire” heroes, for instance, have evolved from the genteel Prince Charming to a more conflicted, sometimes dangerous figure. The same evolution applies to the “there’s only one bed” scenario, which now spawns variations like “oh no, now there are two beds.”

Even authors themselves are aware of the branding power of tropes. In the lead‑up to her forthcoming novel Cherry Baby, author Rainbow Rowell posted on Instagram questioning whether love, motherhood or marriage should be considered tropes at all. The post sparked a lively debate among fans about the line between storytelling convention and narrative reduction.

Why Tropes Matter to Readers and Industry Insiders

For readers, tropes act as a promise: a quick way to sift through an ever‑expanding catalogue of titles. “Tropes might develop me pick up a book,” one romance enthusiast told the author, “but I’ll stay or head for the writing.”original reporting. Meanwhile, editors like Stewart say the shorthand helps them sell books faster: “as soon as I say ‘enemies‑to‑lovers’ in an acquisition meeting, I’ve already communicated so much to a room full of people in just three words.”

Even streaming services have adopted similar tagging systems. A book‑publicist noted that Netflix now uses more than 36,000 distinct codes to describe its content, from “Small Town Scares” to “Twisted Christmas.” The same logic applies to romance novels, where a clear trope label can be the difference between a reader scrolling past or clicking “Buy.”

Critics, Creators and the Ongoing Debate

Not everyone welcomes the trope‑centric approach. Writer‑reader Eleanor Vendrell lamented, “I completely despair at the way books are reduced to their tropes, as if a menu of characteristics is in any way representative of a story.” Yet others argue that tropes are simply a tool for navigation in a saturated market.

Romance author Laura Wood counters the criticism by reminding us that tropes are the building blocks of storytelling itself. “Anything you read is made of tropes. Shakespeare loved tropes. So did Dickens, Austen – anyone you can think of,” she said, highlighting that even classic literature relied on familiar patterns to engage audiences.

The conversation also touches on representation. The new TV adaptation Heated Rivalry, based on Rachel Reid’s novel about rival ice‑hockey players, showcases the “enemies‑to‑lovers” and “sports romance” tropes while also raising questions about the portrayal of “MLM” (men loving men) as a trope versus authentic queer storytelling.

What’s Next for Romance Tropes?

As the market continues to expand, the balance between formulaic expectations and fresh storytelling will remain a focal point for creators and readers alike. Industry insiders suggest that the next wave may observe even more granular sub‑tropes, especially as data‑driven recommendation engines become smarter. For now, the familiar “one‑bed” scenario, fake‑dating contracts and slow‑burn opposites will keep fans turning pages, while authors experiment with new twists on ancient formulas.

What tropes are you most excited to see reinvented? Share your thoughts in the comments and spread the word if you found this deep dive into romance conventions useful.