Chapter summaries Alexandra Petri's US History Alexandra Petri

But Other Than That How Was the Play? Audience Feedback for Our American Cousin

⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.

Summary

In chapter 26 of Alexandra Petri's US History, the author presents a series of satirical audience reviews for the play Our American Cousin, performed at Ford's Theatre on April 13, 1865. The reviews are attributed to a cast of fictional audience members including Peter, George, James, Shelby, Sophie, Louisa, John B., Walt, and Mary L. Each reviewer gives the play five stars, praising particular comedic elements: Lord Dundreary's failed attempts to sneeze, the American Cousin's ax-wielding outburst, and the drunken butler. Despite the unanimous praise, several reviews contain subtle, ironic comments that point to the historical context—the ongoing Civil War and the impending assassination of Abraham Lincoln. For example, one review notes that the laughter was so loud a pistol shot would go unheard; another mentions that the play's structure would make it easy to enter via a side door unnoticed. The chapter uses the modern convention of online reviews to exaggerate the gap between trivial entertainment and monumental history.

Key Events

  • Peter praises the play for taking his mind off the Civil War, specifically enjoying Lord Dundreary.
  • George calls the comedy uproarious, noting that the laughter was so intense a pistol could be fired without being heard.
  • James raves about physical comedy and wordplay, claiming nothing could ruin the play and that even someone incandescently angry about the country would be cheered.
  • Shelby expresses enthusiasm for the romance between Florence and the American Cousin and buys Dundreary merchandise.
  • Sophie provides a plot summary, noting Asa Trenchard's character as a pan-American caricature, but fears upsetting "toxic" fans.
  • Louisa enjoys the play but finds Lord Dundreary's sneezing routine repetitive.
  • John B. (Evening) comments that the play's many breaks for laughter would make it easy to sneak into the theatre via a side door and climb into a box.
  • Walt reports laughing more than he has in ages.
  • Mary L. writes a review before seeing the play, predicting it would be a perfect date night.

Character Development

The chapter does not develop enduring characters; instead, each reviewer represents a satirical archetype:

  • Peter – the distracted spectator seeking escapism.
  • George – the enthusiast attuned to the national mood, yet blind to danger.
  • James – the hyperbolic fan unable to conceive of any negative consequence.
  • Shelby – the superfan invested in fictional romance and merchandising.
  • Sophie – the critical observer aware of caricature but cautious of backlash.
  • Louisa – the moderate reviewer who notices flaws but still awards full stars.
  • John B. – the insider who casually reveals the performance's vulnerability.
  • Walt – the easily pleased audience member.
  • Mary L. – the unquestioning consumer who judges without experience.

These archetypes collectively highlight how the public can be both perceptive and oblivious, especially when distracted by entertainment.

Themes, Symbols, or Motifs

  • Historical Irony: The chapter thrives on the gap between the play's triviality and the historic assassination occurring simultaneously. The audience's focus on comedy underscores how major events unfold unnoticed.
  • Satire of Feedback Culture: By mimicking online reviews for a 19th-century event, Petri satirizes modern tendencies to reduce complex experiences to star ratings and superficial commentary.
  • The Absurdity of War as Backdrop: References to the Civil War appear only in passing, suggesting how ordinary life—and entertainment—continues even during national crisis.
  • Theatricality as a Metaphor: The play-within-the-narrative and the real-world theatre setting blur the line between performance and history, reminding readers that history itself is often staged.

Why This Chapter Matters

This chapter serves as a comedic pivot point in Alexandra Petri's US History. It uses a single, well-known historical milestone—Lincoln's assassination—and reframes it through the lens of audience reception. By doing so, it critiques historical narratives that focus on grand moments while ignoring the mundane contexts that surround them. The chapter also demonstrates how comedy can illuminate serious subjects: the absurdity of the reviews makes the tragedy more poignant. Finally, it ties into the broader theme of the book: that history is often remembered through its oddest details, and that we must be careful not to miss the forest for the trees (or the assassination for the farce).

Study Questions and Answers

  1. Question: How does the chapter use the format of audience reviews to comment on historical awareness?
    Answer: The reviews show audience members praising a lighthearted play while making offhand references to the Civil War and the possibility of a shooting. This contrast illustrates how people often focus on entertainment or daily concerns, even as history-altering events occur nearby, satirizing the limits of contemporary awareness.

  2. Question: What is the significance of John B.'s comment about sneaking into the theatre?
    Answer: John B. observes that the frequent bursts of laughter would cover the noise of entering via a side door and climbing into a box. This directly foreshadows the real conspiracy behind Lincoln's assassination, showing how the play's structure inadvertently facilitated the crime.

  3. Question: Why do you think the author includes a review written before the play (Mary L.)?
    Answer: Mary L.'s review parodies the modern tendency to form strong opinions without direct experience. It also emphasizes the theme of presumption—both about the play's quality and about the safety of the historical moment, as she is writing without knowing the tragedy that will occur.

Navigation