Literary Chicago: Edward Albee - 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Martha:...and she wants to go to Chicago all the time, 'cause she's in love with that actor with the scar...But she gets sick and she sits down in front of her dressing table...
George: What actor? What scar?
Martha: I can't remember his name, for God's sake. What's the name of the picture? I want to know what the name of the picture is. She sits down in front of her dressing table...and she's got this peritonitis...and she tries to put her lipstick on, but she can't...and she gets it all over her face...but she decides to go to Chicago anyway, and...
George: Chicago! It's called Chicago!
Martha: Hunh? What...what is?
George: The picture...it's called Chicago...
Martha: Good grief! Don't you know anything? Chicago was a thirties musical, starring little Miss Alice Faye. Don't you know anything?

This dialogue happens in the opening scene in Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? It doesn't really say much about Chicago itself, although the film Martha is trying to think of is Beyond the Forest (1949). Although I guess it says something that we are introduced to two characters that express such disdain towards each other while mentioning our city.

A Passage from The Designated Mourner

Reprinted without permission. I believe this is an important passage, especially given recent events in the world, where people are quick to judge good vs. bad, good vs. evil.

JACK: Well, what Martin did was very cowardly. Tom spoke out, and Martin just kept quiet and tried to protect himself.
HOWARD: But you see, there you're judging another human being. Aren't you? Jack?
JACK: Well, yes, I'm -
HOWARD: That's the thing that doesn't make sense to me. Because you're saying in effect - you're saying, in effect, that Tom behaved the way he should have behaved, but Martin didn't. Martin ought to have behaved differently from the way he did behave. So you're implying - what? - that you think you'd have behaved differently if you had been Martin?
JACK: No, I don't say I would have - maybe I would have, I don't know - but that's not the point.
HOWARD: It isn't?
JACK: No - I -
JUDY: What he really means is -
JACK: I mean, I'm simply saying that Martin might have acted in a better way.
HOWARD: But you see, that's where I become incredibly confused. Because I mean, if you were Martin, or if someone were Martin, and they'd had Martin's life and Martin's experiences, then why wouldn't they perceive the whole situation around them in exactly the way that Martin did, and act accordingly? And in that case, what's the point of condemning Martin? Because he couldn't help being what he was - and since he was what he was, he saw things the way he saw them, and he did what he did.

This is all I should really post without diving too deep into copyright infringement. And I'm sure I could argue Wallace Shawn's own point about identity against him to say that the Wallace Shawn who wrote this play and the Wallace Shawn now are two entirely different, unrecognizable people (as he expanded on in a BOMB magazine interview). Either way, this is one of my favorite plays of all time. As poignant today as when it was written twenty years ago.