Don’t Make Stuff Up. Period

“Lifespan of a Fact” wastes time on the obvious.

Jamil Ragland

Aof a Fact

The Lifespan of a Fact
Playhouse on Park
West Hartford
May 1, 2026

Sometimes, despite good intentions, a project can bite off a little more than it can chew.

Consider The Lifespan of a Fact, which just concluded its production at Playhouse on Park in West Hartford. The play asks us to consider the perspectives of Jim Fingal (Edward Montoya), an intern tasked with fact-checking an essay about an infamous suicide by renowned writer John D’Agata (Shannon Michael Wamser). He has been set to this task by his harried editor, Emily Penrose (Suzanne O’Donnell). As Jim does more research, he comes to find out that some details in John’s story aren’t exactly accurate. Others are completely made up. But John resists his demands that he change them.

The play is based on the book of the same name. Jim Fingal and John D’Agata are real people. (Emily Penrose is fictional.) Levi Presley’s suicide happened. And it took seven years for Fingal, D’Agata and the publisher to arrive at a place where everyone felt comfortable with the essay. The book focuses on their back and forth over the essay and what truth ultimately means.

I think the core problem is that the central question of the play is a bit esoteric for the format. Playwrights Jeremy Kareken, David Murrell and Gordon Farrell’s adaptation tries to capture the sweep of a great debate. But the answer is straightforward: writers reporting on real events can’t make things up. The end. That statement feels so axiomatic that it sucks any tension out of the fight between Jim and John.

If the debate were grounded more in character traits than a grand conversation about truth, it may have resonated more with me. Unfortunately, John, Jim and Emily are broad caricatures of their positions. They would have benefited from having more interiority instead of continuing to repeat their arguments. Why does Jim care so much about accuracy? Why is John defending his right to lie? Why is Emily willing to risk her reputation on a piece riddled with inconsistencies? We never find out. They just are.

Finally, the play ends with a whimper. After hours of work, the three have edited and fact-checked John’s essay into something almost acceptable. Emily must decide if they should publish the article. The play does not commit to an answer, instead cutting to black before she chooses. 

Again, there is no choice. I’m saying this as a principle of being a writer. YOU CAN’T MAKE THINGS UP. No matter what was changed in the editing process, the piece began from a place of deception and is fruit from a poisoned tree. If anyone should understand this, I thought it would be the playwrights of a story about truth. Their literal silence about the matter at the end of the play is baffling. 

However, any issues I have with the play are strictly confined to the script. Edward Montoya managed to come off as earnest and a little annoying; when it came time to stand up for what he believed, he revealed the mettle of Jim Fingal. Shannon Michael Wamser’s task was the opposite, slowly pulling back the anger of John D’Agasta and showing us what lies underneath. Suzanne O’Donnell’s role as Emily Penrose was to keep the circus running as smoothly as possible, and she did so with energy and humor. The quality of the performances greatly helped to elevate the play and make it an enjoyable experience despite my gripes.

The Lifespan of a Fact isn’t a bad play. I think it missed the forest for the trees; ultimately, debates about truth in the media are about the people writing, reading and editing. More of what makes them tick would have been good instead of positioning the debate about the soul of writing.