Do you think the writer knows that he is (or is depicting his alter-ego as) a narcissistic fuckhead? I think in a way there can be a sort of redeeming humility or at least honesty in someone who confronts the fact that they're arrogant and egotistical and is able to admit that these are not entirely admirable characteristics. There's some Woody Allen films and some Loudon Wainwright III songs that go into this territory and to me seem quite sympathetic. I guess the difference is between exploring the idea and nature of egotism, versus the much less attractive acting out or embodiment of egotism, which I suspect I find as unattractive as you evidently do...

I suppose the crux of the matter is whether Jamie ever gets any kind of comeuppance (aside from Cathy leaving him), and whether his egotism is ever seriously challenged in the course of the play. If neither of those things happen then it's easy to see how the musical would end up seeming less like an exploration of narcissism and more like an endorsement of it.

Do you think the writer knows that he is (or is depicting his alter-ego as) a narcissistic fuckhead?

I considered it, but there's just so much in the play that underscores the idea that Jamie *really is* a genius and Cathy *really is* nothing without him.

I'm genuinely quite bewildered by it. I've recently been listening to the soundtrack in an effort to try to work out *what the fuck he thinks he's doing*. I think part of hte problem of the production that we saw was that the female lead was significantly better than the male lead which unbalanced it somewhat - when he's well sung he is *vaguely* more attractive; he comes across as genuinely quite vibrant and lively (I mean, you can see why you *might* conceivably fall for him, if you had low self esteem and no better offers), albeit still narcissistic and self-absorbed.

But I still can't find anything like regret or honesty in there - also I kind of can't help but think that if it was a melancholy rumination on how their relationship fell apart because he was a dick his ex-wife wouldn't have sued him over it. I tend to find "oh shit I fucked up because I'm fundamentally a pillock" themes quite moving becaucse I tend to fuck stuff up on account of being fundamentally a pillock as well - but his side of the musical seems to be absolutely lacking in self-awareness, self-irony or the necessary shades of self-deprecation.

I suspect he's trying to portray Cathy as unhappy and needy ... but her complaints never come across as anything other than *completely fair*. I mean, in her second song "See I'm Smiling" she's clearly met up with him to try to salvage the relationship but when it turns out that he's not willing to put the time she (understandably) gets angry and the song degenerates into an hysterical monologue in which, I suspect, we're meant to see how unreasonably and demanding she is and won't let him get a word in edgeways:

You know what makes me crazy?
I'm sorry, can I say this?
You know what makes me nuts?
The fact that we could be together
Here together
Sharing our night
Spending our time
And you are gonna choose someone else to be with
No, you are
Yes, Jamie, that's exactly what you're doing:
You could be here with me
Or be there with them
As usual, guess which you pick
No, Jamie, you do not have to go to another party
With the same twenty jerks you already know
You could stay with your wife on her fucking birthday
And you could, God forbid, even see my show
And I know in your soul it must drive you crazy
That you won't get to play with your little girlfriends
No, I'm not, no I'm not!

But for God's sake, it's her BIRTHDAY! The whole thing is full of moments like this.

I just ... don't ... understand ...

I think in the guy's head Cathy's complaints may be shrill and shrewish, but to us as the audience they seem reasonable.

Did the ex-wife sue him over it? I can't think why; it looks like it's the best assassination of his character going.