34
[Unfortunately], despite Charabanc’s best efforts, the press labelled them as 
“political”, “feminist” and even “propagandist” and “agitprop” (Winter 2008: 33). 
Reviewers saw them as a female-centric group, one going as far as labelling them: 
“Martin Lynch’s Bevy of Beauties” (Lojek 1998:107). Lojek (1999) writes a  
fascinating comparison between Charabanc’s forgotten legacy and Field Day’s firm 
representation in the archives. Both were small groups creating contemporary  
relevant, Northern Irish plays in the 80s (even both of their names reference an 
exciting day of leisure). However, Field Day was well received in contemporary  
reviews and continues to be a subject for academic analysis. Lojek notes how Field 
Day was identified with broad cultural focuses despite putting “men’s experiences 
to the fore just as clearly as Charabanc emphasised women’s experiences” (Lojek 
1999: 85). Furthermore, Field Day published work (a feat in itself) under a single 
author within the group, making productions easier to fund under the Arts Council 
and qualified to win prizes. Charabanc’s distinctive style of devising scripts  
introduced difficult issues surrounding copyright and funding was only available 
for the production, not the time spent devising.  
Unpublished scripts doomed Charabanc to be forgotten in canon formation.  
Without scripts for academic scholars to engage with, no critical reception could 
be formed so Charabanc’s legacy had no archival base. To conclude, many of the 
academic articles used to form this essay refer to Charabanc’s history as a  
‘scrapbook’: tattered glimpses collected together to try and encapsulate the bigger 
picture. Lay Up Your Ends is the opening page in that scrapbook - telling a story of 
five women longing to be represented so creating representation themselves. The 
play proves it’s not the quality of reception received but who it’s received by which 
defines if it will be embraced in canon formation. Lay Up Your Ends was extremely 
well received by the communities it was made for but rejected by the mainstream. 
This wasn’t due to the quality of the script or performance but pre-established 
standards which branded Charabanc as unworthy. Despite Charabanc’s efforts to 
fight against this, they didn’t have the material means to force themselves into the 
history books. However, their legacy isn’t wholly absent and they stand as a hidden 
gem for those lucky enough to find them. 
 

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.