The actual content of the show was in the interplay between the three anecdotes. I found the experience very enjoyable. Mike Daisey is funny and observant, but he also has a way of juxtaposing ideas in order to tease out something deeper than the surface descriptions. The end of the show was perhaps a bit cheesy, but the experience of it was such a perfect example of the themes that were explored within the show. Such a tiny leap of faith, but a leap nonetheless.

He may not be at the top of his game, but like Laurie Anderson and other performance artists, it still is a lot of fun to see him perform.

I haven't seen all of Mike Daisey's shows, but I've seen a good handful. I just saw "Fucking Fucking Fucking Ayn Rand" last night and really enjoyed it. I felt like I was seeing the "How Theater Failed America" Mike Daisey - deeply personal, not too pious, but withering, hilarious, and truthful in a universal sense. I prefer that Mike Daisey to the one I saw talking about Steve Jobs - that one was treading into a realm that he didn't need to be in.

I am very much looking forward to his piece on the imminent heart attack.

Also, I'm confused- are you reviewing him during the dark nights between shows? It's not clear to me how "intermission" is really a dig... but after your articles last year, it must be, right? Are you saying the shows themselves are an artistic hiatus between offerings of his "real" work? How can you say that after only seeing one of them? (Did you see one of them?) Or is "intermission" a sideways reference to his being middle-aged? If you prefer monologues by young people still figuring out how to craft a story, there's plenty of stand-up and performance art out there.

Finally, maybe you should hesitate before reminding people to associate your reviews with the word "intermission." Just a thought.