Division/part/section
The visual style of the title of this play is a direct reference to the work of Steven Berkoff whose plays such as East, West, and Decadence estrange language on the page in similar way to that of Gertrude Stein’s work. Stein’s contention that “A writer should write with his eyes and a painter paint with his ears.” (Dubnick, page unknown[1]) suggests that the visual aspects of the language inherent on the page are of equal importance, at least, to the sound they make in the readers head or the vocalization of the words in performance. The geometry of written text is an aspect of contemporary poetical language use and raises new challenges for the director, dramaturg and performer.
A Fragmentation
By David J. Glover
Cast
Actor 1 Male The Man,
Actor 2 Female Bound woman cop,
Woman,
Part of list,
Woman,
Hat
Actor 3 Male Dave,
Old Man Sings,
Part of list,
Wrong/Right
Actor 4 Male Brian,
Part of list,
Right/Wrong,
Boot.
Scenes
Opening the Lips. (Changed to “Opening the Doors of Breath”.)
History has a way of repeating itself.
Opening the Lips. (Changed to “Opening the Doors of Breath”.)
The title of this first scene is in reference to Romeo and Juliet; Act 5, Scene III.
Romeo: “and, lips, O you the doors of breath,”
I am drawing attention to the traditional transition of the text from page to stage. The title of this scene refers to the act of speech itself; the issues of speech versus written text being a major issue in Western philosophy from Socrates to Nietzsche. In retrospect I should like to consider changing the title to “opening the doors of breath” as I think it is more poetic and less ambiguous than “opening the lips.”
From a dramaturgical point of view, I think that it is pertinent that Romeo’s line is delivered to the apparently dead Juliet, he continues:
“seal with a righteous kiss
A dateless bargain to engrossing death!”
By referencing this scene from Romeo and Juliet I am intentionally attempting to pre-empt in a subtle but conscious way, the imagery of a hopeless, broken female – the image that we are first confronted with in the play. I realize that is almost impossible for an audience to associate the title of the scene with the following imagery (unless it was presented to them in playbill notes) but it is important for me as a writer to include these textual appropriations in my work. It is especially important for me to allow myself to do this and not censor myself for fear of the audience “not getting it.”
Centre Stage (CS) A Woman sits and bleeds. She is trussed, painfully, to a chair. Her hands and feet are bound. She is gagged. She may have pissed herself.
DSL A blackboard, lectern and microphone wait patiently with an air of expectation.
Although the first image of the play is that of an un-contextualized, bleeding woman, the first true action in the play is the entrance of a “The Man.” We can assume from the specific visual clues on stage, namely, the lectern and blackboard, that “The Man” will address the audience directly, in the style of a tutor or professor. This could further be emphasized with costuming. “The Man” breaks the convention of the fourth wall and throughout the play his academic dialogue acts to mediate any emotional interaction the audience may have with the various characters. This is a conscious attempt to utilize Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt.
The Man enters USR. He pays the Woman no attention.
[Silence]
The Man crosses to DSL .
[Silence]
He taps the microphone gently. It is on. He clears his throat as if in preparation to speak.
With this opening I am referencing both Plato’s Republic and the tradition in Greek theatre to open a play with an exposition addressed directly to the audience. In the works of Euripides, for example, the audience is provided with important background information at the opening of the play. In The Bacchae this information is delivered by Dionysus, in Woman of Troy by Poseidon and in Ion by the Gods’ messenger Hermes. In this play the character of “The Man” fulfils this function. There is, perhaps, a suggestion here that the role of tutor or lecturer is one of god-like status. (J). By titling the character “The Man” I am giving the character a political or government credential. The irony that “The Man” is never understood is in and of itself an intentional political commentary.
In an effort to drawing further attention to the intentional inter-textuality of this script, it is relevant here to mention that the title and character of “The Man” was inspired by a speech in the film School of Rock staring Jack Black, I have included the full quote here primarily to share the humor of it:
The Man. Oh, you don't know The Man? The Man's everywhere: in the White House, down the hall, Miss Mullins; she's The Man! And The Man ruined the ozone, and he's burning down the Amazon and he kidnapped Shamu and put her in a chlorine tank! Okay! And there used to be a way to stick it to The Man, it was called Rock and Roll. But guess what? Oh no! The Man ruined that too with a little thing called MTV! So don't waste your time trying to make anything cool or pure or awesome 'cause The Man's just gonna call you a fat washed up loser and crush your soul. So do yourself a favor and just give up! (Mike White, Writer of “School of Rock”)
By titling the character “The Man” while at the same time elevating his status to that traditionaly reserved for the Gods, I am playing with a tenant of structure embraced by Postmodern texts, that of “purposeful ambiguity” this allows for the generation of further comedy.
Furthermore, the opening of this play refers indirectly but intentionally to the ideas outlined by Plato in the beginning of Book II of The Republic. In his highly theoretical text Plato, through the character of Socrates, is discussing what education the leaders of society should have. He suggests that the first lessons learned should be factual not fiction (Waterfield trans., 46). “The Man” in the style of Socratic dialogue (in that he asks for response from his audience) is in fact presenting us with the kind of factual information which Plato suggests should be taught to the very people whom the character of “The Man” could be seen to represent.
[Silence]
The Man
(Addressing the audience)
A part is any component of a whole.
[Silence]
The play is punctuated with purposeful silences which are references to John Cage’s 4’33”. The silences are intended to draw attention to the Metatheatrics inherent in the play, by giving the audience moment for reflection while simultaneously assisting in the fragmentation of the action and narrative of the play which is central to the theme. As Cage said, “A sound has no legs to stand on.” (qtd. in Huxley and Witts p,138)
The original title of this play was The Empty Square and was inspired by the following quote from Cage.
For in this new music nothing takes place but sound: those that are notated and those that are not. Those that are not notated appear in the written music as silences, opening the doors of the music to the sounds that happen to be in the environment. … There is no such thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear. In fact, try as we may to make silence, we cannot.
(Cage 1957, in Joseph 85-87)
Cage’s use of the phrase “opening the doors,” although not present in the spoken text there is a direct link between Cage’s statement and that of Romeo which inspired the first title (and scene). The silences open the doors to the music of the text. Cage is saying that the presence of that which is absent allows us access to that which is present. This is reminiscent, for me, of much of Beckett’s work.
The Man
A part is any component of a whole.
As if by way of explanation he turns to the blackboard and writes: “A part is any component of a whole.” He turns back to the audience looking for recognition, understanding. But gets none.
The Man
It’s going to be a long night.
Breaking the Ice
Brian and Dave, two young British gangster-wannabes enter. Dave is clearly Brian’s intellectual superior. Standing CS on each side of the bound woman, they speak over her head in excruciatingly thick London accents.
The following scene is an undisguised homage to Popular Culture which has, in itself, been considered to be the bastion of Postmodernity (See Gottdiener and Lye among many others). The scene is specifically a parody of moments for the film Reservoir Dogs. As Lye points out “every text exists only in relation to other texts.” (3) and “subjects take their meaning and value and self-image from their identity groups” (2). The “subjects” to which Lye is referring are the members of the audience. Each individual will generate and contextualize their own frame of reference to this piece so it is of no consequence to me as the author how far I take the inter-textual metaphors, homage or parallels. I have discussed this further in the final section of the play “Interesting Whines”.
The immediate and unapologetic inter-textuality puts this play firmly in the hands of Post-Structuralist ideology. Each potential image within the text contains within it a “surplus of meaning” which is both “textual and intertextual” (Lye 3).
The following scene was written in response to Antonin Artaud’s call to arms “The theatre must give us everything that is in crime, love, war, or madness if it wants to recover its necessity.” I truly believe that Quentin Tarantino has already achieved what Artaud suggested but on film not in the theatre. Hence the homage:
BRIAN
(Calmly)
What’s the problem?
DAVE
(Infuriated)
What’s the problem? What’s the fucking problem? It’s a fucking cop you stupid cunt.
BRIAN
So?
DAVE
So? Fucking so? It’s a fucking cop!
BRIAN
I know that now.
DAVE
You know? Oh well, that’s all right then.
BRIAN
Yeah, it’s a cop.
DAVE
(Exploding)
I can see it’s a fucking cop. You cunt!
BRIAN
(Obliviously calm)
Aren’t you over reacting a little? And can you please stop calling me a cunt!
DAVE
Your right. I’m over reacting. It’s cool. I’m cool. We’re all fucking cool. Right? Right! It’s not so bad. You have, quite calmly and in all seriousness brought me a cop! A member of the community of individuals who are instructed and supported by society to endeavor to track down, hamper, fowl-up, cease and otherwise desist the actions and plans of honest, law abiding criminals, like what we our good selves are…
Dave’s use of language serves as an example of ironic juxtaposition between text and image. His actions read as violent, brainless, gangster while his verbosity reads as intelligent, philosophical individual. We see this use of linguistic manipulation in many contemporary films which project violence of a scale of the Grand Guignol Theatre. Films such as Guy Richie’s Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. In both of these films the ”intelligent, philosophical individual” who is also a gangster is played by ex-football-hooligan-turned-actor Vinnie Jones.
DAVE takes his gun out of its shoulder holster. Pointing it towards BRIAN, he conducts his words with the barrel of the gun. BRIAN begins to look nervous.
DAVE (Cont.)
A cop who’s sole purpose is to apprehend – with, may I point out, “whatever force is deemed reasonable,” bastards like you.
And apparently I am over reacting. (He is almost screaming) You stupid fucking cunt!
The Man taps at the microphone, it is still on.
The Man
A portion is a part allotted to, or regarded as, belonging to…
He turns to the blackboard and writes: “portion”
Turning back to the audience.
The Man (cont.)
You see?
A portion. Allotted to… Belonging to. You see?
Insert coin for more time
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.
"Everything is meaningless!"
Ecclesiastes 12:8NIV
An old man sits in a rocking chair. He sings almost inaudibly in a Southern accent.
At the same time a young woman sits at a small table. She speaks slowly and deliberately but with an air of sadness which builds to aggression. As she speaks she pauses inappropriately to push a button around the surface of the table. When she speaks she does not move. When she pushes the button she does not speak, her world being momentarily consumed by the action of pushing the button.
The character of “Sings” is so named to represent his actions. The character only sings, he has no ‘dialogue,’ this is another conscious effort to employ (although only slightly) Brechtian alienation techniques. The singing does not add anything to the overall ‘plot’ of this play it is included only as a moment of emotional insecurity for the audience. By having “Woman” talk over “Sings” the audience are further distanced from anything which might appeal to them about his apparent serenity.
|
“Woman’s” silence/push-action-phrase was inspired (in actual fact taken almost verbatim) from-the Integrated Seminar class with Rinde Eckert which I attended this semester. Rinde used this action-phrase to highlight the juxtaposition of movement and monologue. The text which “Woman” is speaking is taken (again, almost verbatim) from Post-Modernist Sociologist and theorist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu actively defends his work as being “not-Structuralist,” claiming to have “over-come Structuralism” (Browitt, p31). However, the suggestion that Bourdieu’s sociological writings can be a conduit for the “meaning” of this play is certainly supported by academics and by Bourdieu himself, who advocates that one should,
“situate oneself within ‘real activity as such,’ that is, in the practical relation to the world, the preoccupied active presence in the world through which the world imposes its presence, with its urgencies, its things to be done and said, things made to be said, which directly govern words and deeds without ever unfolding as a spectacle”
(Bourdieu The Logic of Practice p.52, qtd. in Glover p.32)
Bourdieu’s technique then is one which advocates a collaboration between practice and theory. An integration of the subjective pursuit of “things done and said” and the objective considerations of theoretical analysis. It is hoped by this point in the play that the audience will “kinda’ get it!” i.e. that they will be aware that there is a synthesis of theory and practice going on in the text.
The Man
Turning immediately to the blackboard, he narrates as he writes the words:
“A piece is a part separated from the whole.”
[Silence]
A piece of pie.
A piece of the puzzle.
A piece of Art.
A piece of Art? What whole…
He turns to the board and writes the word “whole” in very large letters
Which “whole” is a piece of art separated from? Per se, quid pro quo, In absentia, ad nauseum! Etcetera etcetera?
History has a way of repeating itself.
The two men and one woman perform the following list in whichever way is suitable. Some text can be cut, shared, repeated, mixed up, copied, crossed over, ignored, wept, sung, shouted, read from cards which are thrown on the floor, written on the floor in chalk, written on each other in pen. Written on the walls in blood. Think of this list not as lines to be said but as a prop - a weapon to be wielded. The performance of this list should take exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds. As reference to John Cage’s 4’33’ and to Samuel Beckett’s tendency to specify timings in his text.
Wheale (1995) defines postmodern works as those which include
eclecticism to generate parody and irony; style may owe something to schlock, kitsch or camp taste. It may be partly allegorical, certainly self reflexive and contain some kind of list, it will not be realistic.
(Wheale 42)
The following list serves to remind us that the author is very consciously dealing with themes of Western philosophy in this play. The stage instructions possess an irony in themselves by asking the director and/or cast to use free reign with the text but limiting its performance to a specific length of time. The content of the list (mostly Western philosophers) places the theoretic themes of the play in the realm of Western thought. The list suggests a complete definition of Ideologies and philosophies, as if somewhere in the collection of great thinkers there is a combination which explains everything[2]. Professor John Lye of Brock University provides a list of suggested Post-Structuralist criteria in his web-article “Some Post-Structural Assumptions” and although it is important to recognize the formulaic nature of Lye’s article it is no less an excellent resource. Grotowski wrote “if a phenomenon can be defined as ‘it is that, and only that,’ that means it exists only in our heads. But if it is real life existence, we can never hope to define it completely” (Grotowski, p.2; qtd. in Bogart, p.55). Grotowski is acknowledging here the overall Post-Structuralist and (as Lyotard reminds us) Post-Modernist rejection of “totalizing” and “foundationalist” concepts. There is a conscious incongruity in Lye’s twelve-point list of Post-Structuralist assumptions, being that the first point refers specifically to this rejection of a definable ideology. Lye’s list is not proffered as the definitive criteria for all Post-Structuralist thought but rather exemplifies in itself the process of deconstruction so central to Post-Derridian thought. The following list is meant to parody Lye’s list with an academic nod to Grotowski’s statement.
Aeschylus 525 – 456 BC Greek playwright
458 BC Oresteia, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers.
Sophocles 497 – 406 BC Greek playwright
Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone
Euripides 480 – 406 BC Greek playwright
431 BC Medea 415 BC Trojan Women 405 BC Bacchae
Socrates 470 -399 BC
“Father of modern Philosophy” Epistemology. Ethics. Parodied by Aristophanes. Influenced Aristotle.
Aristophanes 448 – 385 BC Greek Comic Playwright
423 BC The Clouds 414 BC The Birds 411BC Lysistrata (later illustrated by Picasso)
Aristotle 384 – 322 BC Greek Philosopher
Empiricism, Metaphysics, Ontology. Wrote The Poetics
Menander 342 – 291 BC Greek Comic Playwright
317 BC Dyskolos (The Grouch)
Plautus 254 – 184 BC Roman Comic playwright
Influenced the farces of Molière. Bacchides, Pseudolus, Curculio
Terence <180? – 159 BC Roman Comic playwright
Only wrote 6 plays – all survive, including Heauton Timorumenos (The Self-Tormentor).
Adelphoe (The Brothers)Hecyra (The Mother-in-Law)
Julius Caesar 100 – 44 BC Emperor of Roman
Helped transform Republic into Empire Assassinated: “Et tu Brutus?”
Marc Anthony 83 – 30 BC Roman politician and general
Allied with Julius and Augustus Caesar. “Friends Romans countrymen”
Virgil 70 – 19 BC Roman poet
Dante’s The Devine Comedy Eclogues, 37–29 BC Georgics (On Farming), “tempus fugit” The Aeneid
Cleopatra 69 – 30 BC Queen of Ptolemaic Egypt,
Dated Julius Caesar & Marc Anthony. Start of the Roman Empire in Mediterranean
Augustus Caesar 63 – 14 BC Autocratic ruler of Roman Empire 41yrs.
(Octavian)Ended civil war, brought peace.
Horace 65 – 8 BC Roman lyric poet
Ovid 43BC – 17 AD Roman Epic Poet
8AD Metamorphoses 5BC Medicamina Faciei Feminae
Seneca 4 BC – 65 AD Roman Stoic philosopher & dramatist.
The younger Phaedra, Medea, Agamemnon,Oedipus
St. Augustine 354 – 430 Mostly Italian Early Literary Theorist.
476 End of the Roman Empire Augustus deposed.
Hroswitha ?935 – <973 Female Monastic Christian poet
of Gandersheim, Rewrote Terence’s comedies.
1447 Guttenberg develops the Printing Press
Erasmus 1466 – 1536 Critic of the Catholic Church
Influenced Reformation and Enlightenment.
Machiavelli 1469 – 1527 1532 The Prince. A political treatise.
Martin Luther 1483 – 1556 Started Protestant Reformation.
John Calvin 1509 –1564 French Christian theologian during
the Protestant Reformation. Calvanism.
Shakespeare 1564 – 1616 English poet and playwright
England’s National Poet
Galileo Galilei 1564 – 1642 1940 Life of Galileo. A Play by Brecht
Thomas Hobbs 1588 – 1679 English political philosopher
1651 Leviathan
Rene Descartes 1596 – 1650 French. Father of modern philosophy.
“Cogito ergo sum” 1637 Discourse on Method
Spinoza 1632 – 1677 Dutch Jewish philosopher.
Separation of Church and State. 1662. On the Improvement of the Understanding.
Isaac Newton 1643 – 1727 Discovered the Laws of Motion and Gravity.
1687 Philosophiae Naturalis/Principia. Mathematica.
The Enlightenment (apx.) 1720 – 1800 Things become “cool”.
“Sapere aude” Dare to Know, Kant
Scottish Enlightenment (apx.) 1730 – 1800 Braveheart becomes cooler than Christ.
There are purposeful throw-away comments included in this otherwise dry list. These are included to promote humor. They may be read by the audience as the author’s personal commentary on these aspects of philosophical thought. That is not the intention of these comments but the author acknowledges that the audience may make these assumptions.
George Berkely 1685 – 1753 Irish philosopher. Immaterialism.
“Esse est percipi” 1710 A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge
Voltaire 1694 – 1778 French writer / philosopher.
Civil liberties / freedom of religion. Plays - 1732 Zaire and Eriphile
David Hume 1711 – 1776 Scottish Philosopher / economist. Instrumentalism.
Rousseau 1712 – 1778 Genevan political philosopher 1750 Discourse on the Arts and Sciences
Diderot 1713 – 1784 French philosopher. Art critic. Plays- 1757 Le Fils naturel, 1758 Le Père de famille Wrote and developed “New Drama.”
Immanuel Kant 1724 – 1804 German. Last philosopher of the
Enlightenment. 1781 Critique of Pure Reason 1790 Critique of Judgement.
Robert Burns 1759 – 1776 Scotland’s National Poet. Womanizer.
Pioneer of Romanticism. To a Mouse. Scots Wha Hae. Auld Lang Syne.
Schopenhauer 1788 – 1860 German philosopher.
1818 The World as Will and Representation, Ontological primacy over intellect
Hegel 1770 – 1831 German philosopher.
(Slave-master) Dialectic 1807 Phenomenology of Spirit
John Stuart Mill 1806 – 1973 British Philosopher 1859 On Liberty
Darwin 1809 – 1882 Biologist. Ship: The Beagle
Survival of the fittest 1859 The Origin of Species
Kierkegaard 1813 – 1855 Sacrificed children on the alter of God
Karl Marx 1818 – 1883 Political theorist. Class struggle.
1848 Communist manifesto
Wittgenstein 1818 – 1951 Concerned with Logic & Language 1921 Tractatus.
William James 1842 – 1910 Pragmatist, Epistemologist
1892 Psychology 1902 the varieties of religious experience
Nietzsche 1844 – 1900 Fucked a horse. Maybe. Or not!
Freud 1856 – 1939 Psychoanalysis,
ID EGO and the Unconscious. 1900 Interpretation of Dreams. Pervert.
Schlegel 1772 – 1829 German poet and literary critic.
1797 Die Griechen und Römer (Greeks & Romans)
Bertrand Russell 1872 – 1970 Wasn’t he a huge queer?
Gertrude Stein 1874 – 1946 Modernist Literature.
Stream of Consciousness writing. 1949 Plays, Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas
Heidegger 1889 – 1976 Too old too soon.
Popper 1902 – 1994 Advanced empirical falsifiability theory.
Sartre 1905 – 1980 Existentialist. Wrote “No exit”. I know the feeling.
Lévi-Strauss 1908 – Pres. Did or did not invent blue jeans.
Camus 1913 – 1960 French Absurdist author and philosopher
June 28, 1914,. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip.
More importantly, inspired name for Glasgow based indie band.
1914 – 1918 WWI This definitely happened!
Kantor 1915-1990 Who the fuck is this Polack Kantor?
Lyotard 1924 – 1988 French. Defines Postmodernism for you.
Foucault 1926 - 1984 Interested in power structures. Into S&M and watching.
Derrida 1930 – 2004 French. Founder of Deconstructionism.
Bourdieu 1930 – 2002 French Sociologist. Habitus and Field.
Augusto Boal 1931 – now A paper canoe is like a chocolate teapot. Useless.
Baudrillard 1929 – 2007 Recently deceased – his death were misinterpreted..
See Persian Gulf War
Deleuze & 1925 – 1995 French Postmodern Philosophers
Felix Guattari 1930 - 1992 1972 Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus
1987 A Thousand Plateaus
1937-1945 WWII This also definitely happened.
Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 This might not have happened. Blame the French.
In his article “Post Post-Structuralism,” Richard Schechner calls for an open re-interpretation of Post-Structuralism in order that Performance Studies might generate its own theory base. For Schechner, Performance Studies should include its own epistemological basis, it should “generate theories based on performance” (1). Theories that go beyond the decreasing confines and formulaic “givens” of contemporary critical and literary theory. The list above gets gradually more humorous and ridiculous as we get closer the major players of contemporary philosophy.
Golliwog’s cakewalk (Changed to "Praxis makes perfect”)
The Man
(addressing the audience)
A division is a part formed by classification. Allocation, allotment, arrangement, assortment, branding, breaking down, building up, cataloguing, codifying[3], collocating, coordinating, correlation, disposition of, distinguishing, distribution, division, embodiment, filing, grading, grouping, incorporating, indexing, labeling, matching or un-matching, naming and or numbering, ordering, organizing, pegging, pigeonholing, the putting away of, ranging, ranking, rating, regimenting, segregating, sizing, either up or down , sorting, systematizing, tabbing, tabulating, tagging, ticketing, typing, typecasting, cutting and or partitioning.
A division is a part formed by classification.
So is a section. (As an after thought) though it is smaller.
Two men[4] CS are in the middle of what appears to be a heated argument. They sit in chairs which do not face one another. They sit as though paralyzed. During their dialogue the woman undresses them and redresses them in the cloths of the other. While she does this she sings quietly to herself.
Much contemporary theatrical theory, especially that based in critical theory attempts to strip down the criteria of what makes a piece of theatre to a single, basic moment. What Grotowski’s “Poor Theatre” did for scenery, costuming and props, Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Act Without Words I and II did to the gestalt theatrical event. Here we see two men juxtaposed between the mental and the physical, their “heated debate” again referencing the metatheatrical nature of the whole work while their physical actions have been reduced to nothing more than their presence. They are literally being stripped and re-dressed. A metaphor for deconstruction and reconstruction. This also references Schechner’s call to deconstruct deconstruction. (5) Structuralism places meaning inside the experience of shared systematization, particularly the system of language. Existentialism places the responsibility for meaning in the hands of the individual, while Post-Structuralism raises the individual to the level of “subject” and meaning becomes inferred through interpretation. With these distinctions much, if not all, of this play falls outside of what Schechner describes as “the rigidities of Structuralism” (p3).
By the end of The Poetics Aristotle has herded all artists into the same pen for the same reason as Plato, because “the poet is an imitator in the same way in which a painter or any other maker of likenesses is” (Bambrough 428). However, Aristotle suggests that mimesis is not only appropriate, but is one of the fundamental tenet’s of representative art. Aristotle does not agree with Plato’s idea that the mimetic action is three times removed from the truth of the action because Aristotle does not succumb to Plato’s concept of ideal forms. Instead, Aristotle provides a more empirical understanding of truth that can be gained from the senses. We note with interest that Aristotle defines the action of comedic representation as “an imitation of inferior things and people” (Bambrough 415). It is precisely this that Plato wishes to avoid. In the following dialogue, the characters are made “inferior” by their lack of action, their subjectification.
Foucault accentuates the relationship between the subject and the physical world by saying that:
“the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labor power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection”
(In Rivkin and Ryan 548)
RIGHT/WRONG
Style?! I don’t want fashioned into any style!
WRONG/RIGHT
It has to be in some style!
RIGHT/WRONG
Well then, it’s in my style.
WRONG/RIGHT
Oh now you’re just being ridiculous!
RIGHT/WRONG
(Stunned silence)
WRONG/RIGHT
You can’t have a section in your style. You haven’t got a style. It’s supposed to be funny right?
RIGHT/WRONG
Yes, no! I mean funny, yes! But making a serious point. It’s irony!
WRONG/RIGHT
Irony shmirony!
RIGHT/WRONG
It’s a fragment about making a piece which is about my feelings.
WRONG/RIGHT
Self-referential irony. Yawn! It’s been done before. And done better.
RIGHT/WRONG
But it hasn’t been done by me.
WRONG/RIGHT
Oh, so you’re going to re-invent the wheel because you didn’t invent it in the first place? That doesn’t seem to be too clever. And you want to be assessed on this? You have to contextualize the divisions. Who are your antecedents? What are you trying to say?
RIGHT/WRONG
I’m just trying to express my feelings.
WRONG/RIGHT
Oh please! You’re feelings are immature and irrational. Self referential irony needs to be quick and funny and weird and off the wall and avant-garde and postmodern and your categorization is not! It’s childish and whiney. And lacks style.
RIGHT/WRONG
(Taken aback)
How can you say that? I mean are you even allowed to say that? I haven’t got a style? Surely my style is the way that I tell my story?
WRONG/RIGHT
Well if you want to look at it like that. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. A fairly immature way of looking at it.
RIGHT/WRONG
But I thought it was all about telling people’s stories, about what they have to say. To present feelings and individual truths and understandings. I thought that’s why we were here doing this. I thought that’s what you were supposed to be showing me!
WRONG/RIGHT
I thought this… I thought that! Who told you to think this and that. Who said that’s what you were to think?
RIGHT/WRONG
No one it’s just what I think.
WRONG/RIGHT
(mocking laugh)
Ha! Original thought? I don’t think so!
RIGHT/WRONG
But it’s all so old and tired. I can’t be the first person to think this. I can’t be original, there must be others.
WRONG/RIGHT
Maybe there are, maybe there are not! But while you’re here…
The Man
A segment is a part separated along natural lines of division.
Interesting Whines
The title of this section is a bastardization of the ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times.” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/245000.html). This is an example of “cultural appropriation” and “bricolage.” Both of which have been classed as important factors in the creation of Postmodernist texts. There are numerous other examples of the author’s use of both “cultural appropriation” and “bricolage” throughout this script. They are all conscious, and have authorial intention.
Hat and Boots are discovered on stage. Boots is playing with his hat while Hat is taking off her boot to rub her tired feet.
The following scene is a parody of Samuel Beckett’s existentialist play Waiting for Godot. The two characters who are de-personified (made subject as Foucault might say) by their names, discuss the falsity of… something. The author asks the audience to question whether the falsity is that of the theatrical event they are witnessing or to suspend their disbelief and attempt to find some inherent meaning in the character’s interactions. As Andreadis (2006, 1) points out, one of the defining contentions of Postmodern texts is, and has been for many theorists including Adorno and Appignanesi, a reliance on, or at least a utilization of, self-referentiality.
Hat and Boots are having an Ontological argument similar to that which Vladimir and Estragon have in Waiting for Godot and that which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. Again there is concsious use of de/re/construction in this scene, Lutterbie states that:
“Deconstruction preceded postmodernism. Whereas postmodernism locates reality on the surface of images, deconstruction seeks to reveal structures of meaning that exist beneath the surface.” (226)
The author is asking the audience to consider where they meaning of this piece lies for them or indeed, if there is any meaning in the piece at all.
Hat
So you’re telling me... no, let’s get this right, you are insisting to me that it never happened and that it’s all made up!
Boots
Well, yeah!
A short personal story as an actual example of the kind of inter-textual and subjective interpretation that exists in a Post-Structural society.
After reading this play for the first time, a male friend suggested in all seriousness that I should change the characters so that the male actor plays “Hat” and the female actor plays “Boots.” When I asked him why he said:
“Well obviously “Boots” is like “Puss in Boots” and if you have a female play the part then it would be like “Pussy in boots”! Oh, yeah and the word “Boots” looks like “Boobs” so it should be a girl”
The reader realized that the character’s names were never said in the text and the only way that an audience member would be exposed to the character’s names would be to read the script (or the playbill). Despite this, the reader’s immediate associations with the word “Boots” as a character name were enough for him to vocalize his personal interpretation of the text. If only we were able to get such insight into alternative, personalized, subjectified readings for all our audience members. I actually contemplated changing the character’s around to satisfy the reader’s response. I still might.
Hat
All of it?
Boots
Yeah.
Hat
No.
Boots
Yeah.
Hat
Even the bit about... you know… (She whistles conspiratorially)!
Boots
All made up. None of it’s true. You could say it was a lie, if you want to look at it like that.
Hat
A lie? A conscious lie?
Boots
Well I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say conscious lie, but certainly not the truth.
Hat
Can I have a light?
Boots
Why?
Hat
Because I want to smoke a cigarette.
Boots
I don’t like it when you smoke in here.
Hat
Then I’ll go somewhere else.
Boots
I don’t like it when you smoke at all.
Hat
What do you care?
Boots
I’m only thinking of your future.
[Silence]
Have you thought much about your future?
Hat
I have not and I don’t care. Now, can I have a light?
Boots
Who do we know who’s got a future?
Hat
I don’t know. Now I’m going outside to smoke this cigarette before it gets any colder and darker.
Boots
Is it dark?
Hat
It’s getting to be.
Boots
What?
Hat
It’s getting dark. (Looking up) The moon’s out.
An apple roles across the stage, Hat picks it up, regards it with momentary skepticism and eventually eats it.
Boots
Shall we stay further?
Hat
Yes lets.
They leave.
The last three lines are a purposeful reversal of the end of Waiting for Godot.
As an experiment in subjective interpretation and reader response theory I would ask you to now go back and read this scene again but this time consider that the author has informed you that the scene is actually a commentary on the Bush administrations engineering of mis-information regarding the War in Iraq. What happens to your reading of this purposefully ambiguous text now?
The Man turns to the blackboard and wipes all the writing off, leaving only the word “Whole.”
[Silence]
He thinks about this for a moment then turns to the audience again.
The Man
A fragment is a small part. Usually broken off…
He slowly turns to the board and erases the letter “W” leaving only the word “hole.”
He Exits.
Blackout.
Bibliography.
The following texts, although not cited directly within this play text, have been influential referents for the construction and dramaturgical analysis of the text presented here.
Adams, Douglas The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy
U.S., Del Rey Publishing, 1995
Aristotle Trans. J.L. Creed & A.E. Wardman The Philosophy of Aristotle. Ed. Renford Bambrough,
N.Y., New American Library: A Mentor Book. 1963
Andreadis, Harriette “Post-modernism” glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture December 29, 2004, New England Publishing Associates. Accessed: November 15, 2006, <www.glbtq.com/literature/postmodernism.html>
Beckett, Samuel Waiting for Godot.
New York, Grove Press, 1994.
Beckett, Samuel “Breath” (1969) Collected Shorter Plays: Samuel Beckett
New York, Grove Press, 1984.
Bogosian, Eric “Spalding Gray: 1941-200”
American Theatre, v. 21 no.6 (July/August 2004) p. 22-3
Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice
Stanford, Stanford UP, 1990
Browitt, Jeff & Practicing Theory: Pierre Bourdieu and the Field of
Nelson, Brian (ed.s) Cultural Production. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2004
Corbet, Edward P.J. “Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student” Modern Literary Theory: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Ed. Rivkin J. and Ryan M., Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2004. (p.142-161)
Cage, John, Musicage : Cage muses on words, art, music. ed. Joan Retallack
Hanover, NH Wesleyan UP, 1996.
Dubnick, Randa, The Structure of Obscurity: Gertrude Stein, Language and Cubism.
Chicago, U. of Illinois P., (1984)
Esslin, Martin Meditations
London, Abacus, 1983
Freud, Sigmund. “On Narcissism” Modern Literary Theory: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Ed. Rivkin J. and Ryan M.,
Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2004. (p.151-153)
-- “The Interpretation of Dreams” Modern Literary Theory: An Introduction 2nd Edition. Ed. Rivkin J. and Ryan M.,
Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2004. (p.128 - 150).
-- Trans. Alix Strachey.“The ‘Uncanny.” The Norton Anthology of
Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. Also cited in: <http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/uncan.htm
Goldberg, Roselee, Performance Art: From Futurism to Present.
N.Y., Thames and Hudson, 2001
Gottdiener M., Postmodern Semiotics
Massachusetts, Blackwell, 1995.
Glover, S.V. & Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus: A Critique in the Context of
Fredric, Gerald C. S. Peirce’s Belief as Habit.
In Browitt and Nelson p.31 - 38
Grahn, Judy, Really Reading Gertrude Stein: A Selected Anthology with
essays by Judy Grahn. Freedom, California: The Crossing Press. 1989.
Hoffmann, E.T.A. Trans. J.T. Bealby. “The Sandman.” Weird Tales.
Freeport NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1970.
Joseph, Branden, W. “John Cage and the Architecture of Silence “
October. Vol 81 (Summer 1997) p.80-104
Dr. Wong Kwok Kui Nietzsche, Plato and Aristotle on Mimesis
Lingnan University of Hong Kong
<http://dogma.free.fr/txt/KwokKuiNietzschePlatoAristotle.htm#fn2> 11/04/06
Lucas George Star Wars: A New Hope.
London, Faber and Faber, 1997
Lutterbie, J.H., “Theory and the Practice of Dramaturgy” Dramaturgy in American theater: A sourcebook. Ed. Jonas, S., Proehl, G., Lupu, M., Orlando, Harcourt Brace & Co. 1997 p220-240
Lyotard, J.F, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Lye, John, Some Post-Structural Assumptions.
March 11, 2004, Brock University, April 30, 2007.
<http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.html>
-- Some Elements of Structuralism and its Application to Literary
Theory. November 24,1999, Brock University, April 30, 2007.
< http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/struct.html>
Malcom, Janet. Gertrude Stein's War, The New Yorker, June 2, 2003, p. 58-81
McDermott, John J. The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition.
N.Y and Toronto, Random House, Inc. 1968.
Miller, Kate “Gray Noise: Walking With the Talking Man in New York”, Interview with Spalding Gray, io Magazine issue #2 (undated),
<www.altx.com/io/gray1.html> 11.06.06
Plato Trans. Lee Desmond Plato: The Republic
Middlesex, England, Penguin, 1983
-- Trans. Robin Waterfield The Norton Anthology of Theory and
Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Rivkin J. &Ryan M., Modern Literary Theory: An Introduction 2nd Edition,
Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2004.
Saussure F. de, Course in General Linguistics cited in Rivkin & Ryan
Schechner “Mainstream and Theatre and Performance Studies.”
Richard TDR: The Drama Review 44.2 (2000) p4-6
-- “Post Post-Structuralism.”
TDR: The Drama Review 44.3 (2000) p3-6
Shewey, Don ““My life as Art” Interview with Spalding Gray.”
Boston Phoenix March 1980 (Unable to verify), cited on:
<www.donshewey.com/theater_articles/spalding_gray_1980.html> 11-05-06
Simon, Mayo The Audience and the Playwright: How To Get The Most Out of Theatre. Applause, N.Y., 2003
Spalding Gray Preface, Sex and Death To The Age 14
N.Y, Vintage: Random House 1986
Stein, Gertrude. “Matisse Picasso and Gertrude Stein With Two Shorter Stories” Project Gutenberg April 11, 2005, Project Gutenberg, 10/11/06 <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15600/15600-h/15600>
Tarantino.Quentin, Reservoir Dogs: The complete script.
Grove Press, NY, 1995
Vogel, Scott “Blueprints: Surfing for Godot: Will the Web Deliver Theatre Audiences? It's a Wait-and-See Proposition.” American Theatre, Vol. 18, Issue 1 Jan2001, p.71-82
Weber, Anne N., Upstaged: Making Theatre in the Media Age
Routledge, N.Y., 2006
Wheale, Nigel The Postmodern Arts
Routledge, London. 1995
Wood Gaby, “Shades of Gray” The Observer. Sunday, December 26, 2004
[1] I wrote this quote down and didn’t write the page number down. Please excuse. Any Goggle search for the quote will bring up multiple attributions to Gertrude Stein.
[2] A further revision to the text might be to limit the number of enters in the list to 42 as a reference to Douglas Adams’ “answer to life…the universe…and Everything.” Which would be another example of bricolage and inter-textuality.
[3] Pronounced Code-ify-ing. NOT cod – ify-ing. It’s got nothing to do with fish!
[4] NB: I have highlighted WRONG/RIGHT’s lines differently for ease of reading only, there is no aesthetic difference.