allow me to contextualize the following. i was in new york. j, m, l & i were in the back room of a jazz bar in the east village. the celloist was just warming up; he had a grizzly face and a slapstick smile and spoke loosely. i was sitting next to m, currenly in school for playwrighting. he was on his sixth hot toddy and complaining about his current state of impoverishment. j was sitting across from me, her yellow jolt of hair spitzing all over the place as she scribbled frantically, trying to draw the sound of the bow on the strings (she told me later), but when m & i started talking about "the homecoming," j began transcribing our conversation.
this is, more or less, our conversation.
I’m bad with absurdists.
You classify him as an absurdist? 
I haven’t read it yet.
It’s existentialn- In form
And content.
Why should the charactershave tangible motivations?
I have no control and it’s driving me mad!
He’s really self-aware.
(Thank you.)
Characters were interacting
And the audience was engaged.
It’s a device.
It’s only effective
As a device -
Once you’ve reached the point of observing them.
They observe you and you observe them andIt can just get delusional.
It all sounds the same.
(It sounds wonderful.)
No comments:
Post a Comment