Arguing with Myself

So, the last post, draft 4, states clearly some ideas I was working through in the previous posts, yet clearly also misses something when stated clearly. You can't make creativity into mathematics. I think the effort is worth it, but here is why I really love writing -- because the form you use to outline an idea has to actually much the energy of the idea. So, I've got to take another look at how I think of and see the basics of drama then phrase it with the same bouncy, frenetic, wild, and wonderful energy of the elements in the first place.

But I'm a little tired of this argument at the moment -- and anyway, I haven't used this blog for thoughtful writing yet. Once I've decided to sit down and craft something, I probably won't blog about. I do like the way this has helped me brainstorm. (I'm still kind of fascinated by the way the pseudo-public nature of this typing effects my thinking but again -- nothing to see here . . . yet.) --

Today, I have a little tiny rant. As a playwright, I get frustrated by the professional behavior of other theater people toward playwrights so much. But, the truth is, few things are stated explicitly. it's all a game of who read what and who may have said what they really felt to who and what is anyone thinking and playwrights, who haven't already had a "breakthrough" play, are kind of the last to know. Plus, while I know some people in the professional theater world, I don't know very many so any opinion I have about what theater people do is so obviously limited that I'm afraid I'm not even talking reality when I get so frustrated. Still, I've got to trust me instincts.

There is so much I could point out but let's just start with the most recent frustration. Someone told someone who knows me that they read the play I sent them but "didn't understand it." First -- They didn't tell me anything themselves. Just repeated to someone else. A little rude and disrespectful because its hard not to think that what they really meant by didn't understand it was "didn't think it was any good." If they didn't understand it but were confident in my ability, then wouldn't they have had a conversation with me?

But, second, let's just take that comment at face value. So he didn't understand the play. . . Is that necessarily a problem? I know of course we see it as a problem but let me posit that the problem is really with the reader's expectations. Does the fact that he didn't understand him actually really make him think that it isn't understandable? Like I didn't understand it either? Like I didn't understand Shakespeare when I was younger and read him on my own, before I knew language better and a good teacher explained character to me, and therefore I should conclude that, on first read, the incomprehensibility was Shakespeare's problem, not mine. All good poems I've ever read, T.S. Elliott for example, never make sense on the first, second, or third read. But they're worth reading again.

I'm not suggesting that I'm Shakespeare or T.S. Elliott (though what's wrong with high aspirations?). I actually think my work is less purposefully vague than most poetry. I'm just saying that when you read something on a page that is intended for performance in front of an audience and you don't understand it, read it again. Try to figure it out. You might find it rewarding. . Unless, of course, you do think that the playwright doesn't understand the play either. Or, when you say you didn't understand it, you really mean that you understood that the playwright can't write. If you think the playwright can write, maybe he or she knows what he's doing.

Personally, I keep coming back to my belief that theater is an experience rather than an essay. And so I keep coming back to the parallel between theater and live music. I don't "understand" Beethoven's 5th but I do enjoy it and while I'm experiencing it in performance, it makes a kind of sense to me. The highs and lows follow each other in a way that seems more than appropriate, the climax is compelling, the ride is a real heady and emotional trip. When its done, I still don't "understand'' it in any sensical way but I feel like I really do understand the experience I just had. (Again, not putting myself on an artistic level with Beethoven, just finding appropriate analogies.) If you showed me the score, however, I would find the thing entirely incomprehensible. I wouldn't rely solely on the score to judge the work. And, even if I were a musician, my understanding of the notes would be an appreciation for their internal logic rather than an intellectual understanding of their meaning.

I wonder whether I'm the only one who sees theater more as music than essay. I doubt it. So I wonder whether I'm the only one who reads scripts as though they were music. Who knows? I don't really know what this person meant by his comment because, well, no one actually engages anyone in real forthright criticism out of either a lack of time, a lack of respect, or a lack of backbone. Everything is either good or bad on first glance.

What a pain in my ass.