The Sum of Two and Two by Jovian

[Graeme]

The Sum of Two and Two by Jovian

 

What is the sum of two and two?

 

 

:nuke: :nuke: Spoilers Below!!! :nuke: :nuke:

[Graeme]

Jovian says in his introduction that it is all up to interpretation, and we're free to interpret it how we want. I think it is useful to repeat his explanation here, at the start of this thread:

 

Before you read this short play in two acts, it is crucial for you to understand that this play has no plot. Why? It is an absurdist play. To be precise, it is the theatre of the absurd.

 

(Theatre of the Absurd: Plays stressing on the illogical aspects of modern life, usually to show that modern life is pointless.)

 

However, to think that there is no meaning in this play is shallow. This play is like a picture. You analyze the picture by reading the characters

[Dolores Esteban]

Well, I also think Sandra lost her mind. I can't think of anything else.

 

The story left me feeling uncomfortable. I think I'm a realist.

 

Now that I'm thinking...I often travel by bus and overhear meaningless and senseless conversations...absurd conversations?

 

Do we waste too much time with meaningless actions and conversations?

 

I could imagine this is what The Theatre of the Absurd wants to point out.

[Former Member]

Well, I like it. I like it because I don't like it. That probably does not make much sense now. It is very different from all the other stories and that makes it unique and interesting. I still have no clue what it was about though. I am not going to interpret the story. In my opinion only the author of a story can make a true interpretation. Everyone else can just be wrong.

 

Tob

[Linxe Termoil]

I started reading this but had to stop, because it's definitely an uncomfortable story. So, I tried again, and succeeded. But I don't get it. It still made me uncomfortable and I think that's why, is because, I don't get it. Reading it I definitely feel the two are being held prisoner. One woman has lost her mind, and knows nothing, yet grows old. The boy, he's a prisoner as well, because he doesn't know who one parent is, but they both seem to be afraid of the same man, the serpent-man.

 

 

And now I give up. The story is two complex and trying to imagine all this taking place in one room is beyond even my abilities, especially with no background or anything. Maybe I'll try reading it again.

 

Was definitely interesting, once I got through it.

 

What a puzzle

 

Jon

[AFriendlyFace]

Well, it seems relevant to me that Richie left Sandra while wearing a tux. Perhaps that is symbolic of the way a boy leaves his mother when he gets married?

[jovian_w2002]

Before I begin with a LONG response, I am a realist, not an absurdist. Haha! In addition, this is just an individual, experimental playwriting project. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have written this. Haha, but with that said, hah, I knew many people would find this hard to read, lol. I remember the first time I read an absurdist play called "Endgame" by Samuel Beckett. I found it difficult to read and uncomfortable to digest as well: a blind man on a wheelchair, two people living in separate trash cans and a servant who could barely walk are all stuck in a room where the entire play takes place. When I first tried to read the play, I gave up. Like what Jon and Tob said, absurdist plays are too complex beyond my understanding. It was only when someone else told me to read the play as a picture, not as a story did I manage to get the subtle parts of the play.

 

In addition, that's where many of you, including me when I first started reading it, read it wrongly hehe. Don't read this play as you would for a story! It is not a story because it has no plot haha. I have to reiterate this again: "Before you read this short play in two acts, it is crucial for you to understand that this play has no plot." Hence, it is not to be read as a story. "Why? It is an absurdist play."

 

Dolores is right about the meaningless and triviality of life the theatre of the absurd presents. It shows us the useless repetition in our everyday lives. Basically, the point or major theme I'm trying to get across in my play would be "the futile and meaningless search for answers or truths". We spend way too much time focusing on the abstract and our quest for the truth, in the expense of our social lives or something tangible that we can hold onto, that we are "blinded" by the changes around us, no matter how great, how insignificant, or whether we brought about those changes or not. There are numerous subtleties in the play "the sum of two and two" that are interwoven which I'll explain to clarify some issues:

 

1) Religion:

 

a. Adam, Eve and the apple

 

i. In the bible, Eve is tempted by the "serpent" to consume the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The apple serves as something abstract in this, even though it is literally, just an apple. Connotatively, the apple means temptation. Sandra, despite being religious in some sense, is quick to give into temptation – a reflection of the hypocritical world where religious deities too are able to fall into the trap of temptation; hence, her gradual lost of her sanity.

 

ii. "We're all vulnerable to its temptation, are we not?"

 

iii. Religion to her seems to be a dominant, but her insanity and her search for "escape" has overpowered her ability to think. Her lost of her sanity, represented by her restrained in a straitjacket, could also imply how everyone on world is "restrained" to selfishness and individual motivations at the expense of exploiting anything and everything around us. It also shows that we are given opportunities to "escape" and "repent". We should try hard and figure out ways to solve our problems in order to escape. It's easy to dwell on the ideological aspects of the earth and dwell on escaping, when the only way to escape is to work together, which sadly, does not happen between Sandra and Richie.

 

iv. Sandra's presence in the room is questionable. Her intentions are obfuscated. It is not known how she chances upon the room. There is always an exit, but she is too blind to see it. The light has blinded her, after she consumes the apple, just like how God blinds Adam and Eve to eternal knowledge after they consume the apple. She is given a chance to 'repent', but she goes about her tirade and meaningless conversations that it becomes too late for her when insanity takes control of her. It is also represented by the darkness and shut door in act 2.

 

b. Death

 

i. The subject of death is evident in this play. Sandra, after her futile search for "the truth" of her existence in the room (one may interpret the room as earth) and her escape (someone in class interpreted this as a passage to heaven), that her insanity prompts her to give up on her objective, hence, she talks a lot about committing suicide (someone interpreted this as "life".)

 

2) Sum of Two and Two

 

i. It is inspired by German mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, who once said "God made the integers; all else is the work of man".

 

ii. LOL, the answers are always acted out, if any of you are not blinded in the quest of "finding out the plot of the play" rather than looking at the picture in a whole: "four steps… four steps…four steps…"

 

iii. With our knowledge, it is easy to figure out the sum of two and two, isn't it? But why can't those two characters figure it out? Simple. They are caught up with the trivialities of everyday lives. The sum of two and two here could also imply "the quest for searching for the answer or the truth". Why should the sum of two and two be indeed four? Why couldn't it be five, six, or zero? Language is also seen as a limiting factor here, which explains the significant amount of 'pauses' in their conversations. It goes to show that even with math, language or science, there is no way we can attain an absolute truth in our lives.

 

3) Materialism:

 

a. Materialistic changes

 

i. The change of the table and chair, from wooden to metal, and the blackboard to a white board signifies the advance of technology, of the materialistic world. It also signifies the aspect of time in this play. The characters do not take heed of these changes. It's usually up to the audience to notice these.

 

b. Marxist Literary Theory (Marxist's interpretation)

 

i. Sandra represents capitalism – the bourgeois – while Richie is seen as a proletariat, as demonstrated by the quality of one's table and chair as their economic positions. Sandra exploits Richie because of his social standing, thinking she is greater. It is also seen in act two when she relies too heavily on Richie. She orders him around, as though she owns him. All right, I won't go too much into this detail. But the play could be read in terms or light of Marxist's literary theory.

 

4) Relationship:

 

a. Sandra and Richie are too blind to notice their relationship to each other.

 

b. One could interpret that Sandra is, in fact, Richie's mother. But I won't say whether that's true or not, because I would have said "mother" if possible. However, that's a possible interpretation. (In terms of interpretations, an absurdist play is ambiguous.)

 

c. Here are some questions to guide anyone interpreting it:

 

i. How do you know they are related to each other? Why can't Sandra be someone else, a stranger?

 

ii. Sandra had a terrible relationship with someone whom she calls "the serpent". In act 2, Richie also meets someone whom he calls "the serpent". Who is this serpent? Is it Richie's father? Is it Richie's boyfriend? Is it Satan?

 

d. Kevin is absolutely right about the tuxedo and the boy leaving his mother. However, the existence of the tuxedo in comparison with Sandra's wedding gown in the first act comes into question: why is it there? Upon that question, the subject of marriage comes into question as well, especially Sandra's marriage to the "serpent". Biblically, the serpent is represented as evil and malicious, so if Richie is able to resist temptation from taking a bite from the apple, and if one interprets Richie's tuxedo as his marriage to the serpent, why does he fall into the same trap Sandra herself had fallen into before? It shows that Richie, to some degree, is no more intelligent or logical than Sandra herself. In some way, if the apple does not tempt us, there are other objects that are capable of tempting us. Sandra, in act one, warns Richie about the serpent; one could read into his 'downfall' as his disobedience to heed her words. Does it also reflect on Sandra? Does act two parallel to Sandra's disobedience in her past life as well? Do you think that, like Sandra, Richie will end up in a straitjacket?

 

 

 

5) Triviality:

 

a. Their actions are filled with the trivial aspects of our everyday lives: we procrastinate and we do not get things done. Even if we want to do it (e.g. escape, in this case), it is difficult because their conversations consume them. It even diverts their attention from their goals. For instance, Sandra talks a lot about escaping, but she never tries hard enough. She gives up too easily, (one may read this as falling into temptation of procrastination too easily) and her "giving up too easily" also reflects on her "giving up" on life too easily as well.

 

Just like many of you and the characters in the story, I was blinded by the complexity of an absurdist text. I was trying to read it as a story, when in fact, I shouldn't. I guess it goes against our expectation when we read or watch a play. No wonder many actors and actresses walk out of auditions on an absurdist play – because people just don't get it. The language is simple, but the whole picture is an interwoven mess of complexities that beg the readers to link everything together into one coherent piece. There are too many interpretations that an absurdist play could have. In addition, there are many interpretations directors could provide for an absurdist play to make sense of the situation, for instance:

 

1) The races of the actors are not revealed. Should you read them as members of the same race or not?

 

2) Some of my classmates assume that the setting is in a classroom, but another classmate calls this the entrance to 'hell'.

 

To those who want to interpret the play again, go ahead, bearing in mind that you are not to read this play like you would any other. And, watch out for their actions, and dramatic interactions, not just their dialogues.

 

Theatre of the absurd "throws logic out the window…" hehe.

 

Cheers,

 

Jovian

[AFriendlyFace]

Informative and enjoyable explanation, Jovian!

 

 

iii. With our knowledge, it is easy to figure out the sum of two and two, isn't it? But why can't those two characters figure it out? Simple. They are caught up with the trivialities of everyday lives. The sum of two and two here could also imply "the quest for searching for the answer or the truth". Why should the sum of two and two be indeed four? Why couldn't it be five, six, or zero? Language is also seen as a limiting factor here, which explains the significant amount of 'pauses' in their conversations. It goes to show that even with math, language or science, there is no way we can attain an absolute truth in our lives.

Of everything you mentioned, this point rings truest and most relevant to me

 

ii. Sandra had a terrible relationship with someone whom she calls "the serpent". In act 2, Richie also meets someone whom he calls "the serpent". Who is this serpent? Is it Richie's father? Is it Richie's boyfriend? Is it Satan?

Well I thought boyfriend.

 

d. Kevin is absolutely right about the tuxedo and the boy leaving his mother. However, the existence of the tuxedo in comparison with Sandra's wedding gown in the first act comes into question: why is it there? Upon that question, the subject of marriage comes into question as well, especially Sandra marriage to the "serpent". Biblically, the serpent is represented as evil and malicious, so if Richie is able to resist temptation from taking a bite from the apple, and if one interprets Richie's tuxedo as his marriage to the serpent, why does he fall into the same trap Sandra herself had fallen into before? It shows that Richie, to some degree, is no more intelligent or logical than Sandra herself. In some way, if the apple does not tempt us, there are other objects that are capable of tempting us. Sandra, in act one, warns Richie about the serpent; one could read into his 'downfall' as his disobedience to heed her words. Does it also reflect on Sandra? Does act two parallel to Sandra's disobedience in her past life as well? Do you think that, like Sandra, Richie will end up in a straitjacket?

Well I certainly think so.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this with us

 

-Kevin

[David McLeod]

...

a. Adam, Eve and the apple

...

 

Jovian has taken common words with little emotive power of their own, spiced them with profundity, and created a splendid play--and conversation piece. The images may be from Genesis, but the imagery is "No Exodus."

[myself_i_must_remake]

jovian has literature student syndrome which i used to suffer from and still do, but i'm starting to see some light, i think.

 

last semester i wove an extremely intricate story that i expected people, especially the professor, to read and appreciate in a certain way, and when they didn't and actually liked best the parts of the story that had the least of my literary tricks, i became frustrated.

 

that's the problem with studying literature. you become less interested in the things most people are interested in and love the fun things, the appearance of a certain word so many times, a symbol in the first sentence that allegorizes the entire story, obscure references. you want to write stories like this, and you think (not you specifically, jovian, all of us) that knowing these tricks makes you a good, artful writer.

 

but it isn't the case.

 

the theater of the absurd was coined by martin esslin. why does this matter? martin esslin was a critic, or, to put it another way, someone who interprets literature. the theater of the absurd, then, as a term, is an interpretation, and one you gave us to read your play.

 

because you framed your play with an interpretation (and wrote it with one, several in mind) we were always already going to interpret it according to parameters you set out.

 

then you went ahead and interpreted the play extensively for us later in the forum... my opinion is that you cancelled out your own writing by writing about your writing, and by trying to do it on purpose.

 

as for being a realist: why would you do that? not realism per se, but define yourself by a past period. again, you want to be your own interpreter and critic, but really, someone who imitates realism and the theater of the absurd sounds postmodern, or, exactly fitting in our time period. now you could respond with, "no, i'm not because of x y and z," but the fact remains that all the other readers on GA and i are your critics, not you. the realists didn't walk around saying, "i'm a realist," with realist underlined. they just wrote.

 

again. your play has meaning and you gave it to us in spite of your insistance otherwise.

 

sorry if i sound harsh, but i tend to be on people who i see making mistakes i have made or am still making.

 

actually even the word "mistake" might be wrong. i guess it's well and fine to guide your readers outside of the realm of your own story, but i wouldn't want to. my recent experiment (and you better believe i was smelling beckett when i wrote it), love in america, has interpretations i'm willing to give it, and some that i started to have in mind toward the end of its writing, but i didn't force them on the readers, but yet, lo and behold, they ended up saying to me some of the things i had in mind.

 

in other words: don't underestimate your reader. that giant post with the different schools of criticism basically says, "you don't have my education so you can't be trusted to read this correctly on your own. let me tell you how."

that's not to say your language is condescending, it's just the act of doing such a thing is.

 

-billy

 

In addition, that's where many of you, including me when I first started reading it, read it wrongly hehe

 

p.s. you have no license to say that. i know you want to beat people over the head. i did just two hours ago when i workshopped a story. but it's our fault. it is always our fault.

 

p.s.s. absurdity is about meaninglessness, NOT pointlessness. we make these fine distinctions, yeah?

[jfalkon]

When I first read this play I just stared at it and said "I don't get it." Now that I see what you were getting at it makes sense. Its interesting.

 

I can see the crazy woman as a mother who is unaware that her son is hers. To me the serpent seems like a replacement for the word spouse. The mother made this substitution out of resentment. The son grew up with it and has no problem going off and marrying a serpent. Its a little bit chilling how comfortable he is with the biblical refrence.

[AFriendlyFace]

What an excellent post Billy has made! I agree and disagree with him quite strongly on certain points, and so I'll offer my own thoughts.

 

 

jovian has literature student syndrome which i used to suffer from and still do, but i'm starting to see some light, i think.

 

last semester i wove an extremely intricate story that i expected people, especially the professor, to read and appreciate in a certain way, and when they didn't and actually liked best the parts of the story that had the least of my literary tricks, i became frustrated.

 

that's the problem with studying literature. you become less interested in the things most people are interested in and love the fun things, the appearance of a certain word so many times, a symbol in the first sentence that allegorizes the entire story, obscure references. you want to write stories like this, and you think (not you specifically, jovian, all of us) that knowing these tricks makes you a good, artful writer.

 

but it isn't the case.

 

I think that it's fine to write stories which purposefully employ these fun little tricks. I also think it's fine to tell the readers about them later, and I do think it adds an extra layer to the piece and makes it a bit better. What it doesn't do though is justify writing a piece that no one will be able to enjoy, understand, or identify with without coming up with (or reading) that specific interpretation or understanding the literary tools employed.

 

For my own writing, my favourite literary tool is parallelism. I like to use it throughout chapters and I particularly like to parallel one early scene with a later one, giving it of course a completely different spin. I also like to employ symbolism and purposely make a character or scene represent something else. Truth be told, I don't think I would enjoy writing nearly as much if I didn't have these things in mind while I was writing.

 

I don't think that these objectives give me the right to neglect basic character and plot elements however, and regardless my readers must be able to appreciate my work on a surface level.

 

It certainly is frustrating when people don't appreciate what you were going for. To use my own writing as an example, my favourite short story to date is The Most Dangerous Place which I wrote for the Ghosts Anthology. I have a ton of parallelism and symbolism in it, I wrote it for the purpose of reflecting some of my characters as personifications for the worst aspects of other characters, I was attempting to make statements about love and acceptance and the circle of life, and I wrote it with a very deliberate eye toward word usage. All in all, I've never enjoyed writing a short story half as much as I enjoyed writing that one. So yes, I'd have been thoroughly delighted if people had sat down and picked it apart and commented on the themes I was going for. Instead, most people who commented focused on the surface aspects of the story and their general reaction to the story as a whole (which is of course the most common way to evaluate to story). I still appreciated that they took their time to do this and I'm delighted that people bothered to read it at all, but yes, I'd have definitely preferred a deeper analysis of style and themes. Conversely, it seems that my most popular short story to date is If No One Notices, which I definitely enjoyed writing and value a great deal. I certainly put a lot emotion into it, but it doesn't really have a lot of extra layers in it.

 

the theater of the absurd was coined by martin esslin. why does this matter? martin esslin was a critic, or, to put it another way, someone who interprets literature. the theater of the absurd, then, as a term, is an interpretation, and one you gave us to read your play.

 

because you framed your play with an interpretation (and wrote it with one, several in mind) we were always already going to interpret it according to parameters you set out.

That is an excellent point!

 

then you went ahead and interpreted the play extensively for us later in the forum... my opinion is that you cancelled out your own writing by writing about your writing, and by trying to do it on purpose.

I completely disagree with this though.

 

I really and truly appreciated your analysis for us a lot, Jovian. In fact I love it when authors do this. When I was studying literature I adored sitting around discussing the deeper symbolism, style, and themes in the piece. It was a whole lot of fun. I wish we had more discussions like that around here. I do think that doing so too early can squelch discussion since you more or less tell the readers everything you had in mind and there's not a lot of point in them looking for more or debating the merits of different analyses. However, once it's become clear that the majority of the deep discussion is over I think it's fine, even preferable, for the author to come in and do some interpreting.

 

I think it makes people think about the piece more and see it from new angles. It certainly did for me in this case. Now I definitely don't think an author should say, "No, you're wrong, this is what that really meant..." For one thing, I don't think that's true. I think once someone puts forth any sort of art it does become open to interpretation, and its personal meaning to the one who perceive it is just as valid as its intended meaning. I think this is true of literature, art, music, dance, etc. HOWEVER, I still like to know what was intended by the artist, and I enjoy looking at the piece from that angle. I don't feel threatened by it, and it doesn't make me feel like my own interpretation is invalid, but for me at least, it adds another layer of enjoyment.

 

I think a good piece of art will inherently contain elements which can be interpreted any number of ways, regardless of what the artist had in mind.

 

as for being a realist: why would you do that? not realism per se, but define yourself by a past period. again, you want to be your own interpreter and critic, but really, someone who imitates realism and the theater of the absurd sounds postmodern, or, exactly fitting in our time period. now you could respond with, "no, i'm not because of x y and z," but the fact remains that all the other readers on GA and i are your critics, not you. the realists didn't walk around saying, "i'm a realist," with realist underlined. they just wrote.

Excellent point on this!

 

again. your play has meaning and you gave it to us in spite of your insistance otherwise.

And on this! Not much more I can say except that I agree.

 

actually even the word "mistake" might be wrong. i guess it's well and fine to guide your readers outside of the realm of your own story, but i wouldn't want to. my recent experiment (and you better believe i was smelling beckett when i wrote it), love in america, has interpretations i'm willing to give it, and some that i started to have in mind toward the end of its writing, but i didn't force them on the readers, but yet, lo and behold, they ended up saying to me some of the things i had in mind.

That must indeed by very gratifying! I'll try to check it out

 

in other words: don't underestimate your reader. that giant post with the different schools of criticism basically says, "you don't have my education so you can't be trusted to read this correctly on your own. let me tell you how."

that's not to say your language is condescending, it's just the act of doing such a thing is.

Eh, my reaction to this is yes and no.

 

I've already stated my approval and preference for the author to at some point weigh in with his/her intentions for the work. I can see the valid feeling a reader might get of being condescended to or told, "No, you're wrong." However, I think that to some degree that implies a defensive reader. I also think it does depend on the way the author handles it. "No, that's not right. This is what I meant..." is always wrong. "Interesting observations! I'd love to hear more, I hadn't even thought of some of that myself. Here's what I had in mind when I was writing it though..." is generally a pretty good approach, and wouldn't make me feel offended as a reader. I also think it helps for the author to explicitly say something to the effect of "All interpretations that are reasonably grounded are valid, and I hope my work can mean different things to different people."

 

Anyway, basically I didn't feel spoken down to and I was grateful for the further interpretation of what you originally had in mind.

 

p.s. you have no license to say that. i know you want to beat people over the head. i did just two hours ago when i workshopped a story. but it's our fault. it is always our fault.

That's very true!

 

p.s.s. absurdity is about meaninglessness, NOT pointlessness. we make these fine distinctions, yeah?

So is this

 

 

 

I will make one final comment on the piece. One thing I personally didn't like was the overabundance of Christian religious symbolism. It's a very personal reaction though. I just have a lot of exposure and experience with this sort of imagery and frankly I'm downright tired of it. That's just me though, some people who have a background that isn't as steeped in it, or who might enjoy it because it is familiar, will obviously feel differently.

 

 

Take care all and have a good day

Kevin

[jovian_w2002]

Hey all! Sorry I haven't been on GA for a while. Had an epidural anesthesia, but that's beside the point. I nearly forgot I submitted this play, haha. And yes, Billy wrote an interesting post. However, here's what I have to say :

 

Ok in response to the comment, I'm sorry if any of you felt condescended in regards to my previous post. It was not my intention to do that, and I'm really sorry if some of you got it the wrong way. It was meant to be a class absurdist scriptwriting experiment for college credits, and I anticipated I was going to shoot myself on my foot should I submit this entry here. So I'm sorry about that.

 

Personally, I am not a fan of the theatre of the absurd.

 

I had to submit it as an assignment, and because it tied somewhat to the theme of "oops", I thought I could get some opinions here. I'm not frustrated about people not feeling comfortable with my play, because it is meant to be uncomfortable in some sense; in fact, a significant number of actors and actresses have given up on plays like this, and I'm not ashamed to say this. It is usually due to the fact that they just "don't get it". Having said that, I'm not belittling anyone. It's still your preference. If you don't like it, it's fine. If you like it, it's still fine. I'm sorry if I said "In addition, that's where many of you, including me when I first started reading it, read it wrongly", but I just needed to get that out to shine light on a possible way to interpret an absurdist play. But for that, I'm really sorry.

 

The explanatory post I made was not in any way to belittle anyone, but to broaden up the possibilities of more interpretations or clarify some issues many people have with interpreting or reading this play. It serves mainly as a mini 'guide'. But I'm sorry if anyone took that response the wrong way. I'm not saying that any interpretation is wrong either.

 

Billy's right about the meaningless aspect of the play, but the meaningless of the play applies to the "content" of the play. The directions are futile and pointless. Theatre of the Absurd stresses on the pointlessness of the movement, setting, mood etc.; therefore, it stresses on the pointlessness to achieve the meaninglessness of the play. For instance, the movements are seen as pointless actions, denotatively. Based on what Billy said about the 'meaningless' aspect of the play, such pointless movements attribute to the meaninglessness of the play.

 

Theatre of the absurd is the notion of a modern individual trying in vain to search for meaning in life.

 

Yes, Martin Esslin coined this term. And yes, he was a critic and a literary interpreter. He was the one who categorized works of Beckett, Pinter etc. And you're right, I based my own play on his interpretation of what Absurdist Drama (1965) should be. In that book, he claimed that such plays aim to shock its audience out of complacency, to bring it face to face with the harsh facts of the human situation as these writers see it."

 

In regards to religion, the thing about the theatre of the absurd is that it tends to associate with the theory of "existentialism". It is very much in contrast to religion. It "attacks the comfortable certainties of religious or political orthodoxy." Existentialist works talk about freedom on an individual and I provided the theme of religion to this play to question the notion of a religion's credibility as well. Personally, I won't go far on this and I don't want to come off as being snobbish. Again, I'm not in any way trying to underestimate my readers. But if any of you felt that way, I'm really, truly, sorry.

 

Anyways, I'm really sorry for submitting this play. I wasn't condescending or belittling anybody. It was merely a compulsory experimental playwriting assignment. If it weren't for that, I would not have ever written this play. I didn't mean to put this up, but I

[Dolores Esteban]

Don't feel sorry. I'm glad you submitted the play. Thus I learned about the Theatre of the Absurd. I'm also grateful for your explanations. I actually went to wikipedia to learn more about the genre in general. Your play made me feel uncomfortable. Any 'absurd' play would, I think. It's the genre in general that makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not your play in particular.

 

I understand the message the Theatre of the Absurd tries to convey to the audience. I understand it because of the explanations I read. I suspect the plays are addressed to an audience with a certain educational background, a literary and philosophical background perhaps. I think 'ordinary' people have difficulties to get into the play and understand the message without further explanations.

 

However, I don't think the Theatre of the Absurd is a redundant genre. Don't we all search for meaning in life? It would be a challenge to write an 'absurd' play that is acknowledged by the general public. I would consider such a play a true and great success.

 

Dolores

[AFriendlyFace]

Anyways, I'm really sorry for submitting this play. I wasn't condescending or belittling anybody. It was merely a compulsory experimental playwriting assignment. If it weren't for that, I would not have ever written this play. I didn't mean to put this up, but I

[Graeme]

I'll just add my comment that I'm very happy that you submitted this play, because it's provoked some very interesting and informative comments. Don't be sorry about being controversial or by being different. If you felt upset, or thought you had upset someone, then take it as a learning experience. I can only speak for myself, but I found it a challenging read, and I certainly wasn't bothered with your commentary afterwards. If anything, seeing the authors interpretation of a complex piece makes it more interesting.

 

Graeme

GA Anthology Coordinator

[Falme]

I actually enjoyed reading the play. haha. dont be sorry for submitting it. i actually found it easy to visual and see (haha, maybe cause i have a vivid imagination and i draw alot? o.0) , and although the symbolism was kind of confusing, it was really nice.

 

This was also the first time i heard of the theatre of the absurd? (something like that), and it seems interesting, although ii dont think i actually like it that much. it's too vague and confusing.

 

I like your explanation. i love when authors do that. it lets you see it in a different way, casue even if you say the story was pointless, there's always something there, like the point of view the author took as it was being written. analyzing if fun.

 

so, amazing story. dont be sorry you posted it. people actually do enjoy reading it (or at least i did. lol i feel weird now. haha)