I developed a critical apparatus, beginning with Aristotle, in rhetoric and poetics. As a teacher of communication, I taught criticism applied to the spoken word. In that, I was a fundamentalist. Eloquence is a finely wrought amalgam of passion and reason. I look for it in presidents and pundits. It is not in strong demand for our elected politicians, a great loss for the future of our society. Case in point? Our present chief executive. He is accepted among those who appreciate only the plain-spoken. In fact, I believe he was elected and re-elected by the red states' illiterates and inarticulates ("what's wrong with Kansas?").
With these plays, I have tried to attain some eloquence; if I have done it is for others to judge. I look for it in plays by others. Elements of style are the lights of speech (Cicero), serving memorability. A good musical has tunes you can take with you out the theater door. A good play should pass the same critical test, the ultimate judgment of a memorable impression.
So much of current shows depends on speaking the vernacular in voices requisite for that. If the TV model sets the tenor of usage for the stage, as I believe it does, theatre will rather follow than lead taste, and no demand for eloquence or vocal force will exist.
These plays are probably not capable of being mounted out of the box, off the shelf, plug and play, instant cook-and-serve pudding, ready made, as much as I currently believe they are. Lacking experience in the production of something I have written, I have the enthusiasm of naïveté. In the detailed stage directions are my visual conceptions of the action and characterizations. That might be a no-no to stage directors but I would not stand in the way of any director's override. Pre-visioning assisted the writing.
I am constantly surprised how theatre critics do not seem to apply a discernable system of criteria for evaluation. In applying my understanding to my own work, making an effort to achieve some aesthetic distance, I will attend a play and use it as a touchstone put to the theatre in my head where I am mounting my own play. In those dual windows I see in a side-by-side comparison, criterion by criterion, appreciable artfulness in both windows.
The result is that I developed a critical apparatus for the many events I needed to apply it to, the media, political discourse, history, theatre.
Ancient peoples had to live with, and closer to, the forces of nature, forces which only the scientist could read. Aristotle's critical apparatus was empirical and prescribed the grammar of all things. Then, drama and comedy stood in lieu of the scientist. Pity, awe, terror. Natural forces.
I have been able to see the need for some of Alexander's solutions brought to bear on our times. (Begs the question, doesn't it?)
(Last updated on January 30, 2006 )