Continue the play.

You author the play. Introduce characters and have characters act. You cannot voice opinion. As follows.

I think I agree?

For example, would you tell the poster who wrote

to find a way to live independent of technology? No hospital benefits, no food benefits, no comfort benefits, no hot water, no electricity, etc. etc.?

Just to be clear… I don’t think this is an altogether stupid idea. If you can somehow manage to live a Good life without the evils AND benefits of technology, than you might stand as a couragous example for others to follow. But just stating your opinion to others doesn’t really express anything at all.

Is that a fair conclusion from your OP, Gaiagurrilla? TBH I don’t think you were particularly clear so this is mainly guess work.

Gg, Since what you’ve written isn’t logical, what is it you’re trying to say?

Please don’t go off and get your tighty-whitey’s even tighter. Say what you mean to say and mean what you say if what you say is what you mean to say. :smiley:

As presented, I really can’t continue the play without resorting to Theater of the Absurd.

Lizbethrose: Introduce a character that says why the other two are absurd. That or maybe it belongs in mundane babble and yes, make it a theater of the absurd. It seems sort of hijacked anyway, forgive me if the attempt is poor. I was only wondering if 3rd person philosophy can still be useful. Plato did so, why don’t we?

Plato wrote the lot himself though, it wasn’t freeform improv. In fact, most of the Socratic dialogues without Socrates are pretty much “yup” “you’re not wrong, Socrates” “oh, absolutely” “I can’t deny it, Socrates” :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s probably a more confusing and less effective way to have a debate than the normal methods. Improv only really works where everyone’s pulling towards some shared goal, which is most definitely not the case on ILP! I see no call to move it, but maybe Creative writing would be a more productive forum to try something like this on?

I have tried and have had need to do that sort of thing in the past. I found that my imagination had become to weak and invariably made my characters too intelligent. They resolved the issues too quickly and always to the same end. I would make a lousy conflict writer.

But the idea is good and useful for those who can do it without too much bias.

i do not think it is a good method you must then assume that the writer is objective, impossible of course. Furthermore this is largely driven by experience, knowledge of counter arguments. Since the counter arguments are limited and thus, not infinite, the writer will always arise to a preset conclusion in his mind by the end.( Unless he is God, I do not think it can be considered as absolute truth.) Therefore it is far better to have to different people discussing the same point.

But remember that those things are going to happen by other means anyway. All angles of an argument are never really presented even in an open forum. Bias happens by default.

Okay, Gg, I’ll try:

(Mamamia enters right where she’s been listening in the wings)

Mamamia: So, do you want to talk about technology, evil or social hierarchy?

Joe: Uhm, I guess all of it. I’m not really sure,

(Mamamia pulls up a chair and places it so the three are in a semi-circle, and sits)

Mamamia: So, Joe, you want to talk about the ‘evils’ of technology? I’ll tell you what’s evil–when you don’t have it, that’s what!

Joe: (squirms a bit) Mamamia…

Mamamia: Basta! Enough! For 16 years since we were married, I’ve put up with no electricity, no running water, and no washing machine! Ben is 15 years old now and none of us has clean clothes for the week, why? Because I’m tired of washing clothes in the stream, lugging the heavy basket up the hill and hanging them up on the line to dry, that’s why.

Joe: But Mamamia…

Mamamia: No buts. The way you treat me with your ‘no technology’ kick is evil! And I suppose you’ll think what I’m going to do about it is also evil. No electricity, no running water, no washing machine–from now on you and Ben do the laundry. How’s that for social hierarchy?

(Mamamia exits right as the lights fade out)


There, I think I’ve introduced all three of your topics through the introduction of a third character. My character may have voiced an opinion or two, but she’s only a character in a play, after all. I also haven’t introduced existentialism yet–that’s dependent on how scene two is written. :smiley:



Thank you, thank you–I owe it all to my parents, my director, the NEA and everyone else who’ve contributed and whose names I can’t remember.


As the lights come up, Joe and Ben are lugging heavy laundry baskets up the hill from the stream.

Ben: Hey, Pop, don’t you think you should revisit your thoughts about technology?

Joe: How so–? I firmly believe technology is evil.

Ben: And I firmly believe what Mamamia said, “‘The lack of technology is evil’ and I’m suffering because of it. My entire body aches and we still have to hang the clothes up to dry.”

Joe: Don’t worry, son. I’ll think of something. I’m me; I think! I think; therefore, I am!

(The two finally reach the top of the hill and approach the clothes line.)

Ben: Uhm, Pop?

Joe: Yes, Son?

Ben: Did you forget that a clothes line goes from one point to another point, which is usually a long stake in the ground? There isn’t an end point to this clothes line. --No stake. And it’s starting to rain.

Joe: No stake? Oh, that’s right! I told Mamamia I’d put one up as soon as I got around to it.

Ben: Pop, it’s really raining now. What should we do?

Joe: Let me think now. (pauses for a moment) I’ve got it. We’ll go inside and rig a clothesline in front of the fireplace.

Ben: Hey, Pop, wouldn’t that be using technology? Why don’t we just get Mamamia electricity, running water, a washing machine and a – dryer!

(Go black–End of Scene Two)

Gg, This is your thread. I think I’ve done what you’ve asked us to do, but you’re not directing this play. Come on–tell us where you want to go from here.–Every play has to have some sort of underlying theme–some motivation.

I asked you early on–what are you trying to say?

I wrote for about an hour and when I hit the submit button it returned to my login page.

Then I realized why I spent so much time abstaining from posting in forums.

Are you aware that all you have to do is press the back button on your browser and you get everything back? Then you can logon from a different window or cut n paste.

Nope. Trust me. First thing I did. I went over this kind of discussion before. Best to leave it: It’s fucked on “Submit.”

The logic goes . . .

“Since I don’t want to lose my data on the forum, I should write it on a textfile first”

“Since I wrote it on a textfile, I might as well save it on desktop and continue working on it.”

“Since I work on it in my personal desktop, I may as well just make an online document out of it.”

“Since I’m making online documents where the copyright is exclusively to me . . . why the fuck am I posting on forums?”