(no subject)
february twentieth
two years ago
I have an ambivalent relation with the serpentines of my writing and with my endless splitting of hairs. It never splits to zero and I have to stop it in mid-split, which is not even a mid-split, because there is no end-split to oppose the beginning-split. And whenever I leave things unfinished I am guilty and my body is knotty under my t-shirt.
I shouldn't have taken a game theory class. I only think in its terms now. And how I love self-manipulation. How I love to put people in the situation where they will manipulate me to tell them the truth, to tell them how I feel. I am doing brinksmanship with myself: one day I will manipulate a dangerous man to manipulate me and that will be the end of that. I am, of course, talking about the most recent one, who will probably open this because I have put it right there, for him. I wink at myself through the future.
People always lose to their self-manipulations. I always win over other people through my own self-manipulations.
"Even though, statistically, D gets the most lines, he is the least important character in the play. P builds silences in very interesting ways and ellipses are not the only means he uses: sometimes he uses lines. The structure of this play is very interesting: its main attraction is not to be found in the lines the characters speak, but in the actions the characters take while another character is speaking. These actions are usually not spelled out in the stage directions P writes. This play is, thus, an incredibly generous one: where other contemporary playwrights would specify even the slightest movements the characters make on stage to their future directors, P leaves a lot to interpretation. Which of course doesn’t mean that he doesn’t introduce implications of his intention. His craft, in this matter, is exquisite: it is an example of theatrical cooperation and of theatrical manipulation. The director thinks he is following his own instinct and is thus happy with his independence. However, he is implicitly following P’s will. Everybody’s happy and this constitutes another layer of games. Information is offered, seemingly for one specific purpose. The receiver decodes and interprets its supposed purpose and misses the real intention."
I wish he knew how I ponder every word, how there are at least two intentions behind every word choice. How there is usually an intention directed against their wits. How I will be at a loss if anyone understands the malice of my phrasing.
OT might be the perfect play for me. It will split me into madness. Define theatre as "A is doing something to B while C is watching." The simplest relationship, until you triangulate its intentions. It would be a mistake to consider C passive. If C is passive, why are you doing anything?
Expand that to a play with three characters. The impenetrable number of a relationship is two, because it is three in that it is you and me and the relationship between us, the perfect balance of three. This lasts until you penetrate two's relationships and its perceptions, the air between the characters, and it becomes:
A to B is one relationship, made of three elements, A, B, and the relationship between them. B to C is one relationship, made of three elements, B, C, and the relationship between them. A to C is one relationship, made of three elements, A, C, and the relationship between them. And thus you have six elements to handle.
This all becomes twelve relationships:
A to B is three elements and B to A is three elements and together they are four elements.
A to B, in relationship to C, is ten elements altogether. A is one element. B is one element. A to B is one element. B to A is one element. C is one element. C to A is one element. A to C is one element. C to B is one element. B to C is one element. C to the relationship between A and B is one element.
B to A, in relationship to C
B - C
C - B
B - C, in relationship to A
C - B, in relationship to A
A - C
C - A
A - C, in relationship to B
C - A, in relationship to B...
It's wrong. You know where it's wrong.
I should have paid more attention to combinatorics. I'll draw a map.
And then plot their simultaneity or sequentiality.
And then introduce D, who is watching.
And then make D plural and plot the relationships inside D and to the characters and to the characters as different permutations of groups.
And then consider D's frame of understanding, how much D can take in simultaneously of what is going on on stage and how much he will understand from the circumstances of his later life, at home that night, and how that understanding will inform your play and how elements are there to be forgotten.
And I am still simplifying for my understanding. It fills me to bursting.
I am almost in love.
two years ago
I have an ambivalent relation with the serpentines of my writing and with my endless splitting of hairs. It never splits to zero and I have to stop it in mid-split, which is not even a mid-split, because there is no end-split to oppose the beginning-split. And whenever I leave things unfinished I am guilty and my body is knotty under my t-shirt.
I shouldn't have taken a game theory class. I only think in its terms now. And how I love self-manipulation. How I love to put people in the situation where they will manipulate me to tell them the truth, to tell them how I feel. I am doing brinksmanship with myself: one day I will manipulate a dangerous man to manipulate me and that will be the end of that. I am, of course, talking about the most recent one, who will probably open this because I have put it right there, for him. I wink at myself through the future.
People always lose to their self-manipulations. I always win over other people through my own self-manipulations.
"Even though, statistically, D gets the most lines, he is the least important character in the play. P builds silences in very interesting ways and ellipses are not the only means he uses: sometimes he uses lines. The structure of this play is very interesting: its main attraction is not to be found in the lines the characters speak, but in the actions the characters take while another character is speaking. These actions are usually not spelled out in the stage directions P writes. This play is, thus, an incredibly generous one: where other contemporary playwrights would specify even the slightest movements the characters make on stage to their future directors, P leaves a lot to interpretation. Which of course doesn’t mean that he doesn’t introduce implications of his intention. His craft, in this matter, is exquisite: it is an example of theatrical cooperation and of theatrical manipulation. The director thinks he is following his own instinct and is thus happy with his independence. However, he is implicitly following P’s will. Everybody’s happy and this constitutes another layer of games. Information is offered, seemingly for one specific purpose. The receiver decodes and interprets its supposed purpose and misses the real intention."
I wish he knew how I ponder every word, how there are at least two intentions behind every word choice. How there is usually an intention directed against their wits. How I will be at a loss if anyone understands the malice of my phrasing.
OT might be the perfect play for me. It will split me into madness. Define theatre as "A is doing something to B while C is watching." The simplest relationship, until you triangulate its intentions. It would be a mistake to consider C passive. If C is passive, why are you doing anything?
Expand that to a play with three characters. The impenetrable number of a relationship is two, because it is three in that it is you and me and the relationship between us, the perfect balance of three. This lasts until you penetrate two's relationships and its perceptions, the air between the characters, and it becomes:
A to B is one relationship, made of three elements, A, B, and the relationship between them. B to C is one relationship, made of three elements, B, C, and the relationship between them. A to C is one relationship, made of three elements, A, C, and the relationship between them. And thus you have six elements to handle.
This all becomes twelve relationships:
A to B is three elements and B to A is three elements and together they are four elements.
A to B, in relationship to C, is ten elements altogether. A is one element. B is one element. A to B is one element. B to A is one element. C is one element. C to A is one element. A to C is one element. C to B is one element. B to C is one element. C to the relationship between A and B is one element.
B to A, in relationship to C
B - C
C - B
B - C, in relationship to A
C - B, in relationship to A
A - C
C - A
A - C, in relationship to B
C - A, in relationship to B...
It's wrong. You know where it's wrong.
I should have paid more attention to combinatorics. I'll draw a map.
And then plot their simultaneity or sequentiality.
And then introduce D, who is watching.
And then make D plural and plot the relationships inside D and to the characters and to the characters as different permutations of groups.
And then consider D's frame of understanding, how much D can take in simultaneously of what is going on on stage and how much he will understand from the circumstances of his later life, at home that night, and how that understanding will inform your play and how elements are there to be forgotten.
And I am still simplifying for my understanding. It fills me to bursting.
I am almost in love.