 |
 |
Here's the definition of furphy: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561504855/furphy.html I have seen a lot of theatre in my time. And I can say categorically that I have never enjoyed bad writing in the theatre. A whizzbang production only makes bad writing worse; it's a manifestation in three dimensions of the meaning of meretricious. One of the reasons that theatre interests me so deeply, in fact, is that no other artform puts writing under such pressure and exposes it so nakedly. It also fascinates me as a poet because theatre, unlike film, is inherently and inescapably metaphorical. And because it shows language as utterance, embodied and active. Theatrical poetic is different from poetry for several reasons I won't go into here, but it is all the same deeply related, and I am always surprised that poets are not more interested in the artform. After all, it's attracted many great poets, from Shakespeare to Brecht to Lorca. I thought it was a given that no opinion rehearsed here has the imprimatur of Divine Right. I only claim my own sensibility. I have reasons for thinking as I do, and if questioned I will tell you what those reasons are. I thought that this process was known as "discussion"; and certainly during the many years I ran this list, it was described as a "discussion list". Perhaps things have changed while I was looking elsewhere. All best Alison -- Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com