In peace, there is no truth. In truth, there is no peace. -Pontius Pilate
Thanks Peculiar Works Project for the journal entry on Seattle Conference. When I think of the rat-list most favorably, it is from entries such as this, a kind of Collective Journal of Rat.
Before the church fathers edited the gospels down to the four AUTHORities of Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, there were many more versions of the "true story of The Son". In the scattered surviving apocrypha of Gnostic and other writers, one can find the disputed, thus more truthful, portrait of His-Story. Most of the really good parts, all of the really good authors, were cut out.
How do we keep RAT having multiple authors, but no authorities? The Living Word and not a static database of church fathers and dead dogma. For me, one way is minimizing the organizing of Rat and maximizing the spreading of the Good Word. "Wherever two or more are gathered in its name, there is Rat." Word of mouth (kiss), hand to hand (combat).
Rumor is that the Salvage Vanguard zine will come out at the same time as the Conference, likewise Steve Nunns article on Rat in the Village Voice. I'm contributing, as are others, to both these "databases" of the rat IMAGE.
Also, here on the rat-list, and by extension the rat web page and the Rat playwrights database, the attempt is to find the rat "village voice". A national voice, not on theater, but on something both more specific and more amorphous ...RAT Theater.
Every RatTheater should be bringing a zine to the Conference, not just Salvage Vanguard. Every Rat Theater from every Conference should be sharing their journals, not just Bottom's Dream and Peculiar Works. Maybe they are...of course they are, if we extend the definition of the medium of zine and journal. The website and e-zine are full of manifestos, mission statements, reflections, essays. At the Austin conference xeroxed tracts were passed around in almost every workshop.
All this then becomes the Rat Village Voice. All this is also in conflict with Steve's Village Voice. How? At least 10,000 different ways. But the one big conflict stems from what I take to be that consensus for which we are all striving: How do we keep RAT having multiple authors, but no authorities?
In Letters to the Editors, I'll try to deconstruct Steve Nunns as yet unwritten article for the Voice. Last week he taped an interview with Gabriele and me. And, we taped an interveiw with him. I'll use parts of that interveiw to examine the camouflaged authority stemming from a Voice article on Rat. By extension, I will also be deconstucting our own Thieves Theatre's relationship to that article and to this rat-list, web page, database, et al. These Letters to the Editors are also being written to the Salvage Vanguard zine as an extension of a conversation (and practice) I started with others sometime after the Seattle Conference. The Theater of Infiltration is a Salvage Vanguard term, but I'll use it as if I invented it. Rat is the act of plagiarizing from one another, stealing the gospel from The Father, and giving it to The Son. Infiltrating the infiltrators. The title Letters to the Editors means that I am writing not Gospel, but an argument and offense against those same-ol'-same-ol' bunkers we must constantly disrupt.
No peace. And that's the truth, Ruth. Speak it.
nick
Thieves Theatre
Steve is careful to tell us before the interview that TCG is only his day job, that his heart is elsewhere than as an editor for their publication. The Rat IMAGE that Steve presents in the Voice is important. Why? (For one thing, why does Rat want an image presented?) If Rat consents (which of course it can't) that one Steven Nunns (opposed to what AUTHORity) should give his impressions of Rat before having attended any Rat conference (and we agree that there's no such thing as an objective observer), then we must at least be allowed to ask him the same BIG QUESTION he asks us. How did you come to RAT? WHAT attracted you? WHO, HOW, WHEREFORE were you brought to Rat Audience? (We love when Mitch says RAT is my audience.) To show our allegiances and ties to one another makes us vulnerable. Shouldn't Steve, as a fellow Rat (or is he/should he be?), be willing to share in that vulnerability when he sends the IMAGE of Rat out indiscriminately to a national audience?
Nick: We want to ask the same question. Because we keep getting asked that by everyone here in New York. So we want to ask the same question of you. Because we know how you sort of got involved into Rat
Steve: m hm.
N Which is through OFF(downtown NYC theater journal), right?
S Ah, no, actually, that's not completely true. Uh, uh, it wasn't through Off. Maybe it was through OFF. It was all sort of happening at the same time. Some, some, uh, uh. Matt Sweeney called me at some point. Uh, uh and uh, from Seattle. Right? He's from Seattle?
N Yeah.
S He called me at one point.
********(forward to end of interview)*********
N Matt's a good guy. I like Matt a real lot. I'll tell you.
S The conversation I had with him was actually a really good conversation. He's just. He's got some axes to grind, but... I think he's, he certainly cares about it all.
N Yeah, he does care. Not just about...
S And you can't really begrudge him...
N Not just about Rat, but about theater in general. He does care a lot.
Steve is telling us he came to Rat Audience from someone or someones who had "axes to grind" with RAT or certain Rats. This is a much different way than how most of us became involved. Few came to RAT from a stranger's phone call or from some dissenting camp. This difference is very important. Being privy to phone calls and contacts from strangers (also the gossip of friends, foes, acquaintances of individual rats) is an important camouflaged authority and privilege. Steve Nunns "sits in" without comment at NYC rat meetings, but even if he didn't, his double, the authority of the article would still be there.
Thieves, the Theatre
*****LETTERS TO *FAME*PRESTIGE*IMAGE*POWER******
Thieves Theater, fresh from the smashing success Tirza's Wine Bath, convinces producers to finance the new Bucci and D'Amour rock musical "Rats" on Broadway. The top PR firm they hire comes up with a dream tag line "Rats. Now and Whenever." Mr. Feingold in the Village Voice review says "...rats, rats, rats spelled backwards is star, star, star. And there are plenty of new stars shining here, including sexpot director Ms. Schafer..." Mr. Nunns does a profile of Bucci and D'Amour in American Theater calling them "a kind of rock and roll Gilbert and Sullivan". But alas, Mr. Rich is afraid of the growing national awareness of the rat-list and rat web site and uses his editorial to say " 'Rats'. They should have called it ‘Sinking Ship'. The audiences will be swimming away from this Titantic collection of ego turns in droves. If you go, remember to bring a life preserver, 'Rats' is deadly."
At the upcoming RatFest, a glowing review or profile from a fellow rat in the Rat Village Voice plus a subway token will allow Ms.Schafer to get uptown to Mr. Nunns', Mr. Feingold's, or Mr. Rich's office. That's all. But if Mr. Feingold votes her an Obie Award or Mr. Nunns profiles her in American Theater (both within their authority), she can "submit" those tidbits into her resume or next grant application. As for box office authority, Mr. Frank Rich once was believed to be "the man" in that department. Those of us with hefty resumes edit our collection of these authoritative words about our IMAGE in such a way as to achieve the desired effect on the authority for whom we are auditioning.
******LETTERS TO HISTORY*****
History -- as opposed to our elite little world of celebrity and the politics of fame (in which NAKED ELVIS is king) -- is a
more difficult paradigm in which to corner authority.
1)The greatest fiction writer of this century was Lenin.
2)Trotsky was in exile in Mexico writing "The History of the Russian Revolution" when The Editor entered and took an axe to it. Or was that, put an axe in his head?
3)Enter stage left, Vaclav Havel, the Playwright of such works as "The Velvet Revolution".
****UNEDITED LETTERS TO FRIENDS*********
REM sleep,
Gaby and I read your e-mail before we went to sleep a few nights ago. We went to bed agreeing on something. What, I'm not sure, except that the only true consensus between two or more is always just something simple like "let's keep breathing", both of us. Not some pure intent, but only body rote will save us from evil. Bodies enjoy the company of life too much to kill or be killed. If we could only act without intention or will ...ah...but this is nothing new.
The Kierkegaard anthology I keep bookmarked at Fear and Trembling where he writes about the "man of faith".
When Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphegenia on the command from the Delphi Oracle, and for the good of the nation, he is acting on a high moral plane, but he's not a man of faith. That's because all of Greece listens to the same such god commandments. Agamemnon is not alone, he has the whole nation agreeing his sacrifice is righteous.
When Abraham lifts his knife on his son Isaac because God tells him to, the nation Israel would have never have believed that God to be the same as theirs. Abraham is the man of faith because of this leap outside the moral realm. The leap of faith.
We all act on faith sometimes. If you act always there, you become truly alone. Insane to most of the world but still council with a few. The land of magic and mystery where the miracles happen and/or the "rubber room" your culture, often your own family, may send you to.
These violent fathers willing to kill their children just to put wind in the sails of their nation's or self's identity. Artaud said "to act is to kill." It's not that we must be responsible for all deeds, but we have to see beyond our "good intentions". The physicians motto "First, do no harm" is an impossibility. Radiation therapy kills the good, the bad, and the ugly. We give our brother a talisman rock we have prayed on; he swallows it and chokes on the faith that always carries us out of this world. God weeps with us in our struggle. We struggle for the same faith God does.
I always return to the same jail cell I was put in when I was seventeen. A felons' cell filled with the good the bad the ugly and one Iphegenia. But Iphegenia's innocence is overrated. Even the lamb will kick to free itself from Mike Tyson's brutal rape and meal. It's just that the scapegoat's hoof kicks are too small to defend, nevermind maim or kill.
The cell has the one toliet out in the open for all to see. Did Jesus, the divine flesh, have bowel movements? God was not simply crucified; he was raped. His humanity was stripped from him, not his life. The young seventeen year old suicide, hung by his knotted up T-shirt in a Cook County jail. In his last dream before choking, he returns to the jail cell not as a lamb, but as a lion.
That 12yr old grandson who set the fire that burned the good the bad the ugly alive. Faith discovers the truth, but too late. The world of our fathers and grandmothers has no protectors of innocence except The Second Coming of lambs with their awful beauty. God weeps with us. The leap of faith is to THERE and back again.
******LETTERS TO THE SELF*************
Dear love,
There is no power or authority
But us and we have no parents or children
Yours forever,
THE RAT-LIST AND ITS DOUBLE
Can you escape the realm of personal politics if your audience is only ninety-some e-mail addresses? Probably not. So we
should say up front that
THE ARTICLE AND ITS DOUBLE
The authority of The Article will come from its ostensible attempt to present both a comprehensive and an authentic portrait of RAT.
So first, Steve will conduct interviews for The Article with some of those organizing the NYC Rat Conference and some
out-of-town, especially "original," Rats, but not with everyone. Time (the deadline) and space ("I only have 500 words")
constraints are the most common devices that The Article can use in masking its subjective choices. In this case, Steve's choices in editing certain voices out will probably be based mainly on time constraints. "I want to talk to everybody", then, is not really the truth. "I want to talk to you for 2 minutes and to you for 2 hours" is closer to the whole truth of the Article and Its Double.
The second and more difficult objectivity The Article must try to project is "authenticity". Steve will need to establish the criteria by which he will judge an interviewee's credibility and authenticity. The following exchange shows some of the difficulties The Article has in defining its own criteria in that area.
*********
Nick-- I mean, if I tell you something about Mary... Why? I mean, who are you? I mean I know who Mary is, and I can betray Mary, if I want, and the people involved with Mary. But why should I do that for you? You're not even a... You know... or to Matt, for instance. Especially to you. You know what I mean?
Steve-- I guess the, the, if there's an answer to that, it is that, uh, somebody named Mary Feast or somebody not named Mary Feast, has had very specific opinions about Rat. Uh. Now, if Mary Feast, you know, is somebody who is living in Coney Island and is someone who has all these feelings, opinions about Rat, and really feels as strongly as she seems to feel, uh, it's it's it's strange that she is not willing to engage in the kind of person-to-person dialogue that you guys claim is so important to Rat. You know, the virtual stuff is just a means to a communication - the prelude to the kiss. So Mary does a lot of of of, uh, you know, uh, sort of, dry humping, but she never actually gets down to brass tacks. Now why is that? Now, if she's a real person, then that's a real issue, because, it's kind of like, what are you doing? I mean what do you do? If you're a real person, playing around, and here there's going to be this Rat festival and here's this guy who has, you know, who is, all he is is some dude writing a story about Rat. He's not, I'm not coming to it from any specific point of view or anything. I just want to talk to everybody. Which is what I'm trying to do. I mean I've talked to people in New York. I've talked to people outside of New York.
Gaby-- But you know it's not that simple. Forget about Mary Feast...
S-- But let me just finish. But just
G-- I mean that's an issue. That's the point that I want to get to at some point..
S-- But just let me finish. But if that's an issue, then why is, why is, why is, uh, and, and Mary Feast is also someone who is, uh uh, an example of what the people who are saying detrimental things about Rat, Mary is, Mary is the avatar of their criticism. She is, she is, she is, she is exhibit A of what is wrong with Rat. Just because she is willing to take on people, but then, it's unclear about where she's coming from. You know, Wendy Knox can be obnoxious, or something, on line to somebody, but we know, we know what Mary Knox, what what what Wendy Knox is all about.
N-- You do?
S-- Sure. I mean, I'VE NEVER MET HER, but I know what she's about. I KNOW WHAT SHE'S ABOUT BECAUSE
I'VE READ ABOUT HER. BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE THAT KNOW HER. I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE
FRIENDS WITH HER. [emphasis mine] You know. Uh
N-- See, I don't know anything about Nash Gay, I mean, except what he puts on his thing [keyboard].
*********Jump ahead in The Interview********
In back and forth dialogue all agree that both The Article and The Rat-list represent a type of authority over the IMAGE of Rat, and that both also represent bunkers from which one may attack and be attacked.
***********Resume The Interview********
Gaby-- So it's a form of authority that is finally there, so you can knock at it.
Steve-- But you see, I guess what I get back to is that, I will write something, and it will posted for the world to see. And if someone has a problem with it, they can either write a letter to the editor or they can come up to me an punch me in the nose. I mean they can do that. I'm here, and if someone has a problem with it, they can take it up with me. I'm here. I cannot, I won't be able to escape that. Everybody knows where I work. Everybody knows my home phone number now. Everybody knows who I am. So if somebody takes... you know... I put something out there, and if somebody... Now, I could have written this -- I could have not interviewed anybody and written a piece for the Voice. I could have done that. I could have not talked to anybody. I could have just written a piece based on hearsay and secondary sources from anybody and I could have put a different name to it. And I think there's a fundamental difference between those two things. I think one is being sort of up front -- I'm going to put my two cents out there. If you don't agree with it, great. That's what it's all about. Argue with me. I'm here. I'm in the flesh. I'm in person. You can call me up. You can call me up at American Theatre.
**********END************
*************************
Steve Nunns and Matt Sweeney (and Mary Feast) have never met. But last Monday, within hours of the posting on The Rat-list the transcription of the interview in which he was mentioned, Matt Sweeney threatened The Article and Its Double with a lawsuit. He had already collected two "opinions" from Seattle lawyers for that legal "database". He made this threat by phone and by e-mail.
Which of the many "messengers of reality" and databases is the most authentic and has the most authority? Consider the following scenario:
Mary Feast walks into a bank with idea of securing a loan. According to the dramaturgical structure of the situation, Mary is required to present herself as a responsible and trustworthy loan applicant. Being a good performer, and comfortable with the situation, Mary has costumed herself well by wearing clothing and jewelry that indicate economic comfort. Mary follows the application procedures well, and uses good blocking techniques with appropriate handshakes, standing and sitting as socially expected, and so on. In addition, Mary has prepared and memorized a well-written script that fully explains her need for the loan, as well as her ability to repay it. As careful as Mary is to conform to the codes of the situation, it becomes apparent that her performance in itself is not sufficient to secure the loan. All Mary has accomplished by the performance is to successfully convince the loan officer to interview her electronic double. The loan officer calls up her credit history on the computer. It is this body, a body of data, that now controls the stage. It is, in fact, the only body which interests the loan officer. Mary's electronic double reveals that she has been late on credit payments in the past, and that she has been in a credit dispute with another bank. The loan is denied; end of performance.
Mary Feast will be hosting Tirza's Wine Bath the night the Conference is held at Coney Island USA. The Article will have seen its DEADline come and go, but Its now impotent Double (but always potentially another Article) will still have a chance to actually meet Mary Feast, as opposed to by phone or e-mail or hearsay. Knowing the potential scene at Tirza's, she and the others will definitely be in the flesh, exposed so to speak.
But it's still unclear whether the real Mary Feast, even with offering a high dollar Lap Dance, will have the credibility andauthenticity to win any dispute with her legendary body of e-mail.