Re: RAT Re: yak butter

[Mathew Bretz <mabretz@cbomedia.com>]

hey, earlier today dr. sylvain said something that implied that he had missed
the beginning part of a thread.  i have two emails here -- one titled "RAT
re:yak butter" from erik and one titled "re: RAT re Yak butter" from john.  did
i miss the initial email titled simply "yak butter"? is there drop out on the
list?

mab

"Sylvain, John" wrote:

> Why Erik Ehn as I live and breath.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Ehn [SMTP:shadowtackle@worldnet.att.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 3:59 PM
> > To:   rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
> > Subject:      RAT Re: yak butter
> >
> > Regards:
> >
> >      I say all kinds of crazy things. Vis-a-vis making theater I say "no
> > money," and while there are ways to live this literally, I don't. Money
> > makes producing easier in most cases and at-all possible in most. I say
> > "no fame" in the sense of publicity and more broadly in the sense of
> > lasting recognition, but publicity and life over time make producing
> > easier. Neither fame nor money should be the problems that define our
> > work; the lack of them doesn't have to shut us down. We don't have to pay
> > to pray or be in love; (money can buy space for prayer, money can give
> > love one less thing to argue about). Iowa costs money to get to, which
> > frustrates me no end. The producing of a rat meeting is a lab for rat
> > moral theory. The cost of getting to rat shows a) the bankruptcy of the no
> > money idea; b) is a goad for innovation (some are reducing costs by
> > carpooling, by taking the bus, by coming via Las Vegas - the cheapest city
> > in the country to fly in and out of, by combining this trip wi!
> > !
> > th others - e.g. to family, by using the concept of rat-banking - where
> > the will involved in making the trip happen is offered over in trust that
> > the will will be returned somehow, someway... unreasonable but
> > sufficiently effective for some).
> >
> >      Plays of mine that are gone are gone, gone, gone. The plays that are
> > going are going fast. Like most writers I'll outlive my work and my name.
> > Like most writers, if I'm lucky enough to live a long life, I'll outlive
> > my work and my name. Like most bakers, lace makers, equestrians,
> > volleyball coaches I will leave my self to burn with achievements in time,
> > without acquiring enough money or name to assure me I've spent my time
> > wisely, without contributing substantial innovation, but hopefully having
> > written (baked, coached) as best I could without interfering unduly with
> > the proper flow of peace through the world.
> >
> >      Publishing plays is good for the literature of theater. Theater is
> > not about literature, though theater can use literature (as theater
> > uses/uses up/captures with cunning and consumes with tremendous appetite)
> > any formal thing. The way to read a play is to produce it. This requires
> > trust, deep personal knowledge of collaborators, and profound dialogue.
> > Since the events of theater center on the care of bodies in space in real
> > time, the way to discuss theater is to produce theater. Criticism helps
> > perpetuate critical dialogue; productions perpetuate productions. E-mail
> > perpetuates e-mail. I like e-mail, and depend on it. But e-mail is all
> > prelude.
> >
> >      The way to move a play is to move a production (in whole, but
> > preferably in part - thus ensuring collaboration). The way to survive is
> > to die a little. Where you have died is where community rushes in. Live
> > long enough and you become a self for others.
> >
> >      This is pietistic and flaky, but the best I can do - crackpot  but
> > tested against my own cracked experience.
> >
> >
> > peace,
> >
> > e
> >
> >
> > Rat note: As time marches on, keep me up on the head-to-free-bed ratio - a
> > resource I will stretch once I get out there mid-January, but possibly
> > insufficient. Ah insufficiency! An invitation to innovation.