Dogs and Existential Nihilism, A poem for voices Options

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi,

[JJ advises me that this intro might be off-putting. I do want the poem critted (as well as the intellectual integrity) so if you're not into philosophy, that's fine - please ignore the intro and go straight to the work, below. Thanks, J.]

I'm anxious that the ideas-sequence and (sorry to sound pompous) the conceptual integrity of this is ok. Any input you care to offer will be carefully considered.

Although I’m discussing Existential Nihilism, I think I have a tendency to confused that with the original Nihilism of Nietzsche. If you’re into philosophy and feel I’m doing that please let me know. My knowledge is very limited.

If you think it’s rubbish, please tell me - but I shall want to know why, of course.

Thanks. James.

=====================================================
© James Oxenholme, 2005. I, James Oxenholme, do assert my right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of The Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act, 1988. (Laws of Cymru & England, as recognised by international treaties). This work was simultaneously copyrighted in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance, only.

(Writer Change from PF to MB)
January, 2005.
Grateful thanks for first crit received from WMW.
More grateful thanks to Fran and Nina for their helpful suggestions.

MB !-207 AD

======================================================

Dogs & Existential Nihilism
- a poem for voices

Sotto voce Reading 1:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Council Member A:

The Universal Council
is now sitting.
Order! Order!

Council Member B:

The first case before us:
A petition from Earth, concerning
their dominant species: Humans.

Council Chair:

Not them again,
we dealt with People only
a few hundred Earth years ago.
What in Heaven's name, now?!

Dog:

Your Lordships,
we dogs are
here this day to
please for humans:
their nihilism has gone
existential.
we fear for them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Digression from
Parallel Universe:

The Grand Inquisitor:
(Robin Goodfellow-Day)

Point of order!
But is this not
prose or drama,
masquerading
as poetry?
How do you answer
that charge?

The Poet: (maybe)

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

The Voice:

Continue!
Onwards, downward,
ever closer to a
non-existent truth:
the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

-------------------------------------------------------

Sotto voce Reading 2:

O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?

Dog:

Humans believe in gods no more -
faith in nothing, save Science.
Changing the planet so fast,
few species will survive.

Sotto voce Reading 3:

Fear not! said he; for might dread
had seized their troubled mind,
Glad tidings of great joy I bring,
To you and all mankind.

Council Member A:

Scientists, the modern priests;
Religion dying.
So we programmed
the next stage for your planet.
Your humans believe in science,
for the while.

Dog:

You are God;
you are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

Council Chair (for is it He?):

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

Robin Goodfellow (Puck) - Midsummer Night's Dream, William Shakespeare
Robin Day - deceased British tv political interviewer. Renown for introducing a hard interviewing technique.

Readers:

The readers should be positioned on stage in a circle with the Sotto voce in the centre. Each should face the audience. Budget allowing, all readers should wear all black. The lighting should be dim but the speakers clearly visible. Unless a reader is actually reading, their head should be bowed... except for the Council Chair, who should always appear alert and dominant. The narrator will read the titles of the speakers and other details (all in blue) before they deliver their piece.

The nine readers as follows (in order of first appearance):

Narrator (Do not double-up)
Sotto voce readings (Do not further double-up)
Council Member A
Council Member B
Council Chair
Dog (Do not double-up)
Robin Goodfellow-Day (If doubling-up use Council Member A)
Poet (If doubling-Up use Council member B)
Voice (If doubling-up, use Council Chair).

If needs be and the narrator is very clear it might be possible to double-up on other roles but this is highly undesirable.  If it does happen, readers should certainly use different voices for different roles. In case of need, a doubling-up guide is given.

Sotto voce readings - credits:

1 - (Drama) - William Shakespeare, “Macbeth”
2 - (Poem) - Wilfred Owen, 1914/18 - “Futility”
3 - (Carol) - Nahum Tate, 1700 - “While Shepherds Watched”

=====================================================
=====================================================

EARLIER VERSION OF SAME WORK:

Copyright etc.
PF !-207 AB
December 2004.


Dogs & Existential Nihilism

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

The Universal Council is now sitting.
Order! Order!

The first case before your Lordships:
A petition from Earth, concerning
their dominant species: Humans.

Not them again, we dealt with them
only about two hundred years ago...
What on Earth now?!

My Lords, we are dogs
Here this day to please for humans.
their nihilism has gone
existential. I fear for them.

Order!
But this is prose -
or maybe drama,
masquerading as poetry?
How do you answer
that charge?

As a nihilist? I don’t!
It matters not.
To suit your value-system,
I’ll simply say thus:
I felt this presentation
best in verse.

Continue!
Onwards, downward,
ever closer to a
non-existent truth:
the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

“-O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?”

They believe in gods no more -
they have faith in nothing but Science.
They are changing the planet too fast,
too few species will survive

“Fear not!" said he; for might dread
had seized their troubled mind,
"Glad tidings of great joy I bring,
To you and all mankind”

Those Scientists are the modern priests.
Religion was dying so we
programmed the next stage
for your planet.
Your humans believe in science,
for the while.

So, asked GSD, you are God?
You are the gods?
Von Daniken was right?

No, my friends.
You make a critical error.
You think we exist.
Goodbye.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2 - (Poem) - Wilfred Owen, 1914/18 - “Futility”
3 - (Carol) - Nahum Tate, 1700 - “While Shepherds Watched” [/b]

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi JJ,

Thanks for returning.

>>I would assume that to post something is 'per se' to offer it to an audience, whether or not it attracts crits, but that's only my opinion.  

There is a semantic issue here in which you may be right. But my argument is that, in terms of the arts, an audience really means the final consumers. I am not presenting this as such; I am asking for it to be commentated on prior to presentation - again, semantics but, again, I think, in the context of the arts, we would be wrong to use that terms. "This evening's presentation.." implies a finished piece. What we have on crit forums would be better compared to read-through, rehearsals, script-changes and so on. Most of those have people listening / watching but we wouldn't, in that context, call them an audience.

>>I am unsure as to which 'suitable alternative' I might offer - a philosophy forum, perhaps.

Yes, thanks I gathered you meant that - but I know of none. Besides, this would not stand up to that rigor. All I want to ensure is a coherent intellectual thread (in respect of philosophy) but it is not in the context of logic; it is being considered via an art. First and foremost it is literature (though my question is, is it literate?). I have taken what I believe to be one concept, hinted at a second but very much put my ideas on that. In other words, it is based on the philosophy but goes away from / beyond that - into an area which is surrealistic, and thereby, back onward to religion.

In other words, it's far more me than it is philosophy.

Cheers, JJ.

James.

Hi Lori... didn't realise I had, sorry: I do know that hampers and sand damage IKB but poor memory! At “The Wild Crocodile” was it?