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 This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance, only.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 Fran and thank you for your very helpful comments.

>>Hi James,
>>I'd had a peek at this in Socrates, and the early editing has helped clarify. The different 'voices' were confusing but now make some kind of Joxian sense.

You’re understanding Joxian? Poor lass!

>>This certainly doesn't read as any traditional poetry. But you say you are experimenting. I suppose if poetic prose can become a prose-poem, then a poetic script can become a script-poem?

Not much I do is traditional per se - but this “format” is, perhaps, a little more unusual than most.

>>As to philosophy, I have little experience.  A quick glance at an essay by Rorty, and an interest in Santayana perhaps, but Von Daniken?  Derrida? (although there was a wonderful letter in the Independent [British broadsheet newspaper] after his recent death: 'Sir, Thank you for the obituary: I knew Foucault about Derrida until I read it.' Irrelevant, but I couldn't resist quoting it. )

Erich von Däniken is not a philosopher per se. He is an historian of sorts. He considers myths, legends and other unexplained situations and weaves an explanation around them.

Here’s the link to his own web site (which I hadn’t seen prior to this reply - my knowledge of him goes back to my school days when many of us were reading his books, especially “Chariot of The Gods.” He considers the odd shapes in the Peruvian Desert and attributes them to astronaut-gods. (amongst many other things). Many people believe in his work; many others reject it.

I quote from his website: http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

“Born on April 14th, 1935, in Zofingen, Switzerland, Erich von Däniken was educated at the College St-Michel in Fribourg, where already as a student he occupied his time with the study of the ancient holy writings. While managing director of a Swiss 5-Star Hotel, he wrote his first book, Chariots of the Gods, which was an immediate bestseller in the United States, Germany, and later in 38 other countries.

In the United States, Erich von Däniken won instant fame as a result of the television special "In Search of Ancient Astronauts," based upon his first book. In 1993, the German television station SAT-1 started a twenty-five part TV series with and by Erich von Däniken, entitled "Auf den Spuren der All-Mächtigen" (Pathways of the Gods). In 1996, the American TV company ABC/Kane produced a one-hour special, filmed all over the world, entitled Chariots of the Gods - The Mysteries Continue. This film was broadcast on the ABC network on September 26th 1996. In 1996/97 ABC/Kane produced another documentary with Erich von Däniken (seen on the Discovery Channel). In Germany, the biggest TV network, RTL, showed the film on November 26th, 1996. 7,7 million viewers in Germany alone watched the program. Today, Erich von Däniken continues his filming with ABC and RTL.”

Dogs & Existential Nihilism
- a poem for voices

>>The title certainly warms what to expect ...

One tries!

we dogs are
here this day to
please for humans:

>>Should that be 'please' (dogs can be pleasing, I know) or 'plead'?

It was both, so I opted for “please.” They plead to please because they know the right mind of man far better than man, in his insanity, knows his own mind. Simple really! :)

The Grand Inquisitor:
(Robin Goodfellow-Day)

>>Philosophy with humour? I'm not sure that's allowed, is it?

You need to listen to more Monty Python. Besides, much humour is philosophical (even if little academic Philosophy is humorous). However, it was not an attempt at humour; you over-estimate my intention. (Thank you).

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.

>>I like the half-rhyme that sneaks in when 'verse' is mentioned.

Ah! Thank you. That was intentional. generally, I don’t think part of a poem can rhyme and part not. However, in this case, this is the only interjection into the poem by the poet - so I thought a distinctive poetic voice was both justified and useful.

Onwards, downward,

>>Any direction would do? But down seems reasonable, since words require something.

Nope; the words were carefully selected. They are indicating that the Human race is down and out (or heading in those directions, anyway). Progress (onwards) leads to regress, in other words (and it often does - deforestation to supply us with more agro-crops is an excellent example).

the meaning of the infinite
universe which cannot exist
in human concept but
cannot end either.

>>Nice easy stuff to comprehend  :speechless:

Surely this is nothing special? Isn’t it simply the old question - I’ve been asking it since I was a child and I am sure the majority of the population have, too. Put in prose: Humans cannot comprehend (on the one hand) anything which is infinite, nor (on the other) the end to everything. So what happens? The universe (in our understanding) cannot go on for ever - but neither can it simply end. (Taking the Universe in its original meaning to mean everything). parallel universes etc are a bastardisation of the word “Universe” but, even so, the same conceptual problem will occur.

Council Chair (for is it He?):

>>He (capital) = God?

Well spotted!

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

>>Perhaps a space line before the 'Goodbye'?

Excellent idea.  But I was trying for the “Weakest link” effect... “You are useless. Goodbye” where one expects, deserves an explanation for an outrageous statement but is immediately dismissed before one is offered. So I wanted no delay in the “Goodbye” element. Nio slowing at all.

>>In the notes below the 'doubling up' instructions seem unnecessary - if this gets beyond workshop/crit and is performed live then relevant, but complicated at this stage (stage to stage?).

Probably so and I could have excluded it from MM but I wrote it for staging so I showed it here. I was inspired by TS Eliot’s directions for “Murder in The Cathedral” where he stipulates that the knights and tempters ought to be played by the same actors. The outfits were suggested to me by a production of “Equus” (Peter Schaffer’s play) I once saw - black is very effective. And I wanted the Chairman to appear omnipresent (God).

>>Now I'm off to rejoin the universe as I know it. Cheers, Fran

Ah don’t be like that, Fran... come back, please...

Anyone else?