HOME | DD
barnabus β
Nothing
Published: 2005-04-13 07:53:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 39623; Favourites: 365; Downloads: 1562
Redirect to original
Description
THERE IS A BETTER, NEWER VERSION HERE, OK. CLICKETY-CLICK.Finally, something that isn't about dying. I used an idea from `Astrophel (the burning house plot device) and hey, it worked.
I stayed up far later than I should have to finish this.
14/4/05: Now (relatively) coherent!
25/6/06: Major revision. Added a new bit. I tried to make it even longer in addition to the new part but I didn't like it so I stopped after that. Enjoy.
8/8/06: HOLY HELL HUGE REVISION. I am entering this into a fringe festival and wanted to make it even longer. I finally had a good idea of how to do it. And it worked.
Beautiful preview image by ~moyan . I don't know why it took me so long to use it.
Related content
Comments: 301
Yep, we went through it and put it on, and it shared a night with my favourite show of the rest of the festival. It was pretty sweet. There was a local director who really liked the concept and wanted to develop it, but then he kept being way to busy to ever make good on it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Aw man that sucks! But hey that must be awesome to see your work actually playing and alive like that! 
π: 0 β©: 0
Man, I laughed quite a bit at this. Very good.
π: 0 β©: 0
Today was the first time i have read this all the way through it is beyond brilliant and it makes me laugh which ceverybody needs everynow and agian
π: 0 β©: 0
i don't see why not, it's a perfectly cromulent word
i pretty much chucked this version out the window anyway, try the new one on for size.
π: 0 β©: 1
I liked the original much better, this is cluttered & annoying & stupid. it was spurid earlier, but it was witty. it ended with a pirate doing the robot half-heartedly, it was one of the best plays I've ever read.
can't have it all I guess
π: 0 β©: 0
GUY 1. But it's there.
[GUY 2. What for?]
GUY 1. Itβs a plot device
Stick with the image you're trying to create: off stage is a burning house, which can almost seem literal but which we all know is this 'plot device' and the "What for?" just doesn't seem to be the right question to follow "But it's there."
But it's there
Why?
But it's there.
How?
But it's there.
Oh.
You probably don't want to ask "How?" because you use it well after this, and "Why?" seems far too open-ended, but I think the repetition of "Oh" would actually make more sense, in context, and feel more authentic, especially because GUY 1 is talking about the burning house almost defensively--continuing his explanation without much prompting otherwise.
--
GUY 2. I don't smoke.
GUY 1. Well this is my story[,] and in my story you smoke.
GUY 2. [But] I don't want to smoke.
GUY 1. Smoke the goddamn cigarette.
or
Well, this is my story, and in my story you smoke.
Punctuation is as important in plays as it is anywhere else, especially if you want the dialogue to have a certain impact and be spoken in a certain way. In fact, most punctuation began because directors and writers wanted their actors to know where to take a breath, etc.
I included "But" because Guy 2 seems just a wee bit whiney and puny compared to Guy 1, and I think it sounds more natural as dialogue--especially when followed by the command to smoke the damn cigarette.
--
GUY 2. [I said I didn't smoke, didn't I? If the smoking is so important you should have lit one up.]
GUY 1. I don't smoke.
That first line is awkward and doesn't feel quite right to me. If someone had told me to smoke, and I smoked a cigarette and began to choke, and I tried to throw back the accusation that they made me smoke but they aren't smoking themselves, I might be less inclined to describe lighting one up and more interested in establishing that the other bastard isn't smoking. It's mostly that "should have" which, as dialogue, honestly works better as "should've"--but here it's not that he should have done something, it's that he should BE doing it already. Does that make sense? It's a tense issue.
"I said I didn't smoke, didn't I? If the smoking is so important, why aren't you?"
or
"I said I didn't smoke, didn't I? If the smoking is so important, why didn't you light up?"
--
GUY 1. We don't have any firemen.
GUY 2. [What] do we have?
I know why you're using "who" here, but I think authentic dialogue would be closer to "What?" Firemen are less men, here, and more a device--much like the fire--so referring to them as a "what" instead of a "who" seems more natural.
--
GUY 2. Who's that?
GUY 1. The romantic [lead].
GUY 2. She's not too bad.
GUY 1. She's [doable].
Either describe her as the "love interest" or the "romantic lead"--but don't combine those two things. It's slightly awkward and doesn't quite sound right. I also understand the "doable" and I appreciate that it can have multiple meanings, but I'm a bit bothered by the line. It feels like it should have some added description or stage direction following or preceding it, not unlike a "shrug" or some such to create the scene and the correct connotations. At this point you may be relying too heavily on the dialogue to completely speak for you. If this is something that you are directing, you're going to want the actor to capture the feeling you're putting out, and adding a short, meaningful description that will give the word its proper resonance might help here.
Otherwise think of editing to something like "She works" or "She'll work" or something similar.
--
GUY 2. Another guy? We already have two.
GUY 1. [Heβs important.]
GUY 2. How's that?
GUY 1. He's the [boyfriend.] Eventually [she'll realize] heβs a jerk and [fall] in love with me[--]who's been under her nose all along.
GUY 2. You don't even know her.
GUY 1. [Sure I do.] It's my story.
I don't think you have to emphasize that Guy 1 is in control of the story twice in one small section, and the "I'll make him important" seems far too congratulatory to really work here. Also, I took out some unnecessary repetition and changed some verb tenses to make that line feel a little more active; it helps the flow. Also, the comma simply wasn't enough of a pause for the line or your actor, there, so I changed it to the dash. The dash is made for dialogue.
I added "Sure I do" (you can play around with something similar) simply because I felt the "It's my story" needed a little more justification or clarification there, especially when you take out the "I'll make him important," but it's not a necessary edit at all (are any of them, really?). It's just a suggestion.
--
GUY 1. No. Don't fall in love with me straight away, though. We need to draw out the sexual tension until our eyes meet under the stars or something. Then we kiss, fade to black[,] and everybody goes home happy.
LOVE INTEREST. I don't get it.
GUY 1. That's how romances are done. Nobody cares about the kiss itself. [Thatβs what porn is for.] [to GUY 2. ] Are you done with that cigarette?
I think the comma is warranted, and I think the porn line is trying too hard for a joke. You don't need it, and bringing porn (and all its connotations) into something that has yet to border on or introduce anything crass (especially in regards to the dialogue) seems entirely out of place. When you look at the next section, where even the vulgar words are used a device, this joke feels even more forced.
--
JERK. What the fucking cockshit?
LOVE INTEREST. [Oh Jerry, please--no. I was just--]
JERK. Fuck that fuck, I'm fucking pissed the [fucking fuck].
LOVE INTEREST. We were just talkingβ¦
JERK. Fucking football ass-shit ass-shit shit-fuck-slut.
GUY 2. I hope there aren't any kids in the audience.
GUY 1. He doesn't care; he's [a jerk] like that.
I made some suggestions to the girlfriend line simply because it I felt the order was wrong in regards to the emphasis an actor might want to put on the line. The dashes were added for similar reasons. Also, fucking is the verb and you want to end that line with the noun, so I switched that order, too.
The hyphens are because, in print (and probably in performance) you're going to want to tell the actor (and the reader) exactly where the random words are and where the string is. There is a string here, I think where I included the hyphens, and it makes those lines easier to both read and speak.
I took out "asshole" because we've already established him as a jerk, and I think it's best to keep things consistent. "Asshole" was trying too hard.
--
LOVE INTEREST. [I am not going to discuss the finer points of Marxist economic theories right now, Jerry.]
JERK. Cockslap a bitch[.] [Fucking fuck-ass].
LOVE INTEREST. I'm Smithian and always will be. [choking up] Your eloquent rhetoric will never change that.
JERK. Motherfucking fuckass[.] [F]uck a duck.
LOVE INTEREST [with a sob]. Now you're just being hurtful!
JERK. Fuck!
I think those edits are self-explanatory. I laughed out loud on "Fuck a duck."
--
GUY 1. [The beat].
LOVE INTEREST. What?
GUY 1. In dramaturgy, this is called [the] beat. It's a division [in] the scene [where] two characters [make] a mutual discovery. In this case, you have [just] discovered that I am your true love[,] and I have [just] discovered [that] I have a chance of scoring. And it all happened under silvery moonlight.
GUY 2. Weβre indoors.
GUY 1. [It's my] story.
LOVE INTEREST. I want to kiss you.
GUY 1. Damn straight.
[They kiss tenderly at first, but then they start to get a little carried away.]
Self-explanatory and similar to edits I've done before. Changing the verb tenses will really help this.
--
GUY 2. This isn't [a] romance. This is [mile-a-minute] action, baby!
It feels like it needs the article, and the "mile-a-minute" feels like a forced and out-of-place description of action in general. People talk a mile a minute, but action does something else. Think about possible edits for that line.
--
GUY 1. My story [was] not crappy.
GUY 2. Yeah it [was].
GUY 1. [Was] not!
Changing the tenses will change the mood slightly, and I think making them sound more like two whining children is actually closer to what you're trying to portray here.
--
GUY 1. Your whole story is stupid. It's not even a story. Mine [had] an intricate plot[.] [Y]ours is just some pirates.
--
LOVE INTEREST. Somebody please tell the dancing pirate to stop[.] [S]eriously
--
GUY 2. That's right[.] [B]eat. Your romantic interest just discovered your horrible secret.
"That's right: beat" would also work.
--
GUY 2. After they exit stage left.
[Exit PIRATE 1 and LOVE INTEREST stage LEFT. ]
And they spend their days dancing the night away. You can't really tell because they're offstage, but rest[-]assured they're dancing their hearts out. The end.
--
GUY 2. [Oh wait!] [T]he burning house was [yours]. The end.
--
GUY 1 [to lighting booth]. Turn those goddamn lights [up].
You don't need the "now" as "goddamn" says it for you.
--
[to GUY 2] [Thatβs the way it's gonna be, huh?] You slap yourself.
You don't have to kill the effect with multiple, wordy questions.
--
GUY 1. Twist your nipples.
You need the emphasis here.
--
LOVE INTEREST. What do I mean? What do I mean? You said I would live happily ever after[!] [she slaps GUY 2]
Or stomps her foot, or does something here.
--
LOVE INTEREST. Shut up! You said Iβd spend the rest of my days dancing. Thatβs a lot of days. [Some days] I donβt want to dance[!] Some days I want to stay at home and watch TV, or read a book, or call my friends. [And that's] not even the half of it. Shut up.
GUY 2. I didnβtβ¦
LOVE INTEREST. [Shut up!] [Y]ou want[ed] me to marry a pirate, too. A pirate. Do you realize how little market demand there is for a pirate these days?
--
LOVE INTEREST. [How about--I tell a story?]
GUY 1. No.
LOVE INTEREST. Yes. Yes, I think I will. I like that. You boys [had] your fun[.] [It's] my turn now.
GUY 1. There are no βturns.β I was telling the story.
LOVE INTEREST. [Not anymore.] [Looks around] I need more characters. Pirate and Jerry, re-enter!
I took out some extra words, etc. You don't have to include the redundant "I am now" in that last line.
--
I have to stop here for now, but if you'd like me to continue, let me know. I'm really enjoying this piece, but it could stand to be cleaned up a bit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Before seeing this, I revised the play fairly heavily and already included some of your suggestions (because I'm pro like that I guess). I incorporated some of your other suggestions into the current script, which I re-uploaded here. Please take another gander at it and tell me what you think!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll certainly take a look when I get the chance.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, you're pretty much my hero at this point.
π: 0 β©: 1
hahaha, again - brilliant. I think I may have to add this too..
Wait, I could just watch you.
π: 0 β©: 0
funny. nice. cool. looking forward to more of ur work
π: 0 β©: 0
The unedited, albeit shorter, version was much better. You could tell that it had lost some of the flair the original had like how you changed "way to smoke" into "well done"... Fuck that, you had it nailed man, why change that? Or "poppin' fresh moves flow through his veins like the mighty Ganges", that was gold, what's this "a mighty river" crap? It was beautiful before, and the ending didn't seem so placed, it seems natural and so hilariously RIGHT. And what's going on with all these other characters... Agh... You know what, it's still funny as hell... But, it was better man... Really it was...
π: 0 β©: 1
The river line sounded forced, the ending occurs much more naturally from the events of the play now as opposed to "welp, here's the end" from before, and the other characters telling their story also seems like a natural extension to the play which I needed to lengthen in order to meet festival requirements. As for the way to smoke line, maybe I'll change that back.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, all I meant to say is that at the time when I first read it, I really needed something as funny as it was... I just couldn't bear it to be different. It's yours, do what you will, no disrespect to someone so talented as yourself; you know better than I.
π: 0 β©: 1
i wasn't offended or anything, just offering my reasoning
π: 0 β©: 1
Woot, well, I feel better now.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is brilliant. has anyone ever played any of your scripts?
π: 0 β©: 1
Lots of people have asked, I don't know how many of them successfully mounted a production. I have the videos for two high school productions of Fate, one of them wants to do Nothing now, and another guy is making a film out of Afterlife. Somebody else entered Nothing into a Concordia and out of thirty-two entries, this was among the final six. Unfortunately, it was ultimately rejected because I'm not a Concordia student. However, I am submitting it myself for my university's fringe festival in February and hopefully will be directing it.
π: 0 β©: 0
welcome to flavour country
π: 0 β©: 0
omg..this piece is brilliant!! two-thumbs up!
π: 0 β©: 0
I read through this and it felt it stagnated at the point where The girl was telling her story, and didn't really pick up again until near the end. I dont know what you added and what was already there, but I just wanted to let you know that I think that was the part you added and likewise it didn't have the feel of the rest of hte piece as well as it could have. Just my thoughts, though.
π: 0 β©: 0
You know, Toni recommended this to me awhile back in ch and I loved it, and then Daniel was pimping it when you revised, and I loved it again, and I've realized I've never commented. How rude of me!
Anyways, I love this piece. It's hilarious, and shows a comfy knowledge of theater and its tropes, sillinesses, and joys. Plus, how can you beat dancing pirates?
Best of luck with it.
π: 0 β©: 0
And you did manage to make it about dying again! 
Awesome shit! You're going to stomp asses at that festival! DICKS!
π: 0 β©: 1
You just gave me an awesome idea of what do with the fight. Thanks.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, I changed the fight. Is it awesome? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's a certain rhythm to it now. It works a little better for sure. The running into the wall thing gives it a nice punctuated end
π: 0 β©: 0
You did a great job on this it is really funny! I love it.
π: 0 β©: 0
i really like this revision, except that for some reason i cant read all of the long lines. they get cut off. im not sure how much im really liking V5.
anyway, i loved the original, and the extension (from what i can see) is equally great. good luck with the festival.
π: 0 β©: 1
Is your screen resolution too low?
π: 0 β©: 1
um.. i dont know what that means. but my monitor is a piece of shit. i some of the longer lines just.... go off the screen. and i cant scroll over or anything. did i already say that?
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow! You must be a writer. And absurd, no less.
The kitchen sinks in your realistic abswordism.
You're.... a live wire too.
π: 0 β©: 0
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! That was pure genius!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Lmao, that was actually one of the funniest things I've read in ages!
Jeez, you deserve a fav for that
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, according to the Concordia University Theatre Department, this is good enough to be produced, but it's not going to be (at least not by them) 
Anyway, I'm sure you're fully aware by now, but it's an awsome play. Congrats.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, that sucks, but I understand why they made the decision. At least I was actually one of the finalists. Thanks for trying, I appreciate it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ya, sucks quite a bit. I could have always plagiarized and then asked your permission and slipped it by, but I didn't think of that when they announced it, and wouldn't feel comfortable doing it without asking first. They announced it as, "Nothing, by David A. (I forget your last name, sorry), or, Tim Case" It was a bit embarrasing to have to say, "Uh, it's not my play," in front of a big group of profs and university students. Doh.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>