critics and defenders of Rock Apocalypse

Walter Plingerest said "It doesn't sound like a very interesting concept for a play." Really? ? It sounds to me like you are pre-judging the end result (...and may also be a bit confused in your use of the word 'concept'). Sorry to say it, your statement above doesn't sound like a very interesting argument. I actually think the concept IS very interesting. Verbatim transcripts, real people's thoughts, actual dialogue, true characters, local controversy and honest drama being somehow crafted into a piece of live theatre is a fascinating concept, which I have never seen done before and so I consider it highly original and therefore very interesting. Now what you maybe meant to say is that you didn't think it would make an interesting play. That would still be showing your prejudice, but I'm not prepared to argue against you yet (if that's really what you meant to say) because it may yet turn out to be the case. I would rather wait until I had SEEN the play before I argue over whether it turned out to be interesting or not. And you really have exposed a can of worms here. I don't yet know what you WOULD consider interesting, but I am already finding that I disagree with your way of expressing it. There's a fairly high chance that I may be misrepresenting you, and that the simpleness of your statement does not accurately reflect the depth of your experience, taste and opinion in art. Yet somehow you have managed to make a similar error in your protest, making hasty judgement of a concept for a play which has not been formed yet. Isn't it interesting how what we choose to reveal here can be interpreted in a myriad of ways? We may not always express ourselves the way we'd like, but even when we do, we put ourselves trustingly in the hands of our audience, for them to take and do with as they will. And they in turn get analyzed, interpreted and criticized for how they choose to respond (as all of you are forming or modifying your opinion about me as you read this..!). It's all highly subjective, it's all personal, and yet we can't take it personally. And yet we still do. The very act of writing here is ART. It's expression put on display for an audience. And it's a collaboration. You get to contribute, and change it into something else, yet you can't fully master or control it. It's a living entity, with a rather Cartesian quality: We think, therefore it is. The 'Rock Apocalypse' example may not be the most appealing or well expressed story, but the drama of the social dynamic going on between the lines is absolutely the most fascinating part. What is it that draws us all to read further, to take sides; to posit and posture and pounce upon opposing points of view? We are simultaneously engaged in a dialogue about what constitutes art, what constitutes criticism, the nature of theatre in general, and what we find entertaining...and we express it through degrees of passion, wit, and the logical and poetic structure of our language. Through conflict and style there is drama, and in the words of those who craft it, it takes form. It sounds to me like a very interesting concept. Someone should write a play about it. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------