Here is a reply to an email that Martin sent me about our play:
I think this is dead on. I’m finishing up the introductory scene to justify the incorporation of fictional characters with “real” people. I am doing some interesting things with the fruit and Schrödinger’s Cat. I think together the two paradoxes will help to justify what otherwise could be seen as simply meta-Theater: a term I am not sure I want directly applied to this. We will have to see, I suppose that will be up to the critics to judge. I love how loaded you made the scene, it was fantastic. I wanted to be sure that it wasn’t just me thinking it was funny, so I had the dimmest one of my roommates read a section of it and he was laughing quite a bit, so I think we are dead on in that field. I don’t think I want to do the Butterfly scene in the beginning. I think it would play out better latter on. Your characterization of hamlet works great. I have some ideas about him being there and not there at the same time that we’ll need to discuss but that idea doesn’t come into the fore till much later, so for now we should be good.
As far as “scene two,” I think that keeping it funny is a good idea. Perhaps a parallel to the plight of Hamlet occurring among the actual characters would be a good way of illustrating the need for better resolution without needing to have him directly discuss it. Again the double entendre should work great here. I’ll get my scene over to you and then this next one that we are working on can kind of tie the two together, so that we can then move on to act 2.
These are my thoughts,
Bryan
