- The Myopia: An Epic Burlesque of Tragic Proportion
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Click for larger view
View full resolution
Act One: Flare-Up
Characters
THE RACONTEUR
NARRATAGE in the form of stage directions
YETTI
KOREEN Yetti’s daughter
FEBUS Koreen’s suitor, later her husband
BARCLAY son of Febus and Koreen
WARREN G. HARDING a character from history
FLORENCE HARDING Harding’s wife
OLD-TIMER a country fellow
HENRY CABOT LODGE senator from Massachusetts
WILL HAYS Republican Party chairman
GEORGE HARVEY editor, North American Review
JAMES WADSWORTH senator from New York
CHARLES CURTIS senator from Kansas
FRANK BRANDEGEE senator from Connecticut
SELDEN SPENCER senator from Missouri
REED SMOOT senator from Utah
WILLIAM BORAH senator from Idaho
WILLIAM CALDER senator from New York
JOSEPH FRELINGHUYSEN senator from New Jersey
LAWRENCE PHIPPS senator from Colorado
MEDILL MCCORMICK senator from Illinois
JAMES WATSON senator from Indiana
HENRY HASKELL reporter, Kansas City Star
IRVIN KIRKWOOD reporter, Kansas City Star [End Page 61]
Setting
Various.
Notes
YETTI speaks with an East European accent.
The Myopia is performed as a solo—in the “storytelling” tradition. One actor plays all the roles, using the stage directions as narration.
Prologue
THE RACONTEUR I’ve been thinking about pictures. I’ve been thinking about pictures and how one might make pictures on the stage, which is not to say that I’ve been thinking about stage pictures. On the contrary.
I’ve been reflecting on the difference between the image and the imagined, and the relationship of imagining to thinking—and I’ve been thinking about thinking, but for the moment that’s tangential.
I’ve been thinking how a picture is a picture of something, but not the something it is a picture of. And the same for film—which is after all pictures—and for anything that is a picture even if it is not a picture but a recording of something, but not the something it is a recording of. And others have addressed this issue more astutely than I. If you wish, see me after, I refer you.
But that this is not true of live signals, broadcast or monitored, might lead one to consider the televising of something, which is not by necessity a recording though it is by necessity a transmission. Here again others—I must refer you to others—though I will say that television, no matter how it is...