2 wonderfully 'bizarre' plays. When one thinks of a play as a group of people enacting something & dispenses w/ any expectation of linear narrative or overtly connected discursiveness, then the results can consist partially of play conversations like this:

E. Roper
D. Trine-erupt rutin; enact react?
C. Train price pinct; trace-price raper trier count - retap antre price?
E. Reacy-retap.
D. Print trine recap-antre.

For me, things like this that disrupt 'normal' discourse are slate-cleansers: they enable the perceivers (whether participants or audience) to reappraise their relationship w/ words & dialogs & to be REFRESHED. & lest you think that these are meant to be harsh disciplinary actions for the sheeplike audience, I remember Jackson telling me (probably in the late 1970s about 15 yrs after these plays were written) that he considered himself to be an entertainer. This sd in the context of discussions about whether one's work was didactic or for amusement, etc - a common discourse. Perhaps most people wdn't be entertained by such a play but I probably wd be & I'm particularly entertained by Jackson's thinking of them as entertaining. ( )