God's Elbow

[knights_say_nih]

I'm writing a play.

I don't like to think of it as relgiously controversive, because that's not what I was setting out to do with it. It's a two hander between two men, one of whom believes fervently that there's no such thing as God and actively rejects religion, the other of whom is more passive and doesn't want to start an argument about it. I think the upset man's conviction and summary dismissal of religion without pause for consideration paints him more as unreasonable than anything else, especially given that the play is set in a bizarre sort of purgatory state, before judgement.

Even more so, a lot of the dialogue is rather satirical. The man attempts to 'prove the non-existence of God,' something impossible to really do, and backwards-reasons himself into his own conclusions, which he'd have got no matter what, because for all his pretense to be scientific he's really just justifying what he wants to know throughout the entire thing.

So that's my question. Does one atheist character in a play focusing on the question of who merits redemption kill it for a good portion of my audience?

In all honesty, the question of religion needs to be established. It's post-modernist absurdism, the questions of life, death, God and predestination are unnavoidable, given the genre I'm attempting. Think Waiting for Godot. Think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Only there isn't a tree and Hamlet doesn't make an appearance.




Anyone feel like proofreading? :D

Comments

[surexit.livejournal.com]

For sure. :)