Of a coward who stops being a coward

Setting is free.

Characters A and G may be named as convenient.

A German accent. In any case, I prefer acting over writing. Acting in the original sense of the word, doing so to say.

G British accent. But writing is acting. You change the world. You express yourself.

A Maybe. But I find, it's a rather weak form of expression. I'd almost say, it's the contrary of brave. I mean - clearly that's its great advantage - changing the world, when nobody's looking and stealing away before they notice. Leave it to them without facing the responsibility, without having to confront their reaction.

G That's one way to see it. But I think writing's just got a different time scale. You take part in a larger discourse anyway. And you will be confronted with the reactions to what you've expressed soon enough. On the contrary, one might argue that one takes more risk when writing since it's more continuant than speaking or many other forms of acting. A spoken word may be heard once, in the moment. A written word won't necessarily fade. It might even burn itself into common consciousness over the centuries.

A But still: You're not there to stand up to the consequences of your act, your decision. You may allow yourself to attack somebody or to confess yourself without the downside normally coming with it.

G And?

A That makes it incomplete. Weak, like I said. Only half of an exeprience. Like coke without a cold turkey.

G Are you sure? Maybe your really should start writing. First of all, if there really was no downside to it - I don't see, why that has to be negative. Why does an experience have to be incomplete when there is no suffering involved? Why do you even define an experience as such? Just do what you fucking want without that annoying moral masochism of yours...

A ... But...

G ... Just let me finish, please! See - another advantage of writing. Because in fact - how do you know there won't be a cold turkey after all? I mean, writing without anybody reading it, is like buying coke without using it, if you like that example.

A Thanks for opening my eyes, Shakesbeer! But guess what - I have written stuff before which has been read - and it's been rare that I gave a shit afterwards. I was just happy to have gotten the stuff off of my chest and leave the bitch with it.

G But that only works when you know your stuff will be read. And you imagine a certain reaction - even while writing. And there you go - writing actually is only one half of communication. The turkey might still come: when you read the answer to your letter.

A Exactly! But you know why a writer is called writer and not reader?!? Because he enjoys putting himself in the privileged position of coking without turkeying.

G But what makes you think the reader doesn't equally enjoy his part of the story? That's what you might call a win-win-situation, right?

A At first glance for sure. But what's the effect on the long run? One writing and millions reading. Makt that into "one speaking and millions following" and you might see what I mean.

G Oh for fuck's sake! You are really in need of some kind of paranoia to feel secure - even if it's the national one. Adolf is dead, honey!

A And Napoleon is reborn, dill weed! But that's not even my point! Let's just take Jesus as a nice counter example. Or rather the Apostles since it's them who wrote the fucking story. You'll agree that they intended to do good, won't you? And what's the result? I can literally here Jesus sighing in despair across the centuries.

G Hush!

Beat

No you can't - he's dead. But seriously, here you're not really criticising writing but communication in general. The same thing happens every day at every place of the world where people try to understand each other: trial and error. Do you suggest to stop communicating once and for all?

A Well, I suggest, we cut it down to a minimum. We should get back into telepathy, start trying it at least. And in the mean time - I think speaking does less harm than writing, as millions of sheep following show while others have understood to free themselves from the moral pseudo instructions of the game.

G I almost got the feeling you're using some of my arguements: Didn't you start off with "writing as a rather weak form of acting"? And now we're talking about religious fucking texts. I'm sure you got more people getting killed by the Bible than by a knife. Or by the Atomic Bomb for that matter.

A Well anyway, that's not really an arguement for writing, is it?

G I thought it was you who wanted the turkey.

A What I want is to act. And that in order to change my life. To develop. To grow. And I would want other people to do the same. I wouldn't want to tell them what to do - neither bad things nor good things - neither in a spoken nor in a written form. I would want them to start making up their own rules. Become aware. Independant. And responsible.

G And you think communication keeps 'em from that?

A Well yes, to a certain extent. But, I see what you mean - it can be used either way. Still, I think acting is less ambiguous. Being a good example. I "must cultivate my garden" 'n stuff like that. And stop giving good advice fit for being misunderstood by whoever it suits.

G Stop writing, you say. Stop talkin, stop guiding, stop helping? Is that it?

A If you want. To "stop helping" helps people to learn to help themselves. In any case, at one point of the story the writing is meant to stop.

G And what's a story without an ending?

A acts as if to reply with a smart answer but rests silent. The solemn expression on his face soon relaxes into a smile, and eventually A, turned by now to the audience, raises her /his eyebrows and shrugs her /his shoulders.