There has been a lot of lazing about.

But why not? I've got no responsibilities to speak of, so I might as well have some fun.
Pokemon and ODST have been played, both of which are fantastic, I might add.

I've been careful not to lose my scholarly edge, though, and have finished Gardner's book. I enjoyed it, and have been questioning what I believe to be true about theatre ever since. Gardner's overall stance is that theatre is not a place to show man constrained by the same forces that constrain him in real life. Rather, his potential should be what is shown. Like Goethe, Gardner believes that if you "treat a man as he is, he will remain so. treat a man the way he can be and ought to be, and he will become as he can be and should be."


Viktor Frankl agrees:



One should, Gardner argues, be filled with a sense of waste when a heroic figure dies. Something must be lost for it to be valid tragedy, and for it to have true merit. It's the difference between Willie Loman's and Othello's suicides. The former was a sick man who took little responsibility for his actions, while the latter's sense of duty was the strongest thing in the world. As a sidenote, I believe that is the reason Iago is allowed to live. Earlier I had theorized that perhaps Shakespeare spared him to show the barbarity of his audience. Even in the midst of a bunch of killings, we still want more. But now I believe he lives to reinforce that important sense of waste, that sense that makes an audience clench their fists and shake their heads.

I think I need to get my hands on a good book defending realism, naturalism, and absurdism.