Drama Post 1: Cruelty
So, after a serious hiatus from posting, I’m going
to start again. Not like that wasn’t already obvious, but I’m going to start
posting drama-related, or should I say induced,
posts that come out of a drama workshop I’m currently in. I think these posts
are going to be more like journal entries, attempting to trace how I’m
processing the (new for me) information. And today’s new information is Antonin
Artaud’s linking of the theater and cruelty: “Everything that acts is a
cruelty. It is upon this idea of extreme action, pushed beyond all limits, that
theater must be rebuilt” (85).
Cruelty. I’d heard it before in my MFA program: “the
secret to poetry is cruelty.” It seemed to be a mantra slung between student
and professor, dating back to Jon Anderson’s “The Secret of Poetry.” And we
quipped it in workshop or in bars or on each other’s couches or in each other’s
manuscripts. And then, as sudden as it had started, my MFA was done. But
cruelty remained relevant in my manuscript, at least the idea of being cruel—to
people, on the page, and thus the reader, the audience. Ideally, I figured,
there was/is a certain honesty in enacting cruelty on the page as one does in
relationships. Only, I suppose, the creator of the cruelty has a bit more
control—at least he/she can go back and edit some cruelty in or crank it up a
few notches or even hold it back in certain moments. Artaud echoes this notion
when he says, “In a word, we believe that there are living forces in what is
called poetry and that the image of a crime presented in the requisite
theatrical conditions is something infinitely more terrible for the spirit than
that same crime when actually committed” (85).

I guess, in this sense, “cruelty” consists less of
taking pleasure in being cruel and more the removal of care for the
object/subject one is being cruel towards. Moreover, one can argue that it is crueler
to have Anderson create this system, this poem, and then leave the speaker and “you”
of the poem to ponder how a cold flower’s beauty could leave them inconsolable—that
the cruelty of a creator is the creator’s apathy towards the events he/she has
set in motion.
And so, it’s at this point that I revise my
definition of cruely. Cruelty is still control, but the degree to which control
is had and used alters the degree of cruelty. Essentially, it’s not cruel to
write a character locked in a poem/story/drama (or a person locked in life);
creators aren’t inherently cruel. The cruelty comes, though (and perhaps
inherently), from there being a creation, from the distance between creator and
creation. This is similar to the end of Albert Camus’ “The Misunderstand”—where
The Old Man (god), always in the background, always tidying and manipulating
the details of the set, refuses to help the grieving Maria (arguably innocent
in the entirety of the play). This is the same to how Jon Anderson ends his
poem. After his speaker asserts his desire to leave the cold flower on the you’s
window sill to cause her/him/you to feel inconsolable (another act of control),
Anderson abandons the scene, the speaker, you; and we are left with the secret
to a question we didn’t know we asked: “The secret of poetry is cruelty.” So,
given Anderson’s insight, the actual
cruelty towards Maria is not from The Old Man’s apathy, but from Camus
using Maria—the person, the character, the prop—as a means to enact emotion,
drama. And it is the manipulation of this cruelty that creates the drama. We
may be able to analyze characters and plot and lines and all the tangible
details, but the manipulation of the cruelty is
arguably what actually reminds us, ever so subtly, of reality , however cruel that
reality may be.