Time: Sat, 03-Mar-2001 00:53:07 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.114

         This is Chris Stangl, writing now.  I am an 
approachable real-life human being, to whom YOU the writers of 
No Shame Theatre can voice complaints, formal or informal to my 
face, using your real faces and names.  I do not speak for the 
No Shame Board.  I DO speak as a member: one sixth of the 
opinion of that board.
        The No Shame Theatre Board's current practice is to 
recruit serving members from the pool of dedicated regular 
performers.  It does not currently assign Formal Offices, but 
generalized duties (Neil shall unlock Theatre B and read Order @ 
top of show).  I take the order.  I, Chris Stangl, take the 
Order, because I love the job, and love the No Shame Theatre and 
I maintain that I am good at the job.
        I learned to Take Order by watching previous Order 
Takers before me.  There are no rules to Taking Order.  I've 
seen good Takers and bad Takers, and I've seen both put together 
good and bad orders.

HOW TO TAKE ORDER:
     I take order at 10:30 pm, sharp-as-possible.  I use college-
ruled notebook paper, clipboard and Uniball Vision pen.  I try 
to sort out submissions on first-come, first-served basis.  I 
ask submitters where in the order they think their piece best 
suited.
        I like to go last, and have for many seasons.  I write 
pieces knowing they will be last.  Other writers do not usually 
do this.  That's why I am generally last.
        Given that the Order Taker hasn't time nor inclination 
to read scripts and place them in best-of-all-possible-orders 
(which would STILL be subjective anyway), s/he (he, for the 
record) has to make snap judgements, and develops systems, like 
Don't Put Two Songs Together.  Like Break Up Blocks of 
Monologues.  Like Don't Open With Serious Pieces.  And a 
personal favorite: Don't Open With Long Pieces.
       I have been writing brief blackout gags for the last two 
seasons.  I know that ultra-short comedy pieces are good ways to 
start the show.  Again: the pieces I turned away last Friday 
were all a page or more.  Again: I gave myself two pieces 
because I knew my first was not half a page long, and the show 
was otherwise barren of half-page pieces that night.  This isn't 
a court of law, it's a balancing game, and so it goes and so it 
goes.
     For record: last week "Pookman" (whose piece I was cast 
in), Paul Rust and Aaron Galbraith (board member) were turned 
away.  "Pookman," Paul Rust and Aaron Galbraith are the second, 
third and fourth pieces I am taking tonight.  I am taking order, 
and will give myself a place in the order, without having to 
show up at ten o'clock.  I have never seen an Order Taker behave 
any differently.

        NBC Comeback Chris Stangl

Time: Sat, 03-Mar-2001 08:42:54 GMT     IP: 205.217.148.60

:NBC Comeback Chris Stangl

My crack is itchy

Time: Sat, 03-Mar-2001 17:20:58 GMT     IP: 172.153.7.24

Hi!  My name is Jeff Goode.  I did Chris Stangl's job at No 
Shame back when we started out.  This is my story.

In general people have always tended to shy away from the first 
and last slots.  Especially new performers; or any performer who 
was doing something particularly experimental or risky that 
week.  You don't want to have to open the show, or close the 
show if you're afraid of flopping.  Better to be somewhere in 
the middle.  As the ordertaker/emcee I was always trying to coax 
people who I knew to be good openers into the first slot or the 
last slot, but more often than not, it was easier just to slot 
myself in at those positions since I'm not afraid of flopping, 
and since I was going to be onstage at the beginning and end of 
the show anyway, so it really wasn't that big a deal for me 
to "put myself out there" right away.

There were a couple of other people who would occasionally 
request those spots.  There was a guy named Stan who would come 
in about every 3 weeks and demand the closing spot.  And another 
guy named Tony Trout who was there every week, but once or twice 
a semester he would write a piece that HAD to be first.  I don't 
think I ever refused anyone the opening or closing spots (though 
I remember once having to settle a dispute between two 
performers who both wanted to open that week), but I still ended 
up opening and/or closing about 3/4 of the shows I did.  But it 
was never really a privelege, it's just part of hosting No 
Shame.  Somebody's got to close and if no one else does it, 
you're going to have to.

So while it may appear unfair, at first glance, for one person 
to open the show a lot, probably there is no particular demand 
for those spots.  (I notice that there haven't been any stories 
at all from people who requested, but were unjustly refused the 
first or last spots in the order, so I'm guessing Chris's 
experience is pretty similar to mine.)

...Jeff

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 00:32:52 GMT     IP: 128.255.108.59

hello, everybody (who is reading this) -
this is paul rust (the big-nosed no shame performer). this 
summer, before i was in "THE SUBORDINATES" (march 14th at the 
green room - ahh!), i did some solo stuff. i put out an album 
called "promises, regrets..." the songs on it are pretty 
simplisitic and bare-sounding, but i still like them. i decided 
to put them on at mp3.com. right now, there's about eight songs 
on there with more to come over the next few days/weeks. i still 
have some copies of the album to sell (most of them went to 
family and friends who pitied me), so sound-test the songs at 
mp3.com and if you like 'em, you can buy the c.d. I'll have some 
with me at future no shame's if you want to get one there or 
email me at prust@hotmail.com. It will only cost you five 
dollars and that's including neat album artwork, too. 

you can search for me at mp3.com or go directly to my webpage 
there at:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/144/paul_rust.html

i spent a lot of time stroking my ego as i wrote the song 
descriptions there, so make sure to make my hard work worthwhile 
and read them. thanks.

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 00:37:57 GMT     IP: 128.255.108.59

Oh yeah... and ignore that god-awful, pretensious (sp?) picture of 
me at mp3.com. I needed a picture, I used that one, and now I 
regret it so very much. Forgive me, Jesus.

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 02:18:13 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.4

Bleah!  Tritish melodies.  Inane lyrics.  None of the screaming 
that sounded cool and made the live show I saw rock.  Rust, 
because I enjoyed the show I saw, I "surfed" to mp3.com to listen 
to each and every one of those songs, knowing full well that they 
would be musically spare or whatever.  Here I write my response to 
your request for me to purchase an album full of musically boring 
songs, many of which go so far as to directly state that you are 
sensitive and would make good boyfriend material:  Bleah!


Bleah

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 19:41:28 GMT     IP: 24.6.203.121

This suxx!  Where's the frickin order?

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 19:51:29 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.44

No Shame Theatre
3-2-2001

ANNOUNCEMENTS/ORDER: Campbell, Clarke

0.5. "The Delirium Tremens" by Chris Stangl
[Stangl, Lawson, comedy sketch]  Surefire cure for the DT's is 
unconsciousness.

1. "Wannabe Baby Carriage" by Thomas Kovacs
[Kovacs; comic monologue]  Torn Condom finds comfort in Miss 
Carriage.

2. "The Misadventures of Social Anxiety Disorder" by Elliot 
Stapleton
[Stapleton, ?,?,?; comedy sketch]  SAD causes misfortune, terror.

3. "You Know What I Hate?" by Pookman
[Pookman; stand-up comedy] Answer: Weebles, "Black Dog," Captain 
Planet, "cock piercings," more.

4. "My Lovelife at Age Twelve" by Nella Christo Arbock
[?, Hansen, Clark; monologue]  Jr. high Nirvana cover band 
singer insights crush.

5. "The Deadlies; Part One: The Blue Cow" by Julie Shell
[Luxton, King; pornographic monologue]  Sex acts explicitly 
described at unwitting audience member.

5.5. "How_ Do You Spell Manifest Destiny?" by Al Angel, Chris 
Stangl, Britt Hill
[Angel, Stangl; comedy sketch]  "Wanna eat at that new Indian 
Restaurant?_"!

6. "Deedeedeedeedee" by Plumper
[River, Angel, Fairchild, Campbell, Clark, Tom Knapp, Hansen; 
musical sketch]  Dancing and music.

7. "Franklin and the Sandwich" by Mark J. Hansen
[Fairchild, Hansen; comedy sketch]  Men bond over sandwich; eat 
sandwich.

8. "Don't Call it a Comeback" by Aprille Clarke
[Clarke; comic monologue]  Rich girl mutilates fetuses, has 
affair with spaceman.

9. "Stanley Klugman: a Woman's Right_ To Laugh!" by Paul Rust
[Rust, Galbraith, Clarke; comedy sketch]  Aging stand-up livens 
material with on-stage abortion.

9.5  "A Song" by Sean
[Mike Brooks, Sean; song]  "We play a song; ladies swoon; lights 
down."

10. "Sorry, 185 Chandeliers, We Don't Serve `Menorah'-ties_" by 
Aaron Galbraith
[Rust, Clarke, ?, Stangl, River, Cassady, Rust; comedy sketch]  
6 idiotic blackout gags.

11. "Fart `n' Stink: the Golden Age of Hollywood" by Al Angel
[Stangl, River, Cassady; comedy sketch]  Cute old man loved-up, 
then beaten.

12. "God in a Two-Bedroom Efficiency" by Dan Fairchild
[Fairchild, J. Hansen; comedy sketch]  Why can God fuck your 
woman and drink your booze?

13. "He Was" by Erin King
[King; poem]  Car accident gives Erin pause to consider 
mortality.

14. "We Fall Down, We Go Boom" by Neil "Balls" Campbell and Mike 
"Thunder-tits" Cassady
[Campbell, Cassady, Rust, Galbraith, King, Clarke; comedy 
sketch]  Have goons smashed valuable birdie?  No, it's just PAUL 
RUST!

15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails" by Chris Stangl
[Stangl, comic monologue]  9th grade romance stifled in mall.

The end.
Chris Stangl

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 20:53:40 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

:No Shame Theatre
:
3-2-2001
:

:
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ORDER: Campbell, Clarke
:

:
0.5. "The Delirium Tremens" by Chris Stangl
:
[Stangl, Lawson, comedy sketch]  Surefire cure for the DT's 
is 
:
unconsciousness.
:
Perhaps I'm just getting desensitized or I'm expecting too 
much but a few weeks ago I said that these two characters 
seem to get more and more morally deficient and I pondered 
whether there would be a bottom to the hole their decending.  
I think I screwed by saying that, expecting each week to be 
more fucked up.  I hate myself for expecting anything from 
these two characters and I'm trying to stop it.  That's not to 
say that I'm tired of the drunkard skunkard sketches.  I don't 
imagine such a thing is possible.  As for this one, I enjoyed 
the levity with which each character reacted to their DT's.  
Though I really think it works better with them sitting down or 
prostrate.  Great job by Arlen drinking from the bottle while 
still shaking.
:
1. "Wannabe Baby Carriage" by Thomas Kovacs
:
[Kovacs; comic monologue]  Torn Condom finds comfort in 
Miss 
:
Carriage.
:
My reaction is pretty much what everybody elses will be.  He 
should have stopped right after introducing his monologue 
as was suggested.  Just reading the introduction to the 
monologue and not giving the monologue is funny but when 
you follow it with the monologue it is as if you are apologizing 
for it and BANG you lost yourself an audience.  Not to say that 
his monologue was bad, I'm sure it would have gotten a few 
laughs if he had practiced it at all.  However I think the whole 
'logue revolved around the use of amusing names and the 
only one that works as a name is Miss Carriage.  By the way, 
did anybody count the unborn babies this week?
:
2. "The Misadventures of Social Anxiety Disorder" by Elliot 
:
Stapleton
:
[Stapleton, ?,?,?; comedy sketch]  SAD causes misfortune, 
terror.
:
These guys were cute.  I just wanted to go up on stage and 
pinch their cheeks.  I hope they don't read this because I bet 
they could kick my ass.  Who's got my back? 

As for the sketch.  I liked it.  I laughed.  I can see room for 
improvement performance-wise but I can definitely see them 
getting better should they return which I hope they do.  I also 
hope they do have their own identity instead of being called 
the Violence Guys Part 2, Electic boogaloo.
:
3. "You Know What I Hate?" by Pookman
:
[Pookman; stand-up comedy] Answer: Weebles, "Black Dog," 
Captain 
:
Planet, "cock piercings," more.
:
You can pretty much say the same thing for every Pookman 
performance and I already tore him apart so I'll refrain.
:
4. "My Lovelife at Age Twelve" by Nella Christo Arbock
:
[?, Hansen, Clark; monologue]  Jr. high Nirvana cover band 
:
singer insights crush.
:
I'm working on a novel and in it I give the main character 
many of the silly little crushes I had throughout my life and he 
takes them VERY seriously.  Probably because it is evidence 
that I have a heart and have those kind of feelings.  And that 
isn't something to take lightly.  I think the thing that fascinates 
me about the character in this series of monologues is not 
so much the humor with which she describes each crush but 
something that is never openly communicated:  why she 
needs to share all these things.  I'm not asking for an answer 
and I'm not going to give you mine.  I think we should all have 
our own.
:
5. "The Deadlies; Part One: The Blue Cow" by Julie Shell
:
[Luxton, King; pornographic monologue]  Sex acts explicitly 
:
described at unwitting audience member.
:
The following review reveals certain aspects of my sexuality 
that you may not want to be privvy to.  Just a warning.

This was sexy.  It was.  Yet at the same time the choice of 
Luxton gave it just the shade of oddity that it needed.  Who 
can picture him having sex?  Excellent choice of making sure 
that the female got off first and not being wary about giving 
her oral sex.  At least for me it was.  I must admit that I am a, 
if you'll pardon me, rugmuncher.  If I weren't laughing so hard 
I probably would have had an erection.  I just realized that my 
review of this piece give just a little too much info about me.  
I'll go back to the top and put a warning.
:
5.5. "How_ Do You Spell Manifest Destiny?" by Al Angel, 
Chris 
:
Stangl, Britt Hill
:
[Angel, Stangl; comedy sketch]  "Wanna eat at that new 
Indian 
:
Restaurant?_"!
:
I can't remember the punchline.  Sorry.
:
6. "Deedeedeedeedee" by Plumper
:
[River, Angel, Fairchild, Campbell, Clark, Tom Knapp, 
Hansen; 
:
musical sketch]  Dancing and music.
:
FUN!  Holy shit this was fun.
:
7. "Franklin and the Sandwich" by Mark J. Hansen
:
[Fairchild, Hansen; comedy sketch]  Men bond over 
sandwich; eat 
:
sandwich.
:
I admire the way Mark can write a certain comfort in 
awkwardness.  Big time apparent in this piece.  I think the 
random, "Kiss me" has been used quite a bit and it didn't 
help matter with me delivering it.  But I think he knew this and 
didn't place the joke in that but in the "We kissed for several 
hours that followed.  Yes, I'm nit-picky.
:
More to come when I give a damn again.

wuv,

dan

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 21:38:06 GMT     IP: 128.255.107.135

   Please, Dan Fairchild, Paul Rust, and everybody else who does 
this, stop cutting your reviews in half.  I said please and I am 
one person.  This is not a mandate from the No Shame audience... 
But please do stop.  Two reasons.  First, it has happened on 
occasion that you do not finish your review as promised.  And that 
is bad.  I hate it when that happens.
   Second, to be reading a review, waiting and wading patiently 
through the mire of one person's opinions about other people's 
pieces, agreeing and disagreeing minimally, eagerly anticipating 
the nugget of feedback concerning the only piece of the evening I 
really care about in any way, only to find that he ditched out 
immediately before reviewing my own hurts my little feelers.
   Now, I didn't write anything this week, but I  bet ah... let me 
check... Aprille Clarke or Paul Rust, assuming either is in any 
way as neurotic as I am, are thinking, "Why did he stop before my 
piece?  Does he not want to review my piece?  My name is Aprille 
Clarke." or "Why did Dan stop before Aprille's piece?  Did he not 
want to review mine, but think that stopping immediately before 
mine would make his motivation for stopping too obvious? Paul 
Rust, here," respectively.
   Do you choose to accept my suggestion of not doing that no 
more?  Well, here is how you don't do it! Woah!  You take your 
opinions to Microsoft Word, or some other Word Processor.  When 
you feel like you just can't review no more, you save.  Later, you 
post it all at once.  Then, the drain on your will to live isn't 
so great, and even the last people in the order get a thoughtful 
review instead of an 
I've-been-in-front-of-this-computer-screen-for-too-long review.


    Your mother,
              Mom  

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 21:50:54 GMT     IP: 205.244.161.242

I must agree with Arlen "Mom is what i call him"'s sentiment.  
it is very frustrating to have a review end just before one's 
own piece would have been reviewed.

i must, however, add my own spin on his wise suggestion of 
writing a review as a Microsoft Word document.  This is an 
excellent idea and one I've used myself, as it allows the 
reviewer to take as much time as she/he needs and write a 
review that does not short-change the writers and performers 
who went later in the show due to reviewer's 
sick-of-reviewing state of mind (I understand this is Dan's 
motivation in not doing the whole thing at once, but complaint 
holds).

however, i do agree with posting it in two parts, because a 
review is sometimes inadvertently cut off due to the space 
limits of this particular forum.  rumor has it you can 
sometimes see the entire post by posting a reply to it, 
because it may be quoted in its entireity rather than just the 
accepted amount.  but that's work, and as a red-blooded 
american, i deserve the easy way.

Sometimes when i use Internet Explorer instead of 
Netscape, it cuts off the end of my posts regardless of the 
length.  We'll see if that happens now.

Will someone please tell those hippies downstairs to stop 
playing bad guitar and burning incense?

word to my mother.

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 22:57:18 GMT     IP: 128.255.108.127

Would you like me to review the order?  I will do it in several 
segments, just because I think people are getting a little too 
sensitive about things and jeez who really cares how many reviews 
you get in a week?  Lighten up.
:
:0.5. "The Delirium Tremens" by Chris Stangl

What I liked was the fun stilted dialect.  I also like how absurd 
the volume of liquor consumed by the two in this particular piece 
was.  I hope it was not real.

:1. "Wannabe Baby Carriage" by Thomas Kovacs

I pretty much agree completely with Dan's review of this.  Ditto.

:2. "The Misadventures of Social Anxiety Disorder" by Elliot 
:Stapleton
:[Stapleton, ?,?,?; comedy sketch]

This was pretty cute and funny in a sad way.  It didn't really have 
any sources of humor in the writing besides the one joke of the 
extremetiy of social anxiety.  It was the acting that made this 
piece fun.

:3. "You Know What I Hate?" by Pookman
:[Pookman; stand-up comedy]

Too long for starters.  I'm not sure what pookman's whole raison 
d'etre is, but taken at face value, these stand ups are tiresome 
and a bit offensive.  It just seems like he couldn't possibly be 
expecting them to stand on their own, but I'm certain I don't have 
the patience to wait for the larger concept here.

:4. "My Lovelife at Age Twelve" by Nella Christo Arbock
:[?, Hansen, Clark; monologue]

Did you like that song?  You will hear it in its entirety, with 
lyrics (not Nella's monologue, but some lyrics I sing) on the 
Nozebone the Band album "It Is So Nice" once we get that done.  
Meanwhile, you can download a couple of the tracks that will appear 
on the album by going to http://envy.nu/lucre/nozebone

:5. "The Deadlies; Part One: The Blue Cow" by Julie Shell
:[Luxton, King; pornographic monologue]

What the value of this was, I'm not certain, but the approach was 
very inventive and the 'volunteer' thing was so agressive, and yes 
the writing was pretty darn sexy.  Really unique and well done, I 
still don't know if I can say that I liked it or not, because of 
the wierd vicarious sexual agression of it.

:5.5. "How_ Do You Spell Manifest Destiny?" by Al Angel, Chris 
:Stangl, Britt Hill
:[Angel, Stangl; comedy sketch]

I think the funniest things about this piece were the title and the 
fact that the piece took three people to create.

:6. "Deedeedeedeedee" by Plumper
:[River, Angel, Fairchild, Campbell, Clark, Tom Knapp, Hansen; 
:musical sketch

I learned an important lesson here.  I can't dance in brand-new 
hiking boots.  I love the way Jamal boils down a comedic concept to 
its absolute essence, to the point where many people would think 
there was nothing funny left, and lets that stand on its own.  
Somehow he always gets it to work.

:7. "Franklin and the Sandwich" by Mark J. Hansen
:[Fairchild, Hansen; comedy sketch]

I've read parts of this before, and somehow lines like "You've got 
mustard on your soul" just didn't have the same punch as I expected 
them to in performance.  Mark's pieces can go either way, but I 
think that usually it is the ones written at the loast minute that 
fare better on stage, and the ones written over time which fare 
better on the page.

:8. "Don't Call it a Comeback" by Aprille Clarke
:[Clarke; comic monologue]

I'm not certain why I never tire of the really disusting stuff in 
Aprilles pieces, 'cause they really are disgusting.  I think it's 
because she manages to find a way to justify it, to make that 
disgust absolutely central to the value of each piece.  Then again, 
maybe it's just gross junk that gets the attention of a No Shame 
audience.

:9. "Stanley Klugman: a Woman's Right_ To Laugh!" by Paul Rust
:[Rust, Galbraith, Clarke; comedy sketch]

Sheesh!  Okay, in contrast to Aprille's work, I didn't feel like 
the disgust stuff was really necessary here.  I was enjoying the 
character of the bombing standup, and I thought that it didn't 
really need to be taken over the top at that point.  Well, maybe 
not so much over the top.

:9.5  "A Song" by Sean
:[Mike Brooks, Sean; song]

For a style of music that I don't usually listen to or like, I 
liked this song a lot.

:10. "Sorry, 185 Chandeliers, We Don't Serve `Menorah'-ties_" by 
:Aaron Galbraith
:[Rust, Clarke, ?, Stangl, River, Cassady, Rust; comedy sketch]  

Really cute stuff, Aaron.  I like the fact that, while independant, 
the bits interplayed to further effect ("This guy").

:11. "Fart `n' Stink: the Golden Age of Hollywood" by Al Angel
:[Stangl, River, Cassady; comedy sketch]

Three distinct sections to this piece 1)Old man mono on Hollywood 
2)Kids loving old man 3)Kids beating up old man.  1) was a great 
send-up / extension of the Hollywood old man characters portrayed 
by Chris -&- Neil in the past. 2) was a really cute and fun and 
sweetly bizzaire deflation of 1).  3) didn't really seem necessary 
to me.  It seems like a bit of a NS cliche for two youngsters to 
beat a more frail person (esp. an old man, esp. unto death).  So it 
not only seemed unnecessary, it seemed like a cop out, and an 
unfortunate way to conclude such a promising, enjoyable piece.  

:12. "God in a Two-Bedroom Efficiency" by Dan Fairchild
:[Fairchild, J. Hansen; comedy sketch]

Some sort of tasteless religious satire is, along with really gross 
things and scatology, the bread and/or butter of NS.  There were a 
lot of things to like about this.  Dan dealt with God in a 
situation you don't see Him in, and made a believable roomate.  
That's the sort of power dynamic between unhappy roommates, and if 
one of them is omnipotent, what can you do.  I will also mention, 
(though I don't want to direct criticism until I hear Dan's side) 
that the fact that the only female in the piece had no lines, 
served only as a receptacle for a penis and was played by a table 
kinda rubbed me the wrong way.  I mean, yeah I can see that it's 
not a role you'd especially want to give to any really live woman 
perhaps, but, well, I'm just mentioning it.

:13. "He Was" by Erin King
:[King; poem]

King's decision to stand on the table somehow made a lot of 
difference in this piece.  Her performance was subdued, and perhaps 
that's understandable, but she shifted the power in this piece from 
being performative to geographical, and it worked in a wierd way I 
might not have expected from her.  It was an especially apt shif 
for this kind of writing.

:14. "We Fall Down, We Go Boom" by Neil "Balls" Campbell and Mike 
:"Thunder-tits" Cassady
:[Campbell, Cassady, Rust, Galbraith, King, Clarke; comedy 
:sketch]

Gosh that's sad.  Neat job by Rust in foaming at the mouth.  A 
convoluted and kinda sick humor made the writing here 
simultaneously hilarious and agonizing.

:15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails" by Chris Stangl
:[Stangl, comic monologue]

A really nice use of all sorts of different sensual imagery gave 
this piece a nice texture which was one of the many things that  
make it seem more like a testimonial or page from a diary than a 
'art' thing.  What is the value of verisimilitude?  I don't know, 
but I like it.  Any ideas?

Time: Sun, 04-Mar-2001 23:02:15 GMT     IP: 128.255.108.127

Hey Aprille, you were right about the reply thing.  Here's the end 
of my review.  Also, I lied, see?


15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails" by Chris Stangl
[Stangl, comic monologue]
A really nice use of all sorts of different sensual imagery gave 
this piece a nice texture which was one of the many things that  
make it seem more like a testimonial or page from a diary than a 
'art' thing.  What is the value of verisimilitude?  I don't know, 
but I like it.  Any ideas?

So I wound up putting the whole review in just one thing.  And I 
didn't use a word processor either.  Take that.
Luvvywugs 'n' Huggypuffs,
     -Mega

Time: Mon, 05-Mar-2001 04:37:18 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.26

Tritish?  Inane?  Perhaps these could stand as valid criticisms of 
Paul's tracks, but (besides this being neither an appropriate place 
to criticize, nor to advertise such stuff) in the same sense, they 
would be equally valid criticisms of the Beatles, Jonathan Richman, 
The Velvet Underground, Ben Lee or any other especially melodic 
band with simple, direct lyrics.  I think that Paul probably is 
sensitive, and probably would make good boyfriend material.  Sould 
he not be allowed to say so?  Sometimes I wonder why the world 
bothered having a punk rock.  Did people really become any more 
open to music which could say what it wanted to be say and be done?  
Appearantly not.  Did people really become any more appreciative of 
the value of hearing a band with limited ability trying their 
hardest to create what would in more professional hands sound 
simplistic?  'Tritish' melodies belong to musicians whose ability 
strains to accomplish them.  Of course I'm wandering into a defense 
of a certain other band featuring NS regulars here, and I don't 
wish to insult Rust's ability, but my point is that when a band 
plays a given 'tritish' melody, and plays it flawlessly, it will 
naturally sound dull.  But when a less talented musician plays the 
same thing, and you can hear certain areas where the material 
becomes difficult for him / her, what was dull gains a lot of 
character and reveals a great deal about the artist.  Also, if 
you're going to make such an attack on someone's work, at least 
don't be cowardly about it: identify yourself.  
G'night.
     -Nella C. T. Arbock

Time: Mon, 05-Mar-2001 19:47:23 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

Okay, I'll try not to break up my reviews.  

8. "Don't Call it a Comeback" by Aprille Clarke
:
[Clarke; comic monologue]  Rich girl mutilates fetuses, has 
:
affair with spaceman.
:
It is great that Aprille's piece and Paul's piece are back to 
back because I got into one helluva debate with a friend of 
mine who was deeply offended by Paul's piece and not so 
much by Aprille's piece even though they both consist of 
abortions.  My friend's belief is that the way Aprille 
approached it, like she does in most of her pieces, is she 
makes us laugh at the most inappropriate thing, then turns 
the tables and shows us that we're assholes for making us 
laugh at it.  The way Paul approaches it is that he treats such 
a sensitive topic like abortion with such levity that people 
become desensitized to it and my friend was disheartened 
and pissed at both me and the rest of the audience for 
laughing at it.  In other words, my friend believed that Paul's 
approach was, "Ha, ha, abortions are funny." While Aprille's 
approach was, "Boy, don't you feel like assholes for 
laughing."  And to my friend, Aprille's approach is the correct, 
responsible approach and Paul's was the immature, evil 
approach.  I'll continue the flow of this debate in my review of 
Paul's piece since I think it is important and brings up many 
questions.

As for Aprille's piece itself.  I often wonder what sort of 
injections from her personal life Aprille puts in her pieces.  
Often times they consist of the following things:  A screwed 
up parent, usually a mother; the narrator child of said parent 
who is usually shown as naive to the point of being oblivious 
to the screwed up-edness of the parent or whose love is so 
unconditional that they write it off as eccentricity; a lousy 
boyfriend (optional); a contemporary issue such as abortion 
or child abuse; then a sudden revelation that the narrator is 
not as naive as they appeared.  Correct me if I'm wrong about 
this but don't do it harshly because I am not putting it down.  
Never in my entire No Shame experience have I NOT come 
away with a feeling of, "Whoa, holy shit," in response to one 
of Aprille's sketch.

I like to think of her protagonists in this way:  In the beginning 
we see her as a sweet, somewhat stupid, and subservient 
(God bless alliteration).  The way womyn are often times 
expected to behave.  Then at the end she slaps everybody 
across the face and says, "Fuck you!  Hear me roar!"  And we 
applaud her.  And we never expect it.  But this time I didn't get 
that, breaking apart the formula I described above.  What we 
got instead was no change in the protagonist, but just a 
declaration that it was the mother's fault that the protagonist 
is so fucked up.  Pounding on her stomache and, "Mommy 
said knock you out."  This was not a bad thing.  It was very 
effective and a good change.  Our parents imprint on our 
morals sort of thing.
:
9. "Stanley Klugman: a Woman's Right_ To Laugh!" by Paul 
Rust
:
[Rust, Galbraith, Clarke; comedy sketch]  Aging stand-up 
livens 
:
material with on-stage abortion.
:
On with the debate I began to describe above.  My contention 
is that Paul's piece was actually commenting on the 
desensitzation issue.  The state of stand-up comedy now is 
that you have to do or say something inappropriate to get a 
laugh and while they don't perform on-stage abortions, that's 
the direction it is heading.  Perhaps also another 
commentary on our beloved Pookman.   The character was 
not a likeable one.  The ill consequence of his wife dying was 
represented.  Stop focusing on the abortion itself, I said.  My 
friend's contention is that by doing so he is only reinforcing 
such comedy by doing it and she did not get that the 
character was not a likeable one and she thought that the 
wife had only passed out from the pain, despite the 
punchline, which apparently she missed.  Her feeling is that 
he did not give us those moral arrows or alert bells that 
Aprille often provides us and he should have since people 
the general No Shame audience doesn't come to NST 
looking for some hidden meaning in it.  I proceeded to tell 
her that art SHOULDN'T HAVE to be anything.  And that 
people were laughing at the abortion part BECAUSE it was 
so fucked up.  Not because they think abortions are funny.  If 
all Paul had done was get up on stage and did an on-stage 
abortion, yes, I can see how it would have been completely 
and totally offensive, but that wasn't all there was.  But she 
still thinks that people came away a little more desensitized 
to it and feels Paul failed in projecting the consequences.  By 
her rationale I shouldn't have been able to perform my piece, 
either.  Anyway I'm so pissed at her.

It all comes down to, if you found it offensive you should have 
gotten up and left.

The question is:  Does an artist have a responsiblity to point 
an audience in a certain moral direction clearly and concisely 
or is it asking to much of an audience to seek out the 
meaning?
:
9.5  "A Song" by Sean
:
[Mike Brooks, Sean; song]  "We play a song; ladies swoon; 
lights 
:
down."
:
It did seem very Matchbox 20.  I don't like Matchbox 20.
:
10. "Sorry, 185 Chandeliers, We Don't Serve 
`Menorah'-ties_" by 
:
Aaron Galbraith
:
[Rust, Clarke, ?, Stangl, River, Cassady, Rust; comedy 
sketch]  
:
6 idiotic blackout gags.
:
I can't remember anything from this.  Sorry.
:
11. "Fart `n' Stink: the Golden Age of Hollywood" by Al Angel
:
[Stangl, River, Cassady; comedy sketch]  Cute old man 
loved-up, 
:
then beaten.
:
Old people seem to be getting beat up quite a bit lately on the 
No Shame stage.  As a former employee of a nursing home, 
I have mixed feelings about this.  Again it goes back to the 
whole "it's funny because it's so fucked up".
:
12. "God in a Two-Bedroom Efficiency" by Dan Fairchild
:
[Fairchild, J. Hansen; comedy sketch]  Why can God fuck your 
:
woman and drink your booze?
:
Well I'll just go ahead and explain the invisible womyn thing 
since you kinda asked.  There is the fact that I would feel bad 
about asking a girl to only bump naughties and have no other 
part in the sketch but that's not the reason I chose to do it the 
way I did.

I chose to have her not on stage physically because it would 
be stupid and awkward to bring out another actor for that one 
part when everything is between God and his roomie.  God is 
an asshole in this piece so to him, the girl was just a place to 
put his penis.

Then there's the problem of how would the girl react to what 
is happening.  Is she just lying there in a trance under God's 
power?  Is she enjoying it?  Is she a willing participant?  I 
decided to leave it up to the imagination.  I just wanted the act 
of God screwing his room mate's girl to be yet another point 
of conflict and nothing more.
:
13. "He Was" by Erin King
:
[King; poem]  Car accident gives Erin pause to consider 
:
mortality.
:
I need action for my gerbil-like attention span to stay focused.  
Gimme some of that and I'd a been happy.
:
14. "We Fall Down, We Go Boom" by Neil "Balls" Campbell 
and Mike 
:
"Thunder-tits" Cassady
:
[Campbell, Cassady, Rust, Galbraith, King, Clarke; comedy 
:
sketch]  Have goons smashed valuable birdie?  No, it's just 
PAUL 
:
RUST!
:
There's just something funny about two goons saying the 
word "birdie."  I think it all goes back to Loony Toons.  Paul 
Rust continued to disgust us and for that we owe him a thank 
you.
:
15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails" by Chris Stangl
:
[Stangl, comic monologue]  9th grade romance stifled in 
mall.
:
Once again, I can't remember anything.  I'll wait for more 
reviews that might spark a memory and hope they don't sway 
my opinion.  Not likely, though.
:
The end.
:

You said it, Brother.

Chris Stangl
:loves
Dan Fairchild

Time: Mon, 05-Mar-2001 19:53:07 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

I just realized how incoherently absent of key words my 
review was and how many run on sentences there are just 
like the one you are reading no.  I think you can understand 
what I meant, though.  I typed fast and proofed even faster.  
Damn it.

wuv,

dan

Time: Tue, 06-Mar-2001 00:21:12 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.60

   It is my opinion that the funniest joke is to say or do a 
terrible thing as a joke.  The laughter comes from how unfunny, 
how offensive the thing is that you're doing.  That thing that 
you're doing?  That's funny!  I'm not sure how much of this goes 
on at No Shame these days, but when I first came, this type of 
joke dominated.  
   Pretty recently, Paul Rust, his own self, wrote this about a 
piece of Neil's:
   " Anybody's a wonderful performer if they can get an entire 
auidence to think killing children is amusing."

   Well, Paul Rust, I wanted to punch you in the face when you 
wrote that, because, in the context of this kind of a joke, 
violence against women, children, cripples, the elderly, 
minorities, your mother, or Jesus Christ is ALWAYS amusing.  So 
is screaming, "Hey Deafy!  Got any deaf?" at, you know, someone 
who don't got no ears.  I'm glad to see you're coming around.
   Now about a coupla other things on this board.
   I think that the suggestion that the presence of the invisible 
female in Dan's piece could have been offensive is silly. I wAs 
thinking, "You know, this could, hypothetically, be offensive," 
when this part in the piece came around.  But actually being 
offended about it seems really contrived to me.
   It was a piece about "You woke me up! You drank my booze!  You 
dicked my girl!  You let our mutual friend use a coffee mug that 
I specifically told you I wanted to be reserved for my use only, 
on account of I use it so much and need it readily available!"  
It was not a piece about "Let's realize that it's terrible that 
the default human being in all art and all society is male and 
make an effort to change that."  While the latter is a noble 
goal, and I applaud you, 'Nella,' for what I assume is your 
effort in this area (Though your casting of every single No Shame 
female, from the female equivalent of Tom Kovacs to the female 
equivalent of Brad Smith, which is to say regardless of talent, 
and dependant only on the requisite of having a vagina, kinda 
rubs mE the wrong way) it is not wrong to write a piece about the 
terrible things one male room mate does to another, nor is it 
wrong for a fella to write continually from the male perspective, 
considering that the male perspective is the only one most fellas 
can have any sort of articulate take on without pandering to the 
ladies like a stand-up comic at a church function.  
  It IS wrong, or at least distasteful, to continually use 
'womyn' instead of 'women' or 'woman,' though.  You have got a 
point there.
   As for the Paul Rust music bashing, this does make me sad.  I 
also listened to these songs.  I liked them.  I will not be 
buying the album, but I did like them.  If Paul Rust records an 
album that sounds like he does sound live, I will maybe buy that 
one.
   That said, as distasteful as anonymous posting has become to 
me lately (To clear the record and my chest, I have anonymously 
posted messages as "Boy" and "albfg," as well as writing a couple 
of the "heather" posts and helping out with ideas on some of the 
impersonations.) and especially as distasteful as anonymous venom 
slinging has become to me, this would be the place to review 
Paul's album, as it was advertised here. (And this would be the 
place to advertise it, as No Shame is probably Paul's most 
promising market.)
   Of course, by 'review,' I mean 'give feedback about' or 'opine 
on the topic of'  I wish No Shame were actually a workshop, 
instead of just occasionally pretending to be instead of 
admitting that it really is just a show we're not paid for 
performing and that we do this to sate our need for attention.


                Who is this,
                          Arlen? 

Time: Tue, 06-Mar-2001 01:00:31 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.4

   I respect all three, Neil Campbell, Nick Clark, and Brad 
Smith.  I realized upon reading what I wrote again that, guessing 
at stresses and meanings might lead one to think differently and 
two to Tango.
   And I also realized I have more to say.
   
   It is true that a flawless performance, or one that seems as 
though it takes no effort, is often boring.  But.  With 
unavoidable exceptions, interesting bands with little talent are 
interesting in spite of this lack and not because of it.  And I 
have seen Paul Rust play twice; there is no lack of talent there. 
 (You cleared up that this was not what you were insinuating, but 
it was still your leaping point...)  And, where I'm from 
(Chronologically: Hollywood, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Los Angeles, CA; 
somewhere in Orange County, CA; Anaheim Hills, CA; Riverside, CA; 
Moreno Valley, CA; Montclair, CA; Upland, CA; Iowa City, IA; 
Chino, CA; Iowa City, IA) an untalented band playing an 
uninspired melody, which is what I assume 'tritish' means, is 
generally thought of as bad.  Do you need an example?  Listen 
to The Mr.T Experience.
   I do not want to validate the opinion of "Bleah," and I do not 
agree with it, but I also do not agree with your defense.

                       -Arlen

Time: Tue, 06-Mar-2001 03:19:11 GMT     IP: 24.183.162.188

  ANNOUNCEMENTS/ORDER: Campbell, Clarke
If you were in the audience wondering who the fuck-up the light 
booth was who couldn't flicker with the pace and accuracy of Chris 
"Mother of All Light Board Operators" Okiischi, that was me. 
I am learning.

  1. "Wannabe Baby Carriage" by Thomas Kovacs
  [Kovacs; comic monologue]  Torn Condom finds comfort in Miss 
  Carriage.
Could barely hear it from the lighting booth. Without a script, I 
strained my ears listening for the, "but that's just impossible," 
end line.
There are Xerox machines on this campus.

  3. "You Know What I Hate?" by Pookman
  [Pookman; stand-up comedy] Answer: Weebles, "Black Dog," Captain 
  Planet, "cock piercings," more.
Probably my favorite of Pookman's pieces, though the script was 
much better than what he actually performed. His partial 
improvisations gave the performance energy, but at the cost of 
economy. He started rambling, and everything suffered.
Every week, I hope "Pookman" will be revealed as a mere persona, 
with a writer/performer underneath who has hopes and fears deeper 
than cock piercings.
Every week, I am disappointed.
Pookman, do you have a real name?

  4. "My Lovelife at Age Twelve" by Nella Christo Arbock
  [?, Hansen, Clark; monologue]  Jr. high Nirvana cover band 
  singer insights crush.
I have never more enjoyed a serial piece. Every episode is 
something new, and every time I want more.
Will ever a male be asked to read as Nella?

  5. "The Deadlies; Part One: The Blue Cow" by Julie Shell
  [Luxton, King; pornographic monologue]  Sex acts explicitly 
  described at unwitting audience member.
Watching Erin react was great, but a more inhibited/less willing 
girl would have been greater.
The line about coming home to find your stuff stolen was the best 
clump of words to fall from the stage all night.

  9.5  "A Song" by Sean
  [Mike Brooks, Sean; song]  "We play a song; ladies swoon; lights 
  down."
Liked the sound, could not hear the words.

     If I didn't review your piece, that probably means my love 
for it could see no faults.
     Remember when writers used to send in their scripts to be 
made public on the web page? Yeah, neither do I.

My face doesn't work,
Adam

Time: Wed, 07-Mar-2001 05:00:30 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

I am only going to review one skit.  Not because I didnt like 
any of the others or even because the others where beyond 
critism but out of admiration for the actor who flopped about on 
stage, for more than four minutes I might add.  Now thats 
Stamina!  We have seen it before folks, when Paul was avoiding 
relatives and was caught in the act, what a golden memory.  Paul 
how do you do it????
On the Iowa city front page it says something like 'if you get 
lost follow the truck home' and for the longest time it was a 
horse! A horse?(horsees is not trucks?) and now it is a truck, 
what a concept. Hooray!  

Arlen fuck your animosity, I mean anonymous--ity,
                               -TwoCents

Time: Thu, 08-Mar-2001 04:14:37 GMT     IP: 208.129.184.68

I'm new.....last week was my first performance.  The two other 
reviews were great, but I was hoping for alittle more feedback 
on the skit I was involved in (The Misadventures of Social 
Anixety Disorder).  I'm hoping to make frequent visits to this 
stage, so I want to know what my fellow actors and I need to 
work on to make you accept us into your inner circle, thus, 
making us cool beyond words..by the way...I'm Seth, the one with 
the big hair and the glasses....

Time: Thu, 08-Mar-2001 18:04:10 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.241

:I'm new.....last week was my first performance.  The two other 
:reviews were great, but I was hoping for alittle more feedback 
:on the skit I was involved in (The Misadventures of Social 
:Anixety Disorder).  I'm hoping to make frequent visits to this 
:stage, so I want to know what my fellow actors and I need to 
:work on to make you accept us into your inner circle, thus, 
:making us cool beyond words..by the way...I'm Seth, the one with 
:the big hair and the glasses....
Hi, Weird Al! It's good to see you are okay after that lengthy 
career of song parody. So you want to be a No Shame star. Well, 
here's some advice from one who has:
1. Be girls. Nothing impresses No Shame audiences and performers 
more than those gutsy and talented females who break through that 
testosterone barrier and actually write and perform. What's even 
more impressive is when they do it more than once.
2. Make fun of things that are usually takne seriously, or take 
seriously things that are usually made fun of. Watch your otpions 
open before your bespectacled eyes!
3. Look like a comedic recording artist. Hey, wait a second! 

But seriously now, and all kidding aside, I really liked your thing 
last week, and I would just say keep doing what you do. No Shame is 
(supposed to be) about diversity and surprise, so bring to the 
stage only what you can bring, and not what Arlen can or Paul can 
or Jim Wolfe can. Do what you feel like doing, that's all I feel 
like telling you.  

Time: Thu, 08-Mar-2001 19:34:35 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

80 hours section page 5C under "friday" of A-&-E weekly Calender:

Theater:
No Shame Theatre, Theatre B, 11p.m.

Whats that about?

also

Music:
Ben Schmitt, Mill, 9p.m., no cover.

Yea!

Time: Thu, 08-Mar-2001 20:26:40 GMT     IP: 207.165.237.210

Slightly off topic, but I just wanted to urge everyone who has a 
free night to go see the "10-minute Play Festival" tonight, as 
this is your last opportunity to see a pretty terrific 
production.

I saw the plays last night, through the good graces of one 
Michael Cassady who got Adam and I seats.  Some thoughts:

1)  Gosh, there were a lot of No Shame regulars and irregulars 
and former writers and board members.  In fact, you'd be hard 
pressed to find a play NOT directly involving someone who has 
done something at No Shame.

2)  Generally good writing.  Mike Cassady's piece was a nice 
stretch for him away from "skit-comedy" to something more 
lifelike, serious and real.  Some of the more carefully observed 
moments in a fictional couples' life I've seen at Iowa--even 
down to Christopher Stover sporting semi-wood while attempting 
to playfully seduce his girlfriend.  I think we've all been 
there.  And while I saw the bitter ending coming, it was none-
the-less effective and haunting. Neil Campbell's closer was a 
knock-out assault.  From the moment Stubble is launched into a 
backflip, through some hysterically self-involved shadowdancing, 
this was a solid piece, well executed and ended.  And, more than 
any other piece of the evening, took advantage of the space and 
used it to full effect.  Sarah Greer's "Avalanche" was startling 
in its maturity, perhaps the best at using text to show a 
character's motivation and history rather than simply telling 
it.  Absolutely real--I felt like I'd met these people before. 


3)  Strong performances abound. "Shoes: The Musical" was the 
most No-Shamey piece of the evening, probably because it had 
used No Shame as a workshop space (remember "Pants! The 
Musical"?).  Brought more to life than it perhaps deserved, I 
have rarely laughed so hard in the theater building.  Cassady 
suggested our seating so we could enjoy "the Full Paul Rust" and 
that we did!  I'd love to see a piece with him and Jamal going 
head to head in a comic dance-a-thon.  Mark Hansen provided some 
classical Hansenian moments  ("...footwear?", pause, looks for 
his foot, finds it, gestures with relief), and some gracefull 
mock ballet.  A great first act ender.  All the No Shamers give 
terrific performances in a variety of roles.  Aaron Galbraith 
flips, fights with rope, is kicked in the face and plays the 
piano, all while battling cancer, yet never loses the character, 
nor plays for the laugh.  I'd have liked to have seen more of 
Mary Fons, but she makes the most of a monologue-heavy Will 
Nedved play.  I was a bit sad that, due to the fact that they 
wrote or directed pieces, some of the best of No Shame actor's 
were left to off stage participation, but I guess you can't have 
everything.

4)  Reasonably hot guy with great chest gets wet and takes off 
his shirt.  What more motivation do you need?   

10-minute Plays
Thursday, March 8th at 8:00 pm (get there by 7:15 for tickets!)
Theater A

Not to be missed.  Especially in a week with no Shame.

Time: Tue, 13-Mar-2001 15:53:38 GMT     IP: 24.15.111.254

Why's it so quiet in here?

Where is everybody?

Hello?

Hello?

Is No Shame Dead?

Time: Tue, 13-Mar-2001 20:47:47 GMT     IP: 128.255.95.37

:Is No Shame Dead?

Why yes, I am!

Time: Tue, 13-Mar-2001 23:01:24 GMT     IP: 64.12.102.163

:Why's it so quiet in here?

:Where is everybody?


Arby's.


Roast Beef sale.

Time: Wed, 14-Mar-2001 00:59:15 GMT     IP: 128.255.200.7

ROGER: It's Wednesday night and I sure am bored.
KEN: Me, too. Whatever is there to do?
ROGER: There's The Subordinates' last show at the Green Room 
around nine.
KEN: Boo to them! Let's go to a high school track meet instead!

Later, on their way to the track meet, Roger and Ken were 
tragically killed in an automobile accident. Don't let this 
happen to you. Trick death and come see The Subordinates at the 
Green Room on Wednesday night around nine instead. 

Time: Wed, 14-Mar-2001 03:54:52 GMT     IP: 208.129.184.95

::Is No Shame Dead?
:

:
Why yes, I am!
:

:

But...if you dead....then how?....AGGHHHHH

Time: Thu, 15-Mar-2001 19:59:14 GMT     IP: 205.188.200.31

Anyone that missed Paul Rust's band at the Green Room last night 
just might as well kill themselves, is what I think.  It was your 
last chance ever to see them perform live.  Don't you just feel 
like a big warty sphincter muscle?

The Subordinates officially broke up last night, but their CD is 
still available for $5.  I listened to it this morning and it's 
almost as good as doing oral sex on Paul is.  I highly suggest 
all of you try both and decide for yourself.

To pursue the former, try:

thesubordinates@hotmail.com
  -or-
358-6864

Time: Sun, 18-Mar-2001 16:52:40 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.121

:15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails" by Chris Stangl
Once again, I can't remember anything.  I'll wait for more 
:reviews that might spark a memory and hope they don't sway 
:my opinion.  Not likely, though.


1.  To read this portion of your post, which was cut off due to 
length, one must hit the POST REPLY button and scroll down and 
down.

2. Why bother to quote and post a whole paragraph of non-content?

3. Q: Since I can get nearly no useful feedback: Are people 
forgetting my pieces because of unmemorable writing/ performance, 
or because they're so late in the show, or none of the above?  
I'm not fishing for an "Oh Chris, your writing is always not-
unmemorable aka memorable!" I AM fishing for a "Chris, maybe if 
you'd write about more dead babies like you used to, we'd 
remember your pieces, because the public is fickle and thrill-
seeking aka shallow and stupid.  Please don't challange us." Well 
shit, SEE if any of you get a place in the order next Friday.  
Whoremongers.

         -Why Did You Drink So Much Whiskey Last Night,
                          Chris Stangl?

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 02:40:56 GMT     IP: 208.129.184.168

Is there no shame this friday?....

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 12:46:50 GMT     IP: 24.6.203.121

:Is there no shame this friday?....


Yes, there really is.  Not sure which theatre thougth.  Are we 
still in Mabie, or is B finally available?

-Adam

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 17:56:04 GMT     IP: 205.188.197.184

::Is there no shame this friday?....
:

:

:
Yes, there really is.  Not sure which theatre thougth.  Are we 
:
still in Mabie, or is B finally available?
:

:
-Adam


Yes, we are in B.  We might have to wait to use the space, 
though, as "A Dress for Mona" will be happening from 8:00 
until ?:00.  My guess is the show will be cleared out and the 
space open no later than 10:45, probably earlier.

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 20:01:14 GMT     IP: 207.165.237.210

Mary Stuart Masterson will be in the ever popular Rosie 
O'Donnell show a week from Thursday (eg. 3/29).  Thought you 
would like to know!

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 21:16:10 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.52

Chris:
Thanks!!!
--Al.

Time: Mon, 19-Mar-2001 22:48:18 GMT     IP: 207.165.237.210

You're welcome!

Time: Tue, 20-Mar-2001 00:43:16 GMT     IP: 158.252.164.230

Does ANYONE anyone anyone? have Chris' e-mail? (Knead him for a 
piece this Fri).  Help me help oh! help  I can't even spell his__
alas!__name!

jc

Time: Tue, 20-Mar-2001 01:24:06 GMT     IP: 205.244.160.59

:Does ANYONE anyone anyone? have Chris' e-mail? (Knead 
him for a 
:
piece this Fri).  Help me help oh! help  I can't even spell 
his__
:
alas!__name!
:

:
jc
:

ahem.  click on his name on the message he wrote for Al.  
and knead him on your own time.

Time: Tue, 20-Mar-2001 05:55:24 GMT     IP: 158.252.164.203

Much obliged.

Time: Tue, 20-Mar-2001 17:09:34 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.21

Well, Chris, I posted a whole paragraph of non-content because if 
one writes nothing people wonder just why the hell the reviewer 
neglected it.  So instead of putting you through that torture I 
gave you a reason for my not reviewing it.  Sorry you had to go 
through the trouble of a few more clicks for absolutely nothing.

But I guess I raised more questions than I answered.  But I'l try 
to answer them.

Let me say right now and with emphasis galore that the problem with 
your pieces is NOT the writing.  Sometimes I get incredibly jealous 
of your writing and I want to wear your skin.  This was partially 
the reason behind the "Someday I Will Steal Chris Stangl's Seat" 
piece I did.  I think what makes me sometimes don't remember your 
pieces (and this doesn't happen often) is that a lot of the time 
there is a lack of energy.  But maybe I'm interpreting lack of 
energy as lack of connection to the audience.  Or maybe I'm not 
seeing either on some nights.  Take "The Graverobbing Lesson" for 
instance.  Energy flying out from every one of your orifices and at 
times the audience was really into it.  But a lot of the time it 
seems like a "Fuck the audience, this is for my amusement," type 
thing going on.  And I'm not knocking you for that.  I can 
understand that.  We all can.  Or maybe I don't understand you at 
all.  What do you think?

So for a simple answer to your question, it is not the writing.  If 
anything it is the performance.

wuv,

dan

Time: Thu, 22-Mar-2001 18:15:05 GMT     IP: 216.248.77.1

yes it is true.  it was seth who cut and pasted the 
fatchicksinpartyhats.com thing on here.  so fuck you!

Time: Thu, 22-Mar-2001 18:25:28 GMT     IP: 216.248.77.1

look here balls, you dirty mother fucker, my name is neal 
campbell yeah that's right neal not your little pussy neil you 
stupid fuck ass eat my pussy, oh wait your grandma already did 
sorry about all that goodbye fucker!

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 00:53:20 GMT     IP: 128.255.107.157

:look here balls, you dirty mother fucker, my name is neal 
:campbell yeah that's right neal not your little pussy neil you 
:stupid fuck ass eat my pussy, oh wait your grandma already did 
:sorry about all that goodbye fucker!


Um? Al?

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:05:28 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

        YOUNG POETS'S VOICES ARE MARKED
              Chris Stangl

       This is an epic series of reviews of all this season's 
NSTs I never got around to bashing.
            I read Stephen King's "On Writing" for reasons to 
horrible to contemplate, and it is full of quality advice of the 
"omit needless words," "feedback from writers circles is useless 
bullshit" variety.
          Most of the boardroom reviews are useless.  I mean 
that: when someone says they "could  really identify with your 
character," or you had "good use of imagery," what in the 
Christfuck are you going to DO with that data as a writer or 
reader?  When someone "can't remember this piece," do you nod 
and say "yes! Yes, I too cannot remember that piece?"
If I have comments on a piece, they are below.  Some of these 
you have to remember the piece, some not.  No comment = I have 
nothing useful for you, or was taking a urinate during YOUR 
PIECE.  It will be too long for me to proof thoroughly.  There 
will be nonsensical sentences.

Friday, January 26th, 2001
1)"Science Lesson," Stangl
      The science of this piece (you can get drunk by consuming 
vomit) is actually very poor, as the reason you are drunk is 
that the alcohol is already in your bloodstream.  You may, 
however, be able to get drunk by slitting a lush's throat and 
lapping at the spurting bounty.

3) "I Went to School with _Unabomber," Fairchild
       The problem isn't that this is a one-gag piece, but that 
it doesn't recognize itself as a one-gag bit and flails around 
smacking it's gag with a mace until there's gag-chunks all over 
the spiked ball.  What you've got is a comic variant of the 
"Outer Limits" announcer telling you that we control the 
horizontal, but the meat of the piece is rotten, because I can 
see the script.  Sometimes pieces need to be memorized, and it 
is NOW.

4) "Winter Poem," Nepstad
     Young poets's voices are marked by a sameness, and a 
need to continually report on weather conditions and fire and 
stars and grass and how these relate in symbolic ways to 
emotions.  And I like snow and fire and stars, but if you're 
writing a snow poem you've got competition stiffer than Hugh 
Hefner at a breast feeding convention, so you'd better have 
something new and blazing to say about snow.

5) "Using the HawkID," Hansen
        Here begins Hansen's stream-of-consciousness period, 
though I suspect we've seen it before and his stream just pans 
full of puns.  There's nothing here to sink your teeth into: not 
story, not character, not even language beyond airy half-
images.  But: This work is admirable for being so off the cuff 
(I am told it was a writing class exercise) and genuinely 
experimental (see, in real experiments you don't KNOW the 
outcome), and that is braver than most No Shame for some two 
semesters.

6) "People Vs. Mickey Mouse," Kovacs 
        The need to fling bile at Disney corp. is 
understandable, whether with the care of academic attack 
(classic Marxist tract "How to Read Donald Duck") or by silly 
debasement (NST classic Brooks/ Erwin's "Lawsuit Theatre"), or 
both (my own "A Mickey Mouse Cartoon").  The premise here is 
straight out of the dork heaven of high school Mock Trials, but 
the dork appeal of Mock Trial is that there's heavy research and 
at least minimal attention to actual court procedure involved.  
Not only doesn't Kovacs demonstrate understanding of the real 
problems in Disney's business practice and/or artistic 
shortcomings/ crimes, but his weak premises aren't borne out by 
his supporting research.  For random example: 1930's short 
"Cactus Kid" is accused of reinforcing "lines between black, 
white and red" in America's youth.  But how?  And I don't mean 
some abstract argument about cause/ effect of art consumption/ 
human behavior: I mean HOW are billions of modern toddlers 
seeing "Cactus Kid"- a cartoon from 1930- all of the time, when 
it's more likely they be seeing "Pocahontas"?  Things continue 
that way, with no comprehension or discussion of historical 
contexts, comedy traditions, etc.  It is the laziness of the 
writing and not the joke that these arguments don't hold water.  
Since when is "living in sin" a criminal offense?

7) "Tie a Yellow Curtain," Clarke
       Q: does a crack whore care if men think she's good at 
blowjobs?  A: Only if it sets up a punchline.  We're being asked 
not to empathize with this character's destructive sex and drug 
problems, so that we can laugh at her tossed-off gross out cum 
jokes.  You "get" that, and you get, too, how the reversal at 
the end makes you recognize how a relatively tiny human tragedy 
now makes you weep.  But it's a cop-out this time.  Because 
you're feeling bad for a little kid and a sad mom, and the 
mirror doesn't get turned: you're still not guilty of laughing 
at child abuse and drug and prostitution jokes.  Or maybe it's 
not a cop out so much as a schmaltz-out: wouldn't it be harder 
to milk some ramifications for what we were just mocking?  This 
is me, asking to be punished.

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:07:42 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

9) "Wars and Sawa," Lawson
       Bonus points for no casual deaths sans ramifications.  
Points off for saggy midsection.  Omit needless.  If the main 
motifs never really gel, maybe it's okay when the central image 
is broken bodies stitched together, and how they don't thrive, 
but die.  There's not much performance in Lawson pieces 
anymore.  That doesn't just mean no funny accents or physical 
comedy. Lawsonprose merits aside, we're watching short stories 
read allowed: plenty of mono, no logue.  Were I giving Arlen a 
worksheet of practice exercises, I'd force him to practice 
writing dialects or at least in speech patterns not clearly his 
own rambling SoCal run on sentences.

10) "Angel's Song," Negron
     It doesn't matter how heartfelt a greeting card is, it's 
still cardboard and bad watercolor lilies.  I'd wonder at the 
appeal of a pretty voice and guitar devoid of idiosyncrasy or 
any style, but realize: it's strictly functional.

11) "Friday Night," Pookman
     Stop me if you've seen this on a dorm room poster or 
novelty keychain, but the reason beers is better than womens are 
all junior-high tee-hee-ain't-I-edgy-telling-sexist-jokes.  It's 
only offensive in the abstract scenario that you could be taking 
mostly swiped, moldy jokes seriously, and it only works if your 
audience is with you or genuinely offended.  Advice: either 
connect with and milk a stand-up audience or establish a clearly 
antagonistic persona.

12) "Turn of the Century," Campbell
     The noble experiment pays off in my FACE.  The language 
(run on sentence fragments and mixy metaphore) justifies the 
manic chanting performance, but the structure (tiny vignette 
glimpses of the main road, like you're reading in the car at 
night and can see only when passing under a streetlight) is 
maybe maybe maybe too detail oriented to be rushed through.  
Same time, the downhill headrush is intoxicating but maybe maybe 
I've seen it before and I know NballsC can talk fast, sooooo_

13) "Idiot Caleb's Yard Sale," Stangl
     I am haunted by the specter of a long-ago (Dan Brooks) 
line "Remember when I said this'd be a story about girls? I 
LIED," and built this piece to chase it away.  My horoscope said 
to.  Story: I did this monologue many moons ago where I 
pretended to trip on my vampire cape and bloody my nose on the 
floor, and I was so inadvertently convincing that the audience 
was audibly concerned, making me feel like a shit for a stupid 
slapstick gag.  I wanted to recapture that.  I couldn't.

*******************************

Friday, February 2nd, 2001 

0.25. "National Anthem," Erwin
     James does not sound like Tom Waits, of course, and I'm 
not sure how funny his impressions would be if he did.  As 
stands, funny like a Dana Carvey George Bush.

2. "Stupid, Stupid Idiots," River
     Lesson learned: Comedy sketches are functional beasts, 
and their job is to jump in the ring, pound your face into the 
shape of their joke, and run away before the ref screams "that 
was a bear, not a boxer!"  Why bother with overly fleshy 
characters and anything but boiled-bones dialogue: "I'm in a 
sour mood!" man, that's all you need.  The gracefulness of J. 
River writing is that grace of a stripped down first draft.

3. "Oysters on the Half Shell," Angel
     I don't find children's entertainers cursing inherently 
funny, though I am a minority.  Eastman and Laird's original, 
dark TMNT comics were conceived partially as a joke (ninjas 
fast, turtles slow, get it!?), though America tends to forget 
that in lieu of the My Little Pony With Nunchucks cartoons.  
That's funny.  It's funny that with all the spikes and swords 
and explosives no one on that cartoon is ever hurt_ There are 
inherently funny things about TMNT.  That such a thing merely 
exists is funny, but Eastman and Laird beat Al Angel to that 
joke, see?

4. "Barbarus Inepticus," Kovacs, Negron
     The homophobia of a typical evening of No Shame is 
tempered by being generally confined to character performances, 
those views being generally satirized and that homophobia being 
generally disapproved.  Generally this sketch simply presented a 
fag stereotype without shedding light, criticizing or doing 
anything else to make the liberal audience feel better about 
this stereotype.  And if it weren't being presented in such 
juvenile, self-serving circumstances, it might be offensive 
instead of just ignorant and hackneyed.
     Beyond that, the on-stage haircutting was gimmick beyond 
reproach, with no support bra, and nothing non sequitur enough 
to weird out, say, my mom, were that the goal.

6. "Stammer," Rust
     My tolerance for self-reflexivity breaks when it's so 
clumsy as the finale where the author criticizes the works' 
shortcomings.  Everyone has to get this out of their system a 
couple times in Playwriting One (that and the ending where 
everyone dies at the end in a meteor crash, because it was five 
am and you had no real ending), and after that you realize that 
instead of noting that your writing is judgmental and awkwardly 
didactic, you should just fix those problems directly, instead 
of slapping cover-up on them.

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:09:09 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

8. "Needle, Fluid_," Clarke
     Too complex in movement and language to avoid 
rehearsal.  The grace of the story needs matching movement, and 
Mark and Aprille's fine readings get marred by their bodies 
flopping around on the table.  The solid milk chocolate poetry 
of the main image of a ghost slipping into a dead lover's IV is 
so strong and beautiful the Arlen-Lawson-style gradual-
information-release is just distracting.

10. "Dickbreath -&- the Devil," Lawson
     My enthusiasm for this piece is exactly opposite of how 
I felt about how "Homemade Surgery" rambled at the end.  If 
Lawson pieces had been getting too baroque, "Dickbreath" feels 
like a man with an idiotic joyous wild hair up his ass making 
shit up as he goes along, damn the research and prep scrubbing.  
"Homemade" chugged along until it felt it needed a right turn 
into the unexpected, "Dickbreath" was just a stupidass joyride, 
and that is the difference.

14. "Run Around Town," Campbell
     _but this time around there's a big to-do about what 
now?  There's silly and gross jokes here and they're stacking up 
and up and finally I see a coherent, interesting world built out 
of the NST trope of characters with funny nicknames and how they 
got them and dead baby ceilings, and it builds and builds and 
stops.

15. "Heaven's Percolator," Stangl
If you enjoyed this work, please see also:
"The Howling Man" episode, Twilight Zone
"Will The Real Martian Please Stand Up?" episode, Twilight Zone
"Printer's Devil" episode, The Twilight Zone
"The Reform of the Apple" Jim Woodring, Jim Magazine Vol 2 No 3

******************************

Friday, February 9th, 2001

0.5. "The Breathalyzer Test," Stangl
     Note on The One Nick Clark criticized for not actually 
being about alcohol: a) I make no promise my blackouts will 
concern drinking culture b) many- "Kissing Booth" "The Fight"- 
are not about liquor.

2. "Out Cold," River
     The finest piece you saw 2-9-01, and you envy the 
kaleidoscopic invention and straightforward dialogue and the 
good-clean-jokes ("it's under the hat! I can see it pokin'!") 
and that rarest of punchlines: one that makes "sense" and is 
also "funny."

3. "Even the Internet Manifesto," Luxt-_er, Hrbek
     I'm not really scared of computers, and I don't think 
people will stop reading paper books anymore than they stopped 
reading when they invented Books On Tape, and I don't know why 
an Internet in every home is any scarier than a telephone in 
every home, and people don't want computer chips in their 
brain.  And if you were really a Luddite you wouldn't have used 
a laser printer for your light booth copy.  Bum legged as 
character piece, fulla shit as opinion piece.  But you already 
read "1984" in high school.

4. "The Dan Fairchild," Bowman
    The triumph of "Fairchild" is that it was written For a 
performer, but didn't pander to his strengths and avoid his 
weaknesses.  The transcendent moment of rhyming "Dog" with 
"Orange Dog" will live for 30 years!  (Why is: because it's a 
concrete joke in a sea of nonsense, but how you think of a joke 
that good is: a magic trick secret).

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:10:49 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60


5. "My Lovelife at Age Four," Arbock
          The questions unearthed here are big nasty ones, 
nastier than ones about war and nukepower, but "How do children 
love?" "What/ how are we supposed to learn from mistakes, in 
concrete terms?" "Can children love as adults do?" and "How do 
you tell crush from love when you're buried in it?"  You know 
that.  The mystery is "how did I derive those questions from 
what felt like a kind of uneventful story and a sketchy 
character on whom I could get no grip?"  The solution is show 
show show, and hush hush on the tell, which is the advice I hand 
to 9.5, Tuttle's "Coastline."

6. " I Wanna Rape Your Hand," Rust
        The Opposite Sketches from "You Can't Do That On 
Television," only_ BLUE.  Given that rape is Bad, given that 
Jocks are Assholes, given these givens, the only way to make 
this entertaining is if Paul Rust is an engaging performer, and 
whup! Narrow win.

7. "Monkey Feces_," Lawson
     How To Write: Make the story, then notice its important 
themes, then rewrite, coaxing those themes out into the street 
until the Schwann's truck hits them.  There's a clever, 
satisfying rhythm here, with tiny fragments preceding a mini-
monologue.  Most of posts here complained about the monologue 
stuck on the end of the sketch; they might reconsider: perhaps 
the piece was imploding; busted flowerpot shards dropping into 
formation, growing a begonia.  That the connective tissue was 
not readily apparent to the audience, though, is usually the 
writer's fault.

8. "I Love to Fuck My Wife," Fairchild
     My feelings are elsewhere documented.

9. "That Sad Story of That Lady I Know," Clarke
    Early superhero comics' primitive narration would say things 
like "Batman threw the bound, gagged counterfeiters into the 
river!" and show Batman throwing the bound, gagged 
counterfeiters into the river.  Except here that literalness is 
the joke, and that's so gratifyingly smart I was applauding it 
alone, never mind the tears-of-a-raped-clown stuff.  Lesson: 
Learn from and subvert bad storytelling.

10. "Song," Okiishi
       The Okiishi Character reminds me of when Bugs Bunny is in 
medieval times, or the Guys That Eat Poop Jamal and I used to 
play.  Even though supposedly a different "character" and in 
different, not-necessarily-"true" situations, it's the same 
heart in the same ribcage, and you don't want to rest until 
you've seen him weigh in on every important subject.  I'd been 
waiting a long time for this one, the "it's harder to be friends 
than lovers/ and you shouldn't try to mix the two."  Strictly 
Hush Hush, the trick is that you walk away feeling wistful and 
wiser, while Okiishi didn't learn anything, right?  It's humble 
storytelling.

11. "The Horror," Angel
     Balance problems here, mostly visual, of a stage mostly 
busied with unimportant potential distractions while a trage-
logue of some weight should have been central.
12. "Britney Spears -&- No Shame Theater," King
There is no good "this is my first time at No Shame" piece.  Not 
JEST because it's an awful introduction, but because it doesn't 
start you on the foot reading You Are A Writer, Who Happens To 
Present Material At No Shame.

14. "The Goblin in Me," Campbell
           There's a dearth of character monos not flying into 
absurdist/ gross-out territory these days, save the Arbock 
pieces.  In other weather, this is stand out, this is scary-
funny, with little girls getting drowned in car trunks of 
brine.  At No Shame 2001, the pleasures are in Campbell's 
growing dedication to letting a character find her language.  
HEY!  You can and should do that too!

15. "Frankie -&- Johnny," Stangl
Reference Materials:
Ed Cray, The Erotic Muse: American Bawdy Songs  Second Edition
"Death Ship" episode, The Twilight Zone
American Folkways' Anthology of American Folk Music, Harry 
Smith, Ed.

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:11:58 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

Friday, February 16th, 2001

1. "Little Shit's Birthday Present," Rust
     How do you do this, the irritating nasty child with heart-
of-gold revealed at the end, without being "Problem Child 2"?  
You just find the joke in how meanness is only funny to the 
practitioner.   The secret joke is that Judge Reinhold isn't 
inherently funny, but for some reason making him an angel, even 
though he's not dead, is.  The lesson is about to what level the 
inexplicable must be hoisted before it is comedy.
Look, I don't want to keep saying "Paul Rust's writing is flawed 
but he's such a durn fun actor!,"  This time I've only one 
problem: Why the heartfelt turnabout here?  I don't even want to 
care about this character, and after the first three fourths of 
the piece, it's a tough sell that even Paul Rust cares about 
this character.

2. "Oh Fudge," King
     Comics artist Dan Clowes: "I say I `hate' Christians like 
you might say you `love' pizza."  Which is me saying that apart 
from some barf jokes, the core lesson- save "love" for when you 
mean it- is a sentence or two of material, but this piece was 
more than a sentence or two long.

3. "The Last Word," Swatek
     Remember how the only thing anybody had to say about Jack 
Nicholson in The Shining was that he seemed crazy in the first 
scene, so how can he go crazy later?  Well I say that was wrong, 
but it applies kinda-sorta here.  Plainly, the goal of this 
piece is to gripe about current events and how the media 
functions in ways the audience will agree with, and gradually 
escalate until these opinions can take no form but violent 
opposition.  The audience says "yikes, that could'a been me if 
I's a little ca-razyer!"  So let's assume we haven't seen this 
before in various forms, approving and disapproving (Taxi 
Driver, Network, Death Wish).  The escalating callousness is in 
the wrong order.  Save the complaint that firefighters who save 
lives don't deserve medals for way late in the piece, since no, 
sorry, most of the audience isn't With You there: I'm not With 
You from the get-go, so when you make the "revelation" of 
madness, my feet aren't kicked out from under me.

5. "My Love Life at Age Six," Arbock
     I walk away thinking about questions lovers ask like 
"What do we have in common?" and why that matters to people more 
than "What do we learn from each other?," when it should not.  
Maybe you don't walk away like that, but at least note that 
nobody died or aborted a baby with a pepper grinder.  These are 
admirable things, but I'm getting sense of little character 
delineation.  King is the only Arbock performer to stuff the 
character into the age she was in the story, and it seemed a 
wholly inappropriate choice.

7. "Peeing John Malkovich," Angel
     Honest question: Why was the audience laughing during 
this?  Not because it wasn't funny, but WHY was it funny to you?

8. "Rosencrantz -&- Stansfield are Dead," Fairchild
      My sore spots are: a) I think people DO know what Gary 
Oldman's been in.  b) the too-literal ending, where a lovely 
question we should've been shown not told- What does it mean 
that Gary Oldman die in all his roles?- is robbed of mystery and 
resonance.  The answer  satisfactory, and knowing, but there's 
no work for the audience to do after that.  The pixie dust 
schtuff is in the mystery: what kind of fucked up men play a 
fucked up game like this?  It's a madhouse_ a MADHOUSE!

9. "_Gay and Retarded," Clarke
       I don't doubt by now Aprille's ability to think of gross, 
gross sex jokes then flip it around and make us sad about it.  I 
also read about how if you have sex with a male dog the base of 
the dog penis swells up and cannot be pulled out without risking 
serious injury, and so you're stuck with the dog penis inside a 
body cavity, no escape and you have to think about what you've 
done until detumescence, and that takes HOURS.  This didn't 
really root out tough questions about power balances in sexual 
relationships, but I dunno if it's conscience or what, a basic 
humanity carried this one.  The obligatory reversal this time 
was really there this time, and in the end it's a woman mourning 
and coping, dog fucking aside.

10. "Legend of Honest Tom," Lawson
     If the moral of "The Ugly Duckling" is a sham, inventing 
a new myth both to demonstrate that and fill the gap where "Ugly 
Duckling" used to be is a big task.  The structure here, if you 
weren't paying attention, forced segments to do double duty, 
variously postulating on the problems of three or four stories 
and progressing those narratives.  And that's a big task.  And 
there's nothing wrong with a folklore lesson- or rant- but it 
is, I nearly promise you, going to disrupt (and, in memory, 
overshadow) your narrative.  And these are lovely, though I 
don't think Arlen needs to be told that.  I guess the question 
is "How do you do the research, but not show it off?"  I do not 
know.  I think the answer has to do with being humble.  But I am 
not a humble writer either.

11. "Number Blue," Tuttle
     J. Wolf?_!

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:13:16 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

12.5 "This Will Only Hurt For a Moment," Okiishi
     However spooky and unexpected it was for an audience to 
watch Okiishi ram a needle in his arm, it was especially jarring 
for the light booth operator, as his script contained no stage 
directions, and I wasn't watching the action till halfway 
through when suddenly a needle was about to go in an 
Okiishivein.  That's not really a review.

13. "A Total Waste of Time," Kovacs
   Arlen Lawson laughed so hard he fell out of his seat and 
smashed one of my shotglasses with his Lawsonass.

14. "The Problem with a Penis," Pookman
    The mean-spirited homophobia which was obviously very badly 
gauged for the NS forum- and wretched anywhere- aside (is it 
possible to put that aside?)_  It peels a standup to his essence 
when he opens his routine with "I was watching Seinfeld the 
other day_"

15. "The Sensual Hitler," Stangl
     My only regret is that my only conscious attempt to 
generate a "catch-phrase" that would live beyond the piece 
("Adolf Hitler SEXCAPADE") did not "take."  I wanted to pass 
elementary schoolers and hear them yelling "Adolf Hitler 
sexcapade!" at one another.

****************##############************

Friday, February 23rd, 2001

1. "Two Twenty Three," Campbell
      Applause for studious interest in time and space.  My 
understanding and regret for falling into irresistible trap of 
writing gooey love piece for your lady fair.  The best of these 
("What Do You Do With a Drunken Sailor?" Brooks) feel like 
universal gifts to the whole audience, and impossible to pin on 
any one lapel.  The most specific feel self-indulgent and I 
suspect the worst make everyone in the audience, save one, feel 
like their time is being wasted.  I guess that isn't really 
advice to Neil so much as anyone writing these in the future.
Also: It is very difficult to hurl an audience repeatedly across 
geography and chronology without losing a dozen, confusing the 
rest.  It is a valuable skill.  Were you watching NBCampbell 
carefully?  You at home can and should do this, too.

2. "My Lovelife at Age Eight," Arbock
     Though you may call them otherwise, I say there is no 
serial monologue here.  There is a group of standalones on a 
theme, by a common character.  It's not serial storytelling.  A 
character emerges, gradually, and it's a complicated proposal, 
reconciling the narrator's age and knowledge of her past with 
the ability to relate a story reflecting the cognitive resources 
available at the time.  This may not be perfectly balanced, but 
it's handled so you don't worry or think about it, and that's a 
major hunk of the writer's job: closing the Employees Only doors 
so you don't see anything you don't need.

3. "A LOVE Poem!," Nepstad
     Okay, I PERSONALLY find rhyming sex jokes of limited 
appeal.  That is my problem alone, and I understand that 
everyone loves rhyming sex jokes, and unlike capri pants, that 
is not necessarily a bad thing.  But if you are doing rhyming 
sex jokes, treasure this demonstration, where there are actual 
gags and puns, beyond the mere rhyming.
It's funny to harass and insult specific audience members, 
right?  Then why aren't Roasts funny?  It has to do with 
respect.  Nobody AT the Roast REALLY holds the suckling pig in 
contempt.  Pauline Kael wrote a fine review of "Spaceballs," in 
it explaining why Mel Brooks' "High Anxiety" isn't funny: Brooks 
respects Hitchcock, and the satire is never convincing.  You 
have to be able to taste the hate.

4. "How to Hurt a Man," River
     The reason most gangster movie satires are stinkers 
("The Freshman," "Johnny Dangerously," "Mad Dog and Glory" 
["Glory" isn't a stinker, but it's a stink as a mob satire]) is 
that they are timid things, and mob movies are not, and nor 
should satire.  The reason "Hurt a Man" is a success isn't that 
it has a brutal heart, but that it finds the itchy tag in the 
back of the mafia shirt, the secret reason we won't say we like 
mob movies, and takes it to task.  We want to see men hurt each 
other.  The best scene in "Casino" is the head in the c-clamp.  
The coolest, most exhilarating parts of "Goodfellas" are the 
violent deaths.  The showstopper of the entire "Godfather" 
trilogy is the baptism/ massacre montage, and we all know these 
things, but don't like to admit them.  The writing lesson is to 
say those things out loud anyway.

6. "Paperclip Eyebrows," Hansen
Like a missing story from "Without Feathers" that was missing 
for a reason_ the pieces are there, but they just get sticked 
together in an expected manner.

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:14:51 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

7. "Feed the Ape for a Quarter," Fairchild
     I have tried to write like a five year old before, and 
it is hard, near impossible.  Grown ups can't think of stories 
like "an ape ate so much peppers that he popped," and when they 
can, it is a revelation.  Other lesson: Since people hate 
performance art, if you must make it, make it physically 
masochistic and humorous.

10. "Curse of the Kovacs Clan," Negron
      Extraordinarily weird moments when front row thought 
screaming, flailing Negron may actually be choking to death as 
he shoved wads of paper in his mouth.  Other than that, seemed 
frustratingly improvised (don't improv anything that would be 
better scripted SEEMS like an obvious rule_), any potential 
bright spots drowned in big grey sea of dull.  The 
extraordinarily weird things deserved better, though in anything 
not otherwise boring, the gagging may not be extraordinarily 
weird, so perhaps there is no lesson to learn here.  No idea how 
or why this was a Tom Kovacs impression. Also weird.  "Taste the 
hate" lesson applies: unconvinced that this is a "send up" of 
Tom Kovacs-- just that the two are friends giggling at 
impressions of each other.

13. "Fantasmico," VanGorder
A) Central idea of a New York city menaced by giant chicken to 
be found in Daniel Manus
 Pinkwater's novel "The Hoboken Chicken Emergency."
B)    Is this idea funny?  For this to work, it has to be 
inherently funny to say "Giant Chicken," since the premise isn't 
taken in any other direction.
A+B) Lesson: you can't just have a silly idea.  You have to do 
something with it.
C)  Also Arlen Lawson's first twelve pieces were about giant 
chickens, also NOT FUNNY!

14. "The Pee-Hole Butt Turd. A Tale of Adventure," Angel
       Fifty dollar title, thousand dollar improv by T. Kovacs, 
who refused to leave the stage at the end, even though he 
wasn't, say, doing anything.  The shear unwelcomeness, rudeness, 
creepyness and unauthorizedness of this performance wrecked an 
otherwise hilarious piece but mostly by being a hilarious piece 
unto itself.  Sacrifices are always unruly.

15. "The Graverobbing Lesson," Stangl
     I haven't flat-out bombed in a long time.  It was 
gratifying and fun.

********************%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%***********

Friday, March 2nd, 2001

1. "Wannabe Baby Carriage," Kovacs
     When your whole piece is funny names, the names better 
be pretty goddamn jolly-making.  A way to avoid this is to make 
sure your monologue doesn't hang on one joke.

2. "_Social Anxiety Disorder," Stapleton
      There's this Premise, and you hang Jokes on it and then 
there's a punchline.  The next step is to do character work, and 
better still to take any of this in a direction the audience 
does not expect.

3. "You Know What I Hate?," Pookman
Among the unconvincing moments of "hate":
    The totally botched rant against chicken fried chicken 
could've been salvaged; wasn't.
    You don't punch Weebles, since they're two inches high 
(possibly he's confusing them with those clown sand-filled-base 
punching bags?).
        Pookman's clearly never had a "cock piercing," since you 
usually get cock piercings if you LIKE cock piercings.
       If you want me to understand that Meat Loaf is a bad 
actor, you can't take it for granted.  The three movies (Roadie, 
Rocky Horror, Fight Club) I've seen Loaf in were remarkable for 
fine performances by Meat Loaf.
       Why exactly do you ever accidentally "blow your load all 
over the wall"?  Personally, when I'm "going at it" my load-
blower is in an orifice.  Etc etc
       Convince me (my discretion) that "I hate that there are 
no white guys in the NBA! Put some white guys in the NBA!" isn't 
deeply, stupidly racist and convince me the George-Reeves-
Superman-Ducks-Away-From-Thrown-Gun routine wasn't flatly 
plagiarized I give you FIVE DOLLARS!

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 02:16:06 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.60

4. "My Lovelife at Age Twelve," Arbock
     I'd say she's not learning from her mistakes, but I'm 
not sure she's made any.  I am likewise unsure how much love and 
how much crush are in these experiences.  If I had to play 
Encompassing Themes, the snowballing tragedy is that perspective 
and forewarning don't necessarily save us from making mistakes 
or getting hurt in accidents that aren't mistakes.  These 
"Lovelifes"- and especially "Twelve"- remind me of one of my 
favorite contemporary authors, Francesca Lia Block, who's 
written a number of heartbreaking poetical realist novels they 
stick in the Young Adult section.  Her stories and the Arbock 
"Lovelifes" are elemental, straightforward, but their questions 
and emotions are complex, and glassy pink vines grow up around 
them because they are honest.

5. "Deadlies;_ Blue Cow," Luxtonshell
     I got no jollies from the prose, just watching Erin King 
squirm, and really that was funnier in concept than practice_ 
what was she to do besides laugh and maybe blush?  Smash a JC 
Lux face?  Pee?  Well, I think she did, just a bit.

5.5. "How... Do You Spell Manifest Destiny?" Hill, Stangl, Angel
For the curious (why three writers it take for blackout gag!?): 
it REALLY HAPPENED! 

8. "Don't Call it a Comeback," Clarke
     Instead of the midway-point revelation of sex with a 
space alien throwing this world into disarray, it just feels 
like lack of continuity.  I can recognize that the fetal abuse 
at various points of the story is some kind of motif or 
recurring image or godknowswhat, but for Perdita Durango's sake 
it's FETUS ABUSE, and that's a distracting motif for most 
audiences.  Even No Shame audiences.  I don't mean they're 
grossed out, I mean the story here seems to want to be about 
sexing a space alien, but the fetus stuff is obviously (see next 
sketch) going to strongarm anything else out of the picture.

9. "Stanley Klugman," Rust
     Okay, so while there was a pretend back-ally abortion 
happening, did you notice how a story casually got told with 
three distinct spaces, visual events and dialogue that 
juxtaposed the sight gags instead of just explaining them?  Also 
Paul Rust gets away with the clunkiest awkward jokes because his 
very demeanor makes you positive, just POSITIVE that he's making 
fun of the idea of jokes at all.  That's not a cheat, that's 
just cute.

10. "Sorry, 185 Chandeliers_," Galbraith
     One thing funnier than an audience in awkward silence is 
an audience that keeps getting forced into awkward silences.  
Sometimes I think it doesn't matter if those silences are 
intentional, because even though a good joke might have died an 
unjust death, the silence is worth it TO ME.

11. "Fart `n' Stink," Angel
     There's a No Shame genre called Old Man Beat Up, and 
they're like B Westerns, where you know the story from the 
poster, and the pleasure is will Keene Duncan be stealing water 
rights or rustling cattle?  Even way back when I had er, 
difficulty with Al's work, he had the occasional steely eye for 
perfect prop gag (I will never never live to forget Galbraith 
with tits being ordered to smoke a disgusting rolled-up 
Kleenex).  Here it is the disgusting Old Man Treats, and I will 
not forget them because they got shoved in my mouth.

12. "God in a Two-Bedroom Efficiency," Fairchild
    If you ain't heard me say it yet, this would've been 
improved tenfold had the line been "God, do you have to fuck my 
table like that?"  If you ain't heard A.E.E.J.Lawson say it, "I 
seen that sketch a million times_ and it's always funny."  And 
Karen Scherf says "there's no such thing as a `two bedroom 
efficiency' DOO-WAD!"

13. "He Was," King
     There wasn't much Pleasure of Words here, that stuff 
poet M. Doughty calls "mmm word sound pretty, word sound nice," 
and words are a poet's shaft and bow, so draw them hard and 
steady.  The smart choices were economy and editing, and a good 
edit is one where the seams don't show.

14. "We Go Boom," Campbell, Cassady
     You can learn anything you want from this, but_  John 
Waters, who is the funniest screenwriter in history says that 
when he sits down in his office and looks at the blank legal 
pad, the only question in mind is: "What will make me and my 
friends laugh today?"  How to write comedy is make yourself 
laugh.  And then re-write it until it's lean.  Here is a piece 
which I assume made Neil and Mike laugh a lot, and I assume they 
wrote some bad material which was excised.  Some of it before it 
hit the page.  Notice how there's no wasted space or word in the 
finished product?  Notice this.

15. "The ATM Outside Secret Nails," Stangl
This is mostly a lie, because I have never seen anyone getting 
their nails done at Secret Nails.

Time: Sat, 24-Mar-2001 18:49:31 GMT     IP: 24.6.203.121

hrum?

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 02:57:11 GMT     IP: 128.255.189.150

With all of your permission, I'd like to quote some of the 
feedback you've given me for a slightly longer No-Shamish piece.

You see, a friend of mine back home has asked me to combine 
several of my No Shame pieces into a hackneyed 20 minute one act 
play.  I puzzled over this for a while and realized that the 
best way to fit things together is a lot of editing and the 
creation of a central character- a very critical director who 
bashes all the works of all auditioning actors that come his 
way.  And, what better primary source of criticism for these 
pieces than the reviews all of you people have written?

If any of you have any problems with this, please E-mail me so 
that I know not to quote you.  Otherwise, I'll just cite your 
reviews and assume all is well.

I should be working on this project for about three weeks, if 
any of you plan on making your language extra-colorful in your 
reviews.

Thanks for everything-
Tom Kovacs
mrauthorboy@hotmail.com

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 04:01:33 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.6

That is by far the stupidest idea for a ten minute play I have 
heard since Shoes the Musical.  I hope I have been of help in your 
pursuit.

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 18:36:34 GMT     IP: 64.197.224.77

:That is by far the stupidest idea for a ten minute play I have 
:heard since Shoes the Musical.  I hope I have been of help in 
:your pursuit.

Incorrect.  Kovacs=stupid idea.  Shoes the Musical the ten minute 
play=Pants the musical the five minute comedy No Shame 
sketch=Pants the Musical the three minute comedy The State sketch. 
 Which yeilds the questions: does blatant plagiarism cease to be 
blatant plagiarism when the circumstances of the work are altered 
superficialy?  Does it cease to be plagiarism entirely?  I'm 
afraid I have no answer for you.

I, too, hope I have been of help to you.

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 19:35:48 GMT     IP: 128.255.191.46

I'm afraid of the reason why you have no answer.

here it is: its not plagiarism if the writer doesnt know 
what "The State" is because there would be no borrowing or 
stealing of ideas. in fact, if the writer has never even heard 
of "The State" then it makes for an innane connection. to further 
my point, Shoes the musical the ten minute play came before pants 
the musical the no shame sketch BUT the predecessor to shoes the 
musical the ten minute play was "if life were a musical" which 
was written two years ago for a high school sketch by the same 
writer.

I, too, hope I have been of help to you.

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 20:36:21 GMT     IP: 205.217.148.108

No Shame Theatre
3-23-2001

The lengths of the pieces are listed next to the titles/author 
names. Lots of short pieces?! Yes! Awesome! Several people DID 
go over 5 minutes, though, and are forever and always banned 
from No Shame Theatre. Woohoo! My name is Chris Stangl! 
 
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ ORDER: Campbell, Clarke

0.5 "The Girl Trouble Oracle" by Chris Stangl. 1:03
[Stangl, Lawson; comedy sketch] Liquor solves shyness, pregnancy.

1. "The Wrong Number Sketch-0" by Chimpanzee {Tom Knapp} 2:36
[Stangl, Knapp, River, Clarke; comedy sketch]  Sadistic 
telephone operator and parrot harass customers.

2. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part One: Microcosm" by Al Angel 0:21
[Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  A romance begins.

3. "Amanda's Storytime" by Amanda 2:36
[Amanda; comedy improv]  Extemporaneous tale of "Arlen's Fat 
Butt" involves Arlen's consumption of squirrel pee.

4. "Blind Man's Bluff" by Tom Kovacs 6:05
[Kovacs, Negron, Rust, Phoedra Gay, River, others; comedy 
sketch]  "Sam Negron" (Kovacs)'s blindness revealed as sham; 
"Negron" beaten.

4.4. "Things That Were Wrong With `Batman and Robin'" by Joel 
Schumacher )0:08
[?, ?; comedy sketch] George Clooney and Arnold Schwartzenegger 
are those things.  Blackout.

5. "Normalization" by Kate Chisolm 6:04
[Chisholm, ?, ?; comedy sketch] Bar girl's conscience laments 
her bargirl behavior.
 
6. "My Lovelife at Age Sixteen" by Nella Christo Arbock 2:51
[Clarke; monologue] Nella consumes hallucinogen, crashes four 
wheeler, contemplates naked man.

7. "Putty" by Lisa Day 4:46
[Day, ?; monologue]  Unwanted grapefruit dooms would-be romance.

7.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Two: Parallax" by Al "Horatio" 
Angel 0:15
[Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  Romance now includes sexual 
relations.

8. "Coming Soon" by Adam Burton 3:26
[Okiishi, Clarke, Cassady, Weird Al; comedy sketch]  Trailer for 
film featuring sunblock superheroes and "Floppy Porn Guy."

9. "Nobody Puts Baby In the Corner, OR Do You Wanna Wanna Mahna 
Mahna" by Dan Fairchild 2:11
[Fairchild, Clarke; dance]  Comic dance to Jim Henson's 
"Monomonop."

10. "Who Do You Think You Are?" by Aprille Clarke 5:15
[Rust, Clarke, Fairchild; comedy sketch]  Prostitute specializes 
in golden showers; janitor pretends to be business mogul.

10.5. "Genre Pt I: Horror, Also Known as Comedy" by Arlen Lawson 
0:28
[Campbell, Lawson; comedy sketch]  Man debilitated by nerves of 
steel.  Everyone laughs instead of feeling sad.

11. "The Deadlies, Part Two; The Orange Pig" by Frank Schroeder 
{J.C. Luxton} 7:00
[Luxton, Okiishi; comedy sketch]  Man steals, eats pie, 
contracts negative body image.

12. "Stillness a Mop a Kay" by Arly Farly 1:04
[River, Rust, Angel, Fairchild, Clark; musical piece]  Jamal 
bangs pot, leads marching chant.

12.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Three: Resolution" by Al 
"Pretty pretty pretty" Angel 0:17
[Clark, Angel; sketch]  Romance dissolved on bus.

13. "My Own Private Sitcom" by Paul Rust 6:08
[Rust; comic monologue]  Psychosis/ desperation leads boy to 
enact family tragedy as one-man situation comedy.

14. "This Is Who We Are" by Neil "Balls" Campbell 4:38
[Campbell, Thompson, Lawson, Cassady, Galbraith, ?; comedy 
sketch]  Parade of horrors commonplace and extraordinary all 
lost in apathy at restaurant.

15. "Brown Dead Leaves and a Dirty Broom" by Chris Stangl 6:20
[Stangl, River; autobio monologue]  Small town spook story of a 
body on a lawn passes between generations.  River accompanies on 
kalimba.

The missing cast for #5 is listed at the top of the script.  
Whoever has the scripts will fill in this and other data, please 
maybe?

Christopher Stangl

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 21:01:02 GMT     IP: 205.244.161.9

Here are a few numbers with some thoughts after them:

1) Nobody who is accused of anything on this website by someone 
who posts under a false psuedonym (as opposed to a true one 
like, say, "Balls") and fake email address should feel any 
obligation to answer to those accusations. I honestly don't know 
if the people who post those anonymous posts are friends of mine 
or total strangers, but I hate you all the same. When you accuse 
someone anonymously, the accusee (is this even a word? is it 
spelled correctly? I have no time to check) has but two options: 
a) ignore the accusation (my preference, though then the 
accusee's days might be haunted by the thought that if they 
don't defend themselves against their anonymous accuser, then 
everybody will think the accusation is true, and lose all 
respect for the accusee, thus causing them to spit upon the 
accusee's face in the middle of the street while screaming 
vulgar insults regarding his/her birth mother at him/her), or b) 
defend yourself (see previous parenthetical as to reasons why). 
In defending one's self, though, the accusee has no single 
individual to whom he/she may respond. If the accusation is 
anonymous, it could have come from any one of us, and therefore 
the accusee must respond to all of us. This is unfair. (Not to 
mention that it gives those ISCA freaks too much ammo for their 
own good.  This is the only reason one might prefer ISCA to the 
boardroom: it's a lot harder to remain anonymous there. However, 
ISCA has too many downsides [the lack of anything graphic, the 
unforgiving posting system, the fact that it is powered by coal] 
to abandon the boardroom completely and head back in time to 
ISCA.) But back to the anonymous thing and its being unfair. 
There is no reason anyone should feel responsible to answer to 
all of us regarding anything.  If you have a problem with 
someone's work and, for whatever reason, wish to discuss it in a 
public forum, then post something here addressing the person 
from whom you'd like a response, then SIGN YOUR OWN NAME/EMAIL 
ADDRESS.  Otherwise, that person owes you NOTHING. You ugly 
bastard.

Example:
Here's a non-anonymous message from me, Neil "Balls" Campbell, 
c/o neilerdude@hotmail.com, for whomever wrote those "Drunk" 
posts: Fuck you. Same goes to the rest of you anonymous 
shitheads who try to embarrass and insult others while being too 
craven to leave your own name.

2) Profanity is at times a useful tool.

3) Shoes: The Musical was one of the funniest damn things I've 
seen in a long time. There is no shame (yeah, I know) in being 
entertaining. Since when is it out of fashion to entertain the 
audience? I can tell you I'd much prefer to see Shoes: The 
Musical than I would to see the masturbatory, self-important 
crap that a few too many No Shame regulars are coming up with 
these days.

4) More and more, recently, I find shorts on men to be entirely 
silly and worthy of much ridicule.

That is all.

NBC 

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 22:21:09 GMT     IP: 128.255.188.45

sorry we went over 5 minutes.... eh.

Jeanelle Sims plays the "bargirl." bargirl? I guess that's what 
she was. Phil Nohl plays the creepy guy.

hooray for them.

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 22:38:05 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

What if one uses the same anonymous name everytime and just 
prefers not to be thought of as a real person?  What if that same 
anonymous name hates email?  What if that same anonymous name 
doesnt wish to accuse anyone but just wishes to express an 
opinion anonymously?  Even if they do wish to accuse one, 
an "accusee" if you will, can just as easily respond to said name 
on the board as to a personal email account?  I see your 
point "Balls", but at the same time I am hoping that not all 
anonymous names get slighted by the errors of others.  There are 
many reasons to prefer remaining anonymous that are not evil or 
wrong.  

Time: Sun, 25-Mar-2001 23:54:04 GMT     IP: 128.255.189.150

Right, so now I have to respond to a couple of nameless booze-
hounds.  As "Balls" has pointed out, someone still has a problem 
with me or my writing, and is too afraid to tell me face to face 
or use his/her real name.  I don't take these comments seriously, 
as you should find obvious by my recent request to quote all of 
your garble in a piece, but since they're here I've got to 
respond anyway.

As far as this being a stupid idea (and not just a challenging 
task), I'd like to point out that Noises Off and Waiting For 
Guffman were similarly stupid ideas that evolved into something 
fantastic.  While I know I won't be making anything as big as 
either of these full-length productions, the simplicity of my 
idea does not discourage me.  I only hope that my "stupid" idea 
can be entertaing, and not quite as overtly pretentious as some 
pieces self-serving NS "geniouses" tend to write.

Finally, you make references to Pants the Musical and Shoes the 
Musical being plagiarized to some degree.  If that's the case 
(although I can't think of anything those bits would be ripping 
off) then you're implying something about plagiarism in my piece, 
which is yet to be written in the first piece.  I ask you, Now-
Hungover Drunk, how this piece would be plagiarism if I am 
drawing mostly from my own writing (with a few random, cited 
comments from the board)?  Your empty and unexplained logic is 
more of an annoyance than anything else.

Tom Kovacs

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 01:19:22 GMT     IP: 128.255.167.140

In the "Things that Were Wrong with Batman and Robin," George 
Clooney was played by Jake Livermore and Arnold S. was played by 
Steve Heuertz. Glad to be of servix.

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 01:37:52 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.4

   Well, Tom Kovacs, I'm going to talk to you some, but first I'm 
going to address the assertion Two Cents makes about there being 
non-terrible-human-being reasons to post anonymously.
   I can only think of three reasons. 1)"I want to say hurtful 
things, but not to be held acountable for my own viciousness." 
2)"I am half embarassed of what I've written, but would still like 
to see how people respond to it."  3)"I am a No Shame performer 
and want to praise my own genius, for people to agree with me 
(Rothschild) or attack myself to watch my friends stick up for me 
and find out how much I am loved(Hansen) or help my friend do 
this(Lawson) and, oh, by the way, these are all the same reason."
   Reason #1 seems to be most prominent these days and I must 
protest.  A duel in a field with a witness and a big coat 
and a bullet each is respectable, in its own barbaric way.  A 
knife in the back in the dark and a quick retreat is loathsome.
   That's all I have to say about that.  Now, Tom... 
   I was trying to figure out which drunk you were talking to, 
Tom, and I couldn't do it.  Neither drunk named h'self Hungover (I 
assume this was your own little insult added to the injury of your 
own little staggering logic) and neither accused you of 
plagiarism.  I've drawn up the two other posts in my little uh 
computer window thing, and, well, it seems to me that Wandering 
makes no mention of plagiarism, and Stagnant clearly 
differentiates between your alleged stupid idea and Shoes the 
Musical's alleged plagiarism.
   Yes, Tom, it seems to me that the Drunk posts, for you, have 
been, as Chris Stangl asserts about ULYSSES and Garry Trudeau 
about Doonesbury, comparable to a Rorschach test, give or take a 
spelling error in "Rorschach."  You are the only one so far to 
have expressed concerns about the relationship between you and 
plagiarism. 
   But that's not what I'm here to talk about, Tom.  What I'm 
concerned with is what you say here:

"I only hope that my "stupid" idea 
      can be entertaing, and not quite as overtly pretentious as 
some 
      pieces self-serving NS "geniouses" tend to write."

   Now, I thought the misspelling of fenius was done in quoting 
somebody else, pointing out some irony or another, but upon 
reflection, I have to assume that the misspelling was your own and 
that the quotation marks were meant to indicate that you disagreed 
that these "people" were, in fact, geniuses, regardless of how 
loudly they proclaimed it, and at what length, to the point that 
all you ever hear at No Shame is some braggart or another 
shouting, "And you are all aware that I am a genius, no?"  And 
I've got to agree with you on that, Tom.  That is all I ever hear 
when in the company of my No Shame friends.
   But, you know, Tom-O, another thing I realized is that your 
little appraisal of the No Shame talent is the shot-for-shot 
remake of Psycho to Neil's earlier comment,

"I can tell you I'd much prefer to see Shoes: The 
      Musical than I would to see the masturbatory, self-important 
      crap that a few too many No Shame regulars are coming up 
with 
      these days."


   And, well, Tom, while I appreciate the irony of the defense of 
yourself as a non-plagiarist coming immediately after this 
near-plagiarism, and applaud your wit and ability to send it 
soaring over my head the first time I read it, I am still unclear 
about who you are referring to when you speak of the No Shame 
"'geniouses'" or why you would choose to attack them in your 
defense against an anonymous and 50% imaginary accuser.
   And what you've got to understand, Tom, Old Boy, is that right 
now I am seething with a couple emotions I don't know what to 
name.  And what you've got to understand, Tom, is that, 
personally, these days, I (which is to say me, Arlen Joseph Eben 
Evangel Lawson) write some pieces that might be called pretentious 
by some, or self-serving, or self-important, or even masturbatory. 
 In fact, Tom, you might say that, of all current No Shame 
writers, I am one of maybe two or three of the most likely 
candidates for these labels.  And, Tom, I guess what I'm trying to 
say, Tom, is that there's no way I can look at your ink spill 
without seeing a pile of dead puppies, and, with or without having 
mentioned my name, you have, in fact, expressed reproach of me, 
personally, in the same manner you might stand in the middle of a 
dusty little town, screaming out at the top of your lungs, "Now I 
challenge any perceived homosexual in this town to a bullet to 
bullet duel" while I'm in the bathroom pretending that my 
reflection is a human being.
   And, Tom, I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, Tom, it's 
just that sometimes there needs to be a mock duel and two people 
who respect each other just need to "clear the air" by aiming 
their bullets away from each other, and you can't always pay very 
close attention to where those stray missiles are flung.  And 
Jesus Fucking Christ I've used way too many metaphors in this 
post!

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 01:59:03 GMT     IP: 128.255.111.4

"Acountable" was a typographical error, on account of I can not 
type well.

"Genious" is a misunderstanding of spelling I've seen elsewhere.

I didn't mean to seem pretentious.  I have a contempt for people 
who think it makes them bright to have learned not to say 
"irregardless."  Or who feel pride that they have mastered the 
present state of a language, a state which will be obsolete 100 
years from now.


           -Arlen

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 03:28:37 GMT     IP: 128.255.189.150

Well, Arlen, you've called me on one thing- that extra O I 
slipped into "geniouses."  It's funny that a spellling errir can 
draw so much attention.  And so that there are no more confused 
people and unintentionally offended performers in the viewing 
audience, I've got to spend the extra time elaborating/repeating 
what was said earlier.

Stagnant drunk wrote this little ditty, which led to my 
staggering logic about implied plagiarism;
"Shoes the Musical the ten minute play=Pants the Musical the five 
minute comedy No Shame sketch=Pants the Musical the three minute 
comedy The State sketch.  Which yeilds the qustions: does blatant 
plagiarism cease to be blatant plagiarism when the circumstances 
of the work are altered superficially?  Does it cease to be 
plagiarism entirely?  I'm afraid I have no answer for you."

If The State is some other group of performers and writers, then 
I could see how the question could be re-written as; Was the 
first Pants the Musical blatantly plagiarized twice with the only 
changes being superficial alterations?  And does this form of 
adaptation constitute plagiarism?  However, I have never heard of 
any writers, performing groups, or shows known as The State.  
With no references to the authors of any of these pieces, I was 
stuck believing that all three pieces were written by the same 
guy.  Thus the question I saw was; If a writer makes superficial 
alterations to some of his own writing does it constiture blatant 
plagiarism?  I know that this was an absurd question, and the 
answer should be "no" unless it is in some absurd circumstance.  
And, I couldn't figure out the logic of a Stagnant drunk asking 
such a question.

Now, Arlen, My Friend, don't flip out, because I never did 
specifically call you pretentious or self-serving.  That 
pretentiousness statement you're so upset about was spoken in a 
gross generalization.  Everyone who does No Shame is, to some 
extent, performing to serve their own purposes.  Myself 
included.  And generally, there is at least one piece a night 
that I would think of as pretentious.  It is NOT always the same 
person that writes this one pretentious piece.  You have gone a 
bit over the top once or twice.  But, other than those rare 
occasions, I tend to find your pieces to be among the high points 
of the night.  The best one I can think of right now is that one 
where the girl tries to become a mermaid for the sake of the guy 
she loves.  Sorry, I forgot the title.  I'd like you to know that 
if you, or anybody else were coming off as pretentious on a 
regular basis, I'd come right out and say it.  Were that the 
case, I might find myself writing something like "Arlen Lawson is 
overtly pretentious."  If you saw something like that in my last 
post, then maybe you're reading a little too far between the 
lines.  I'm not one to try to hide my pot-shots.

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 05:20:05 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23


  I can only think of three reasons. 1)"I want to say hurtful 
things, but not to be held acountable for my own viciousness." 
2)"I am half embarassed of what I've written, but would still 
like 
to see how people respond to it."  3)"I am a No Shame performer 
and want to praise my own genius, for people to agree with me 
(Rothschild) or attack myself to watch my friends stick up for me 
and find out how much I am loved(Hansen) or help my friend do 
this(Lawson) and, oh, by the way, these are all the same reason."
  Reason #1 seems to be most prominent these days and I must 
protest.  A duel in a field with a witness and a big coat 
and a bullet each is respectable, in its own barbaric way.  A 
knife in the back in the dark and a quick retreat is loathsome."

I would like, would hope that you have miscalculated some motives 
here.  I can only account for my own, which admitedly can be 
viewed as a combination of numbers 1, 2 and 3 but without the 
dark overtones.  My original purpose is/was to be able to comment 
freely and take part in the various arguments that go on here 
from a more removed point of view.  I would like to freely state 
my opinions without the fear of censoring myself because of the 
people I know and would otherwise fear hurting them and/or 
embarrassing myself.  To be able to offer such opinions without 
the taint of how others view me or how I want to be viewed.  For 
instance, I can say, 'I believe that so and sos piece about such 
and such was very well written and executed, etc.' without them 
or someone else reading it and saying, 'thats so and sos friend, 
of course they are going to say that' and therefore dismissing 
it.  It also works to prevent me shying away from saying, 'so and 
sos piece this week was not well thought out and could have 
benefited from something' without worrying that a friend will be 
upset. I have also used this right of anonymosity to argue a 
point of view that I dont necessarily agree with yet am trying to 
explore from the other side.  But this isnt about me, its about 
wanting that right, the right that a format such as this offers, 
to be preserved for those of us who prefer to remain anonymous 
but not exclusively for the three reasons that Arlen has 
presented.  As with all rights, some will abuse them and that is 
the cost of having them.    
In closing I would like to say that, "A duel in a field with a 
witness and a big coat and a bullet each" is not any less 
respectable if those present happen to be wearing masks.
Anonymously Yours,
Two Cents

Post Script:  Although I have been trying to be good for the sake 
of putting a more favorable light on anonymous posts, I cant help 
but say, Arlen, that your arguments are particularly sexy when 
you are trying to defend your own pretentiousness. (oh look, its 
reason number 2!) 

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 06:03:49 GMT     IP: 209.217.137.167

Something about the message board has changed:  I can no longer 
delete the text of the message to which I reply.  Which sucks 
because I hate these posts.

This is joke.

Okay, so I wanted to address the perenially reappearing issue of 
pretention as mentioned on this web board.  The term gets bandied 
about in a lot of generalized contexts as a disparaging comment on 
no particular piece or performer.  (Keep in mind, Tom, that it is 
not just your recent comments, but several from the past which have 
appeared here that did this.)  So such posts decry pretention 
without providing examples or definitions of pretention.  It is, 
thus a fairly useless observation.  A little like saying "my advice 
to Chris Stangl: stop sucking so bad".  (no offense intended, CS, 
just thought it would make a fun example... rhetorically.).  So 
just what are the people who decry pretention in NS objecting to?  
How the hell do I know?  But how do *I* define pretention?  Okay, 
so you write this thing, and in it you make referrence to a lot of 
terms which you don't really understand, or allude to works with 
which you're not really familiar, and the end result is that you 
appear more educated than you really are... or you appear like you 
wish to appear more educated than you really are.  The trap here 
often comes when you have a big discrepancy between the level of a 
performer's education and the level of an audience's education.  
Now I will pick on Chris Stangl:  the fella often writes pieces 
which use a certain strain of non-standard knowledge - the lyrics 
to, and history of Frankie and Johnny, the personal life of Winona 
Ryder, the details of the making of Wizard of Oz and Gone With the 
Wind etc. etc..  The point is that these are not terms or ideas 
which Stangl spews out in hopes that the audience will think he's 
more educated than he is, these are facts which Stangl knows 
because he pursues his interest and familiarizes himself with stuff 
he loves.  Because most of the audience is not as familiar with 
these things as Stangl is, these pieces can come off as pretentious 
to an audience which assumes that a deep discrepancy in the level 
of education of the performer and the audience poses some sort of 
threat to their own percieved intelligence.  I cannot think of a 
piece which I could describe as pretentious, unless hearkening back 
to the days in which James Wolf rewrote Marisol for No Shame.  I 
don't mean to imply that anyone who has criticized pretention at NS 
was even thinking about the work of Chris "Mrs. Garrett" Stangl, it 
just made a convenient example in this instance.  Anyone who can 
offer any more accurate description of what the hell people are 
criticizing when they criticize 'pretention' at NS (Thomas?) help 
this forum out by making sense of an otherwise valueless 
generalization.

PoopooPeepee,
     McNick BeClark

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 06:33:52 GMT     IP: 65.6.173.43

Tom--

Okay, so "The State" was a television sketch comedy show on a few 
years ago.  It was pretty short-lived, but did develope a 
reasonable following.  I'm sorry I don't know much more about it, 
but it did exist. 

For your edification,

Christopher

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 06:52:45 GMT     IP: 205.244.160.149

Point being, Two Cents, that even if you consistently remain 
this made-up persona, were you ever to write something about 
somebody to which he/she felt the need to respond, that person 
would have to answer to everybody, as he/she would not know who 
you are.

Is that convoluted? Methinks so.  

So okay, here's an example. Say that you, under the name "Two 
Cents," wrote this about me: "Neil only uses the 
nickname 'Balls' because he in fact has no ball-sack of his 
own." To which I would feel the need to respond and expostulate 
upon the existence of my scrotum and the testicles therein. But 
to whom am I responding? I can address it to "Two Cents," but 
I'm really addressing it to every single person you might 
possibly be.  So I'm addressing it to Mark, to Aaron, to Chris, 
to Jamal, to Dan, to Arlen, to Tom, to audience members, to 
every single person who visits this forum. When the only person 
to whom I really need to prove the existence of my ball-sack is 
you, I still have to prove it to everyone else in existence as 
well. And that task is much too operose to place on one person's 
shoulders.

So. If you really have this desire to remain anonymous, then 
create an anonymous "Two Cents" email account at hotmail or 
yahoo or someplace so that you could still be contacted 
privately. However, that still seems a little weak.  You give 
your reasons for remaing anonymous, and while I can understand 
your point of view, I think you underestimate the willingness to 
believe possessed by most people who post here. You say you fear 
that if you write something positive about a friend, people who 
read it will discredit it on account of that person being in 
your good graces. Has it ever worked that way here? Most reviews 
are either entirely worthless (and obviously so), or quite 
objective. I tend to believe, say, Chris Stangl when he writes 
something nice about Arlen (a friend of his), because I both 
give him the benefit of the doubt and I've seen him write not-so-
nice things about Arlen as well. Don't try to predict how the 
reader will ingest your work, because right now you're writing 
in fear of utter skepticism, when most people who read these 
posts do tend to believe the writer is a good, hard-working, 
honest America who believes in free speech, loves ice cream on 
apple pie, and would not kick a dog. I cannot think of a time 
when I saw a post saying, "This Guy just wrote that about That 
Guy because they're best buddies." So just state your opinion 
and slap your name onto it, and let people intepret it as they 
will. If you're being truthful, who gives a fuck whether or not 
someone thinks you're only saying nice things about your 
friends? You know you're not, and if they accuse you of such a 
thing you can just tell them to fuck off. 

And if you're afraid of telling your friends what you really 
think of their pieces, don't be. Most people here can respond 
quite well to criticism, and those who can't need to learn how 
sooner or later if they truly wish to be artists (I almost put 
snarky quotation marks around that last word, the A word, but 
decided against, due to the fact that as maudlin as it might 
sound, I meant that sentence with all sincerity).  Mike Cassady 
and Aaron Galbraith are two of my best friends in the world, and 
I have been very frank with them in my appraisal of their work 
in the past, but we still love each other. I doubt your friends 
would suddenly resent you for telling them how you really feel 
about their work, either. It's beneficial to artists to hear 
about honest reactions to their work, not vice versa.

That's all for now.

Balls

P.S. to Kovey: While my first post on this subject was not 
intended as a defense of any one specific person, my ire was 
raised more by the weightier accusations leveled at Spencer 
rather than the clearly empty ones directed at you (i.e. your 
idea was simply called "stupid," while Spencer was called a 
plagiarist). So it was not so much my rising to your defense as 
it was my feeling compelled to state my opinion. IF it was due 
to anything, it was the sniffy attack on Spencer, not the one or 
two remarks tossed your way. I just, you know, don't want you to 
get a big head or anything. Your head being of a fairly normal 
size right now. Good night.

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 07:53:40 GMT     IP: 64.12.102.169

I would like to encourage all posters to use their correct names 
and email addresses whenever possible.

I know it can be a pain in the ass to type in your email address 
every time you leave a message, but the message board is more 
useful to everyone if everyone gives useful information. 

(A person trying to contact Aprille, for example, probably 
wouldn't be able to do so if her email is listed as: 
ME@meMEme.com)

From time to time, you may wish to remain ANONYMOUS.  If so, 
please leave those fields blank, or simply put "anonymous".

Do not post using someone else's name.  This can be misleading 
and confusing.  The main purpose of this website is 
informational/historical, and pseudonymous posting renders the 
message board useless as a source of information.

If pseudonymous posting persists, I will need to remove the 
message board until we find a new one which doesn't allow 
anonymous posts.  The ISCA BBS will, of course, continue to be 
available while we look for new software.

Sorry to bore you with policy talk.  Sincerely,

     ...Jeff

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 17:12:12 GMT     IP: 64.197.224.54

:Stagnant drunk wrote this little ditty, which led to my 
:staggering logic about implied plagiarism; "Shoes the Musical the 
:ten minute play=Pants the Musical the five minute comedy No Shame 
:sketch=Pants the Musical the three minute comedy The State 
:sketch.  Which yeilds the qustions: does blatant plagiarism cease 
:to be blatant plagiarism when the circumstances of the work are 
:altered superficially?  Does it cease to be plagiarism entirely? 
: I'm afraid I have no answer for you."

:If The State is some other group of performers and writers, then 
:I could see how the question could be re-written as; Was the 
:first Pants the Musical blatantly plagiarized twice with the only 
:changes being superficial alterations?  And does this form of 
:adaptation constitute plagiarism?  However, I have never heard of 
:any writers, performing groups, or shows known as The State.  
:With no references to the authors of any of these pieces, I was 
:stuck believing that all three pieces were written by the same 
:guy. 

Tom, your thought process astounds me such that I just have to ask 
you: why?  It seems to me to be that if one didn't know what "the 
state," was, the logical assumpsion would be that it was, indeed, 
an outside entity: no reference to "the state" being Spencer 
Griffin is ever given.  I guess it just seems to me that you were 
using an unsubstancial attack against somebody else as an excuse 
to think about yourself.  That sort of conceit really bothers me 
(you could call it one of my turn offs), especially if, in the 
context of this forum, that person posts frequently.  I'm sorry to 
inform you, Tom, but I spend very little of my day thinking about 
you.

:Thus the question I saw was; If a writer makes superficial 
:alterations to some of his own writing does it constiture blatant 
:plagiarism?

Actually, legally, in a way, yes.  Tom Fogerty was sued (by his 
old record company) for ripping off his own song "Run to the 
Jungle" and re-releasing it as "The Old Man Down the Road."  This 
doesn't have much to do with anything--just another fact to put 
into your head, thus leaving less and less room for your favorite 
childhood memories.

I love me more than I love me,
Al

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 22:02:02 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

First, The State was a comedy show, I believe on comedy central, 
and is still a comedy troupe of some sort.  Shortly after the 
show was cancelled, a large portion of the members went on to do 
another show called "Vive Variety", a show (also on comedy 
central, and also canceled) that mimicked the format of the 
Sonny and Cher variety show.
Now on to Tom,

"I guess it just seems to me that you were 
using an unsubstancial attack against somebody else as an excuse 
to think about yourself.  That sort of conceit really bothers me 
(you could call it one of my turn offs), especially if, in the 
context of this forum, that person posts frequently.  I'm sorry 
to 
inform you, Tom, but I spend very little of my day thinking..."-
Al Angel

(before Arlen gets to it: poor Al its 'unsubstantial')
Call me conceited as well Al, because if someone posted a 
message in direct response to mine (The Real Next Level -&- re:The 
Real Next Level) that had a confusing but obviously insulting 
nature I, like Tom, would automatically assume they were 
insulting me in some way.  
Seems to me that there is a whole lot of Tom bashing going on, 
and this doesnt seem to be anything new either.  I think it 
should be mentioned that there are people who will argue the 
point of whether those who wish to remain anonymous have bad 
intentions while other not so anonymous fellows are attacking 
another based on such petty things as spelling mistakes and 
personal turn-offs.  

Tom:  I see you go week after week up on that stage, undeterred 
by unfavorable responses to your work but instead seeming to 
take them in to account and trying to improve yourself. I admire 
that.  Its more than even I am willing to do.

And now a few words to Balls:
I am much relieved to know that you do indeed have a ball sack, 
and I wish you to know that I would never have questioned that 
in public.  I would think though, that if someone did accuse you 
of being without and did so on the board that you would want to 
respond on the board so anyone who had read the accusation could 
also read your response.  Otherwise everyone on the board would 
go on wondering if Balls had a sack.  You see?  But you do make 
some good points and though I cannot meet you more than a 
quarter of the way, you will notice a real email address nestled 
comfortably inside the name hyperlink and making a cameo 
appearance below.  I still dont believe that an honest critism 
of ones work requires a 'christian' name to be effective, or for 
that matter an insult.  In fact these anonymous insults seem to 
be less inspired by malice then those coming from less anonymous 
fellows.

Two Cents
cents_two@hotmail.com  

Time: Mon, 26-Mar-2001 23:48:42 GMT     IP: 128.255.55.78

while other not so anonymous fellows are attacking 
another based on such petty things as spelling mistakes 
and 
personal turn-offs.  



    I believe I made it clear that the spelling error was not what 
I was basing my attack on.   It _was_ funny to me that Tom 
would misspell genius while saying "You think you're all like 
smartee and stuff, but you're not!  Hey, you know something?  
You're not," but I brought up "geniouses" because of the 
quotation marks, because of the accusation and judgment 
they represented.  To specify,

Accusation: "You think and have expressed that you are a 
genius, in a way that is distasteful to me."

Judgment: "'Tain't so."

   
Tom and Neil:

    Please list which authors at which times have produced  
"overtly pretentious...self-serving" "pieces" and 
"masturbatory, self-imortant crap," respectively.  This is a 
request frm me.

            Arlen Lawson

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 02:19:52 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

I'm torn in this anonymity thingonymity.

One one hand I have to agree with Balls and say that if one 
wants to defend one's self against an anonymous attack 
one must think of everybody while doing so and that isn't 
fair.  But on the other hand, if it is a criticism of ones work, 
it's always best to just shut the hell up and take the criticism.  
But then again on the other hand, Balls was more talking 
about insults, I assume like the "pretentious bastard" thing.  
And you gotta stick up for yourself.  But on the other hand, 
who gives a damn what everybody thinks.  No Shame 
performers are, in a sense (perhaps more than one sense), 
local celebrities.  I've been recognized in public and friends 
of mine that attend No Shame have said things such as, 
"Hey, I saw that No Shame guy with bug eyes and blond hair 
at the Java House today."  Perhaps we should be able to 
deal with the gossip that comes with being performers.  
Plus, if someone is so cowardly and immature that they 
post an insult without even giving a name then what does it 
say about those who feel the need to defend themselves 
against it?

But then there's the issue of crediblity.  Two Cents does 
often make valid comments but because she/he won't even 
give me the common courtesy of a first name, I don't take 
him all that seriously.  And if this is the intent, then what's 
the purpose?

I guess what it all comes down to is this:  You anonymous 
people do have valid reasons for remaining such.  But all 
you are REALLY doing is aggravating those people you are 
trying to help.  And that's mean.  So please just be nice to 
us, ease our pain, and give us your real names.  
Constructive criticism good, Deconstructive criticism bad.

Or!

If you want to remain anonymous then at least lie and give 
us a name that at least sounds real. Then we'll just assume 
you're an audience member and we'll actually be quite 
pleased that you are responding to the show.

Kosher?

-dan

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 03:23:05 GMT     IP: 128.255.188.45

I would like to be criticized. I wrote a dramatic trialouge that 
was taken to be a comedy. I would be interested to hear why. my 
only thought is that the sketch involves sexuality. I was at least 
happy that it wasn't described as "girl removes shirt." I guess it 
says something about my writing that it didn't come off as more 
than a bargirl, and maybe I should leave it at that.

either way, this was my first time getting on stage with a script 
that I had written. I'm excited for feedback (positive or 
negative). I've been checking the boards obsessively, but to no 
avail! *sniff* *sniff*

pareve?

-kate

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 03:44:09 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

You would rather I pacify you with lies?  How would that help my 
comments to be taken seriously?  Only that you wouldnt know it 
was a lie? I really dont see the difference in posting 
under 'John' or 'Jane' rather than 'Audience' or 'Two Cents'.  
Does it help to say that I am an audience member?  But then, so 
are you.  Anyway I think Ive exhausted this topic and might try 
actually commenting on the show.
TC

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 04:51:58 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

0.5 "The Girl Trouble Oracle" by Chris Stangl. 1:03
[Stangl, Lawson; comedy sketch] Liquor solves shyness, pregnancy.

-I dont have much to say on this except that I am always amused 
by them.  It is to his credit that Chris has used the same 
format/theme, whatever you want to call it, so many times and Ive 
only found it less than amusing once, this was not that once.

1. "The Wrong Number Sketch-0" by Chimpanzee {Tom Knapp} 2:36
[Stangl, Knapp, River, Clarke; comedy sketch]  Sadistic 
telephone operator and parrot harass customers.
-Profane parrot always good.

2. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part One: Microcosm" by Al Angel 0:21
[Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  A romance begins.
-Short, witty, but not very original.

3. "Amanda's Storytime" by Amanda 2:36
[Amanda; comedy improv]  Extemporaneous tale of "Arlen's Fat 
Butt" involves Arlen's consumption of squirrel pee.
-Interesting and seemed to hold the audiences attention 
especially with the beginning participation for the name of the 
title.  Reminded me of Mad Libs, it was always amusing to see how 
those would turn out and so was this.

4. "Blind Man's Bluff" by Tom Kovacs 6:05
[Kovacs, Negron, Rust, Phoedra Gay, River, others; comedy 
sketch]  "Sam Negron" (Kovacs)'s blindness revealed as sham; 
"Negron" beaten.
-This started out strong and lost me somewhere in the middle.  
The impression was well done and I liked the part with Paul Rust 
in it.  The action broke up the monologue.  I didnt especially 
like the ending.  I suppose this mainly has to do with having 
seen to many pieces ending with someone being beat up.  Almost as 
if, "I have no idea how to end this", "well we could just have 
the guy beaten up at the end".

4.4. "Things That Were Wrong With `Batman and Robin'" by Joel 
Schumacher )0:08
[?, ?; comedy sketch] George Clooney and Arnold Schwartzenegger 
are those things.  Blackout.
-Perhaps if the title had been repeated somehow at the beginning 
of the piece it would have been funny?  

5. "Normalization" by Kate Chisolm 6:04
[Chisholm, ?, ?; comedy sketch] Bar girl's conscience laments 
her bargirl behavior.
-I thought the part of the conscience was well written and 
performed.  I think that it might have been stronger without the 
second girl.  If it was all played by one girl, a little more 
difficult but doable, it would have been more dramatic and less 
funny.  This could have been accomplished by some freeze framing 
or dimming of lights and the character visibly stepping out of 
herself without the bar guy moving.  I think the girl taking off 
her shirt was distracting and possibly not necessary.  I think 
the laughing came from the bar guy's lines because the guys could 
identify with what he was saying as things they might have said 
to get in a girls pants and the girls would have laughed because 
they had heard a guy say it to them.  A bitter laugh maybe, but a 
laugh all the same. 

6. "My Lovelife at Age Sixteen" by Nella Christo Arbock 2:51
[Clarke; monologue] Nella consumes hallucinogen, crashes four 
wheeler, contemplates naked man.
-Aprille brought more life into this one then some of the 
previous ones Ive seen.  Other than that most of these have been 
frustrating for me because they seem to start out going somewhere 
and then dont deliver.  I guess anti climatic is the word.  

7. "Putty" by Lisa Day 4:46
[Day, ?; monologue]  Unwanted grapefruit dooms would-be romance.
-There was something really great about this one.  I cant seem to 
grasp exactly what.  Although I dont understand the purpose of 
the guitar player, that also happened in Toms piece.  If the 
background music somehow enhances the piece then so be it, but I 
didnt feel it did in either of these.  

7.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Two: Parallax" by Al "Horatio" 
Angel 0:15
[Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  Romance now includes sexual 
relations.
-I think this part could have been funnier with some better 
thought out adjectives at the beginning, but using my imagination 
to fill them in for myself did make me laugh.

8. "Coming Soon" by Adam Burton 3:26
[Okiishi, Clarke, Cassady, Weird Al; comedy sketch]  Trailer for 
film featuring sunblock superheroes and "Floppy Porn Guy."
-This one made me laugh, there wasnt anything amazing and there 
wasnt anything lacking.  It was just a typical no shame funny.  

9. "Nobody Puts Baby In the Corner, OR Do You Wanna Wanna Mahna 
Mahna" by Dan Fairchild 2:11
[Fairchild, Clarke; dance]  Comic dance to Jim Henson's 
"Monomonop."
-Had this melodie in my head the rest of the night!  This was 
amusing but Im not sure it was two minutes and eleven seconds 
worth of funny.  I find myself wondering, if this had been 
newbies would it have been funny at all or was it just that 
Aprille and Dan where doing it?  I dont have the answer.    

10. "Who Do You Think You Are?" by Aprille Clarke 5:15
[Rust, Clarke, Fairchild; comedy sketch]  Prostitute specializes 
in golden showers; janitor pretends to be business mogul.
-Too bad I could actually see Aprille spraying Dan with a water 
bottle.  The sounds coming from that side of the stage would have 
been funnier had they not been visible.

10.5. "Genre Pt I: Horror, Also Known as Comedy" by Arlen Lawson 
0:28
[Campbell, Lawson; comedy sketch]  Man debilitated by nerves of 
steel.  Everyone laughs instead of feeling sad.
-Funny.  No more, no less.  

11. "The Deadlies, Part Two; The Orange Pig" by Frank Schroeder 
{J.C. Luxton} 7:00
[Luxton, Okiishi; comedy sketch]  Man steals, eats pie, 
contracts negative body image.
-There was something incredibly amusing in hearing Chris's 
footsteps and then hearing luxton(?) calling for so long 
backstage.  And whats not to love about a man in green underwear?

12. "Stillness a Mop a Kay" by Arly Farly 1:04
[River, Rust, Angel, Fairchild, Clark; musical piece]  Jamal 
bangs pot, leads marching chant.
-fun.

12.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Three: Resolution" by Al 
"Pretty pretty pretty" Angel 0:17
[Clark, Angel; sketch]  Romance dissolved on bus.
-This was a very dissatisfying end to a short trilogy.  A 
stronger finish would have made the first two parts better.

13. "My Own Private Sitcom" by Paul Rust 6:08
[Rust; comic monologue]  Psychosis/ desperation leads boy to 
enact family tragedy as one-man situation comedy.
-Absolutely loved this one.  Hilarious but sad at the end to the 
point where it made me think I really shouldnt have been laughing.

14. "This Is Who We Are" by Neil "Balls" Campbell 4:38
[Campbell, Thompson, Lawson, Cassady, Galbraith, ?; comedy 
sketch]  Parade of horrors commonplace and extraordinary all 
lost in apathy at restaurant.
-This was amusing on the surface but had something to contemplate 
later.  Decievingly complex.

15. "Brown Dead Leaves and a Dirty Broom" by Chris Stangl 6:20
[Stangl, River; autobio monologue]  Small town spook story of a 
body on a lawn passes between generations.  River accompanies on 
kalimba.
I was thinking of the question Chris posted a while back about 
what was wrong with his pieces and wondering if it was where they 
appear in the order.  I found myself thinking as he was up that I 
wished I had more energy to pay attention to what he was saying 
at that point.  This piece was an example where the background 
music did enhance the piece.  It also helped that Jamal was in a 
corner in the dark which removed him from the focal point.  In 
the other pieces with background music I found myself focusing 
sometimes on the musicians rather than the performer thinking 
they might at any moment do something that would validate their 
presence.  I think a good feature of Chris's pieces is how he 
always sets a mood before he begins.  Lights dim, Chris walks in, 
acknowledges Jamals presence by putting his hat on him, grabs a 
chair, sits facing audience, turns towards Jamal when he skips a 
beat, turns back to audience and begins, Classic! 

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 06:29:31 GMT     IP: 128.255.189.150

This is Stangl's response to Sam's impression of me.  It's 
fitting that I discuss both of our impressions in one posting.

"10. "Curse of the Kovacs Clan," Negron
     Extraordinarily weird moments when front row thought 
screaming, flailing Negron may actually be choking to death as 
he shoved wads of paper in his mouth.  Other than that, seemed 
frustratingly improvised (don't improv anything that would be 
better scripted SEEMS like an obvious rule_), any potential 
bright spots drowned in big grey sea of dull.  The 
extraordinarily weird things deserved better, though in anything 
not otherwise boring, the gagging may not be extraordinarily 
weird, so perhaps there is no lesson to learn here.  No idea how 
or why this was a Tom Kovacs impression. Also weird.  "Taste the 
hate" lesson applies: unconvinced that this is a "send up" of 
Tom Kovacs-- just that the two are friends giggling at 
impressions of each other."

This was wierd, and intentionally so.  But, I know how and why 
this was a Tom Kovacs impression.  Sam, one of the better friends 
I've made since moving to Iowa, ran into my room one day and told 
me he was going to do an impression of me.  He said that it'd 
have a gimmick (eating the script) and that "I" would have a 
downfall that the audience might be able to see coming but would 
still find funny(choking on the script).  In the process of 
writing it, he asked for a few random facts about the Kovacses.  
From these tid-bits, and his months of knowing me, Sam created an 
impression of the real live Tom Kovacs that was about 25% 
biographical and 75% wierdness.  Sam spun extended tangents off 
of simple statements like "My brother and sister are adopted from 
the Philippines," "My Dad's an aging musician form Jersey," 
and "Ernie (no known relation) smoked cigars."  However, since 
Stangl has no knowledge of me outside of the things I've written 
for No Shame and the few words I've had with him, he didn't 
realize how good of an impression this was.

Now for my piece, which returned the impression with a somewhat 
similar intent in the writing...

"4. "Blind Man's Bluff" by Tom Kovacs 6:05
-This started out strong and lost me somewhere in the middle.  
The impression was well done and I liked the part with Paul Rust 
in it.  The action broke up the monologue.  I didnt especially 
like the ending.  I suppose this mainly has to do with having 
seen to many pieces ending with someone being beat up.  Almost as 
if, "I have no idea how to end this", "well we could just have 
the guy beaten up at the end"."

Sam can explain what he wants to about this piece, if and when he 
wants to.  But, I have to agree with Two Cents about the 
unsatisfactory ending.  This piece was written with the intent to 
follow the basic plot of The Boy Who Cried Wolf- 1) Fake blind 
man has his jollies at the expense of others. 2)Fake blind man 
gets his cover blown. 3)Fake blind man runs into trouble. 4)After 
the fake blind man gets mobbed and the mob has cleared, the 
lights go down and the now real blind man is left alone on stage, 
crying desparately for help because the mob that just whupped up 
on him gouged out his eyes. 5)Nobody comes to his aid.  The 
audience is left terrified, and some critic is left thinking he's 
seen this plot line before.

This ending, however, did not happen.  And for once, it's not my 
fault.  You see, before the show, I'd talked this whole mobbing 
thing over with a certain three actors who knew how the plot was 
to evolve.  During the show, other actors, namely Stangl and 
possibly one more, who someone mentioned, but I didn't see and 
won't falsely accuse, decided they wanted to get in on the fun 
without really knowing what to do other than "get a few shots in 
on Kovey."  This unwelcome and unauthorized addition to the cast 
threw me and left me for a loss.  Not knowing what he was doing, 
besides stealing my shoe when the lights went out, I let the 
piece end when the chance arrived.  Just thought you'd like to 
know.

I've taken a lot of bashing recently in the board room.  All of 
that (aside from a few clips and phrases someone wrote in MY 
name) I've been able to shrug off lightheartedly.  But trying to 
screw with me like that while I'm on stage and you're not in my 
piece crosses that yellow-snow territorry marking all performers 
(particularly board members/order takers) should instinctively 
know.  And for those of you who are keeping record, this is what 
was on my mind when I first made that overtly pretentious self-
servingness comment.  Now, the brazenly obvious bottom line; if 
you're not in the piece, stay the hell off the stage!

Tom

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 16:26:25 GMT     IP: 205.244.161.61

Forwarded from my email:

Howdy folks,

I hope you're all well and weathering the extended play 
dance version of winter. I have retired my coat to the closet 
in protest of the weather, so if you've seen me wandering 
the streets of Iowa city with only a sweater on and shivering 
and mutering explatives, this is why. So, down to brass
tacks.

1.)   ENGLET BENEFIT CONCERT  --April 1st,  6 p.m.
                                                      The Mill Restaurant
                                                      120 e. Burlingotn.
                  Featuring:
                                    BEN SCHIMDT
                                    Greg Brown
                                    Dave Moore
                                    Sam Knutson
                                    Tom Jessen
                                    Becca Sutlive
                                    Jan Smith
                                    Rita Offutt
                                    Kathryn Muselik.

THis is to benefit the Englert community arts center project. 
Tickets are $20 and go on sale at 5:00 p.m. the night of the 
show ONLY. This is a great opportunity to support a really 
good cause and catch some of the best local
musicians. TO check out more about the Englert go to 
www.englert .org.

          AND

2.)   BEN SCHMIDT  --LIVE!
          Fri,  April 20th
           The Mill
           9:00pm.

Well, thanks again to those at the last show, and welcome 
new folks. I've
been working on some new material and look forward to 
playing for y'all
soon.


peace,

ben

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 16:42:02 GMT     IP: 205.244.161.61

Ok, here's some feedback for you, Kate.  I will start off by 
saying that I wholeheartedly support your participation and 
creative efforts at No Shame.  Please do not get the idea that 
this criticism means that I hope you don't return.  I offer it in 
the spirit that it help you develop both as a writer in general 
and a No Shame writer.

Wussy disclaimer aside:

I thought the writing was confusing.  Until about 2/3 of the 
way through the piece, I thought Woman 1 (I will refer to the 
woman who did most of the speaking) was Woman 2's 
friend or roommate, not an integral part of her mind, 
conscience, or personality.  The writing did not clear up the 
roles, and while this ambiguity could have been effective 
were it a contributing part of the piece, in this context, it left 
me feeling as if the writer just hadn't put much effort into 
developing the characters.
 
on another writing level, toward the end particularly, Woman 
1's voice (literarily speaking) kept changing--it went back and 
forth between first, second, and third person, which further 
added to my impression that not much care had been taken 
in the writing.

Why did people think this was a comedy?  Well, because 
people are used to comedy at No Shame, and it's the default 
reaction.  It's very, very difficult to do a serious piece well.  A 
popular format utilized by myself and others is to perform 
what is, for most of the duration of the piece, a comedy, then 
shift perspectives near the end and have the piece finish up 
serious.  Paul Rust provided an example of how to do this 
extremely well last week.  In order to do a piece that is 
serious from beginning to end, a writer must very carefully 
craft his or her work, as well as treat particularly evocative 
subject matter in a creative and engaging way.

Also, quite honestly...hm, i can't think of a nice way to say this.  
Well, at one point I hooted loudly with laughter, because a 
line struck me as so ridiculous, no one would say it 
seriously.  I was a bit embarrassed when I realized it had 
been meant earnestly.

As for the brief nudity, I found it distracting (except I always 
enjoy nudity, but artistically speaking...) and unnecessary.  
The best analogy I could come up with was this:  if someone 
is on the stage and the role requires eating a hamburger, the 
person has a few options.  The person could actually eat a 
hamburger, the person could mime eating a hamburger, the 
person could chew up a sign that says "hamburger," or the 
person  could so something like smear ketchup on his/her 
finger and say "wow, I'm sure eating a hamburger right now."  
The latter two options draw attention to themselves, whereas 
the first two simply transmit the information of hamburger 
eating.  To me, the bra-scene was the equivalent of the 
finger-ketchup-smear.  Had the scene really been taking 
place, both parties would have been naked (except the guy 
would have been wearing socks).  That would have been 
interesting but frought with potential trouble, especially for 
new performers.  The other option would be not to have any 
nudity and let the writing of the piece transmit the feeling of 
vulnerability and lust that go along with genuine nudity.

as it stood, having a semi-nude woman and a fully clothed 
man on stage together, as if to represent sex, left me feeling 
mildly offended and overly focused on this fact, which did not 
contribute to the piece.

A note on content:  I didn't find the overall message of the 
piece anything especially challenging or innovative, either.  I 
fully (believe me) understand the internal dilemma that 
women develop when confronting issues of sexuality and 
facing societal pressure not to have the aforementioned, but 
this piece ended on a condemnation.  Now, the major 
purpose of this review is not to complain about how the 
content of the piece didn't serve my personal agenda, but 
there's nothing new about saying women who sleep around 
are sluts and hate themselves.  The writing would have been 
more interesting if it had taken some other stance.

I hope this provided useful feedback for you, Kate.  Good luck 
on your future work.

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 22:07:52 GMT     IP: 128.255.188.45

I guess the only thing I can say to this beside expressing my 
gratitude is that there is no need for disclaimer. I really 
appreciate the time and effort you put into your criticism, and I 
will certainly consider it when I write in the future.

by just attending No Shame, you do not learn how to write a piece 
to perform.

thanks again

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 22:34:53 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

If I had the choice of knowing you were hiding behind an 
alias and not knowing the name you give is an alias, you're 
right.  I would rather be privvy to the fact.  But if I didn't know 
that you were hiding behind an alias, then it would at least 
seem the same as me knowing your real name and I 
wouldn't know any better.  In this case ignorance would be 
bliss.  So yes, I would rather you post under a realistic false 
name than one that is obviously a dodge.

You're right in saying that there is no difference between 
posting under names like John or Jane and posting under 
names like Two Cents in that both are lies.  And that isn't 
good.  It's shitty.  But there is a difference, as you yourself 
stated, in that with names like Jane I don't know it is a lie.  I 
don't know the names of everybody who goes to No Shame.  
I'm terrible with names.  And since I have no reason to 
believe that you're hiding anything, I'm going to take you 
seriously.

To illustrate my point.  

Say you began posting under the name Gretchen 
Minklewictz.  I start reading a bunch of posts by Gretchen 
Minklewictz whom I assume is an audience member and I 
think, hmm, thank you Gretchen Minklewictz.  One day I come 
across a post pertaining to myself written by Ms. Minlewictz.

"Awesome," says I. "I wonder what Gretchen has to say about 
me."

Gretchen has some valid points to make, there's a little mud 
being slung but I just assume this to be one ballsy person 
who doesn't pull punches and I respect her for her honesty.

Then one day another person who frequents this board says, 
"Hey, you wanna know who Gretchen Minklewictz REALLY 
is?"  My response:  "You mean Gretchen Minklewictz isn't 
really Gretchen Minklewictz and there is, in fact, no such 
person?  Shit, yeah, I wanna know who it is!"  My next 
response: "This Minklewictz bitch could be someone I know.  
How do I know that the person who alerted me to the lie isn't 
Minklewictz?  This Minklewictz person said that he or she is 
an audience member but then said that I am, too, which also 
leaves the possibility of Minklewictz being a performer." My 
next response:  Well if Minklewictz doesn't even have the 
honesty, courage, and common courtesy to give me a real 
name, then those posts he or she made that I interpreted as 
honesty must have had a hostile intent and they're too 
chicken shit to tell me face to face.  How can I respect a 
person like that?  How can I take comments from a person 
like that seriously?  Fuck Gretchen Minklewictz and all that 
she stands for.

So what you're doing with an alias like "Two Cents" is 
creating suspicion, taking up space on the board (since 
anything you have to say isn't taken seriously), and therefore 
pissing off the people you want to help which is beautifully 
illustrated by all the posts pertaining to anonymity including 
this one.  

This is mean.  You are being a mean person.  Stop it.  You 
must give respect to receive it.

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 22:45:05 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

I wished I had the energy to focus more attention on what Chris 
was saying. Its really horrible that the rest of what I actually 
wrote on this review was lost somehow but I will try to recreate 
it here.  I found that the background music of this piece was 
more relevant than in the grapefruit piece and Tom's piece.  This 
is because it set a mood and also Jamal was in the corner under 
dimmed lights so it was obvious that he was not to be a focul 
point and therefore my full attention was on Chris.  A strong 
point in most of Chris's pieces is how he sets the mood.  In this 
piece he walks out, acknowledges Jamal but puts his hat on him, 
furthuring the point that he is not to be focused on.  He grabs a 
chair, faces the audience, looks once more at Jamal when he skips 
a beat and nods almost as if Jamal is a record player that Chris 
has just set right.  Then he speaks.  There is an amount of grace 
and class that are prevalent in most of Chris's pieces that I 
havnt seen equaled on the No Shame stage yet.  Dont pay attention 
to word choice or spelling, I just realized that the full text 
was not on my last post and tried to duplicate it as soon as 
possible under very tired circumstances.  
TC  

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 23:19:36 GMT     IP: 64.0.99.137

My name is Nick, perhaps I will mostly repeat things Aprille has 
said.

I did laugh at several times during the piece, but I thought that 
it had a  serious and tragic heart.  I personally very rarely try 
to write comedy, but I take it for granted that when a piece by me 
is finished, there will be things in there which folks will laugh 
at.  That is good in a sense, because it keeps an audience which is 
interested in laughing at a piece from mentally discarding it.  In 
the same sense that most of the Stangl Drunkard Skunkard skitches 
make a body laugh and then wonder at the tragedy of what s/he is 
laughing at, so is all humor embedded in a serious piece.  (As for 
serious musical pieces... well that's a different discussion)
     So I don't think that the fact that folks laughed at your 
piece indicates that the audience felt nothing of its emotional 
weight or philosophical worth at all.
     As for the semi-nudity, I understand Aprille's point that it 
didn't really make sense, and I agree, though as an audience 
member, it made me uncomfortable in a way which I thought behooved 
the piece's message.
     So, in summary, I think that you should willingly accept any 
laughter that is latent in the writing or in the performer-audience 
dynamic, but try to be attentive to how that can serve your own 
artistic interests.
     The fact that the posted order describes the piece as 'Comedy 
Sketch' really only indicates the easiest and most automatic label 
that can be slapped on a NS performance; though the person who 
posted the piece descriptions may have a better explaination of 
this.
Aloha,
Puppy Dog Clark

Time: Tue, 27-Mar-2001 23:45:06 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

I think this could very easily been perceived as a dramatic 
sketch had the performance been different.  I can really see 
this piece going either way.  Perhaps you didn't convey to 
your actors that this was to be serious? There was no 
rehearsal which could have helped this, was there?

I think what sold this as a comedic piece the most, though, 
was that you, and your actors, broke character several times 
and laughed.  So perhaps you yourself saw this as a 
humorous piece?

But then, once again, I'm missing the point.  What you want to 
know is what MADE it a comedic piece.  Well, for me, you are 
depicting a guy picking up a girl at a bar, which is a scene 
which is often satirized, often by the participants conveying to 
the audience what they really think.  So we've already been 
conditioned to laugh at it.

How to remedy this?  Perhaps have the guy seem like more 
of a jerk.  Phil Nohl is friggin' excellent at pretending to be a 
jerk.  Also perhaps make the heroine hesitate a bit before 
just blurting out, "Okay!"  so we can actually see that there are 
serious thoughts going through her mind.  Again, this would 
have been remedied by rehearsal.

So I guess all I have to add is:  Rehearse.  Go through it at 
least once.  It's a lesson I only recently learned.

wuv,

dan

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 00:07:27 GMT     IP: 64.210.241.103

Chris Stangl said this in his review: (#3)

:0.5. "The Breathalyzer Test," Stangl
:Note on The One Nick Clark criticized for not actually 
:being about alcohol: a) I make no promise my blackouts will 
:concern drinking culture b) many- "Kissing Booth" "The Fight"- 
:are not about liquor.

I am Nick Clark.  Here is what Chris referrs to:

:"The Breathalyzer Test," by Chris Stangl:.
:Kind of funny, mostly a lot the same as the rest of the drinking 
:shorts. The drawback of this particular one was that it drew more 
:attention to sucking off a cop than it did to the pathos of 
:alcoholism.  Thus it became more of a cheap joke than a cautionary 
:tale.

Nowhere did I say that it was not about alcohol.  In fact I did say 
it was about alcohal, cause it was.  I use the term 'Drinking 
Short' clearly differentiating it from pieces such as "Fight" et 
al.  I never criticized the fact that it was not about drinking, 
what I criticized was the fact that, though it was about drinking, 
it lacked the inherent criticism of alcoholism the other alcohol 
related bits had. It drew comic attention from the decadence of 
alcoholism to something else.  Pardon the pun but it felt like a 
"cop-out".  Now, with regard to Chris' response, please READ (or 
reread as necessary) my criticism before you respond to it.  You 
make me sound like a fool for offering such a dimwitted criticism 
of this piece, and I think I do a good enough job of that on my 
own, thank you very much.

Cheetos,
     Clark

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 01:17:49 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

I am still tired but here goes:  First I think it is interesting, 
or maybe its more a matter of human psychology, that in order to 
take an opinion seriously it must come from a person that you can 
identify with or assign characteristics to such as gender, 
standing (audience or performer), knowledge of (do I know them 
personally), etc.  Although I still question the validity of 
this, I dont see anyone else saying it isnt so therefore I might 
have to just accept the possibility that it just is so.  I have, 
so far as I know, never posted anything that wasnt honest or 
could be construed as 'mean'.  Even saying that I am 'a mean 
person' is an attempt to assign a persona to me.  I also find 
interesting the difference in tone of the two posts that you have 
made.  The first was somewhat polite.  The second invents a 
hypothetical situation wherein you feel free to call me 
a 'bitch'.  I wondered what brought on the change, I re read my 
last post to you and then thought, ahh, the critique, well then I 
guess the one I gave your piece wasnt all that favorable.  I want 
to make you certain that had nothing to do with your post.  It 
was an honest opinion of your piece.  Perhaps that had nothing to 
do with it at all but its awfully suspicious when I go 
from 'having valid comments' to being a bitch and 'a mean 
person'.  Perhaps you should stop questioning my motives and look 
at your own.  
After I read Toms reply about what happened to him on stage, I 
thought it was a horrible thing for Chris to do, if in fact he 
did do it, yet I still re created the comments (that didnt make 
my original post) as near to what they where (prior to reading 
Toms reply) as I could.  Point being that despite what I might 
feel about Chris personally, I gave my honest opinion of his 
work.  Likewise, though Ive felt that there has been some meaness 
pointed in Toms direction I still gave my honest opinion of his 
work, unfavorable as it might have been.  I think that as Two 
Cents I have not demonstrated meaness, that I have demonstrated 
honesty and overall I dont think any of this is that big of a 
deal and that perhaps Dan is taking it too seriously.  But if I 
am wrong,  If the majority of those who post on the board feel 
that I am wasting their time and that they cant take my critiques 
seriously then I will not post here any longer.  Unfortunatly I 
will not and can not give my real name though I intend no malice 
by it.
TC

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 05:35:04 GMT     IP: 128.255.107.234


Hello, this is Paul with a review. Just a reminder that it'd be 
neat-o if there were more reviews from the audience. Dig? Dug... 
Funny and Skeeter Valentine. 

0.5 "The Girl Trouble Oracle" by Chris Stangl. 1:03
[Stangl, Lawson; comedy sketch] Liquor solves shyness, pregnancy.
This was good because it found another way of telling the joke. 
Instead of being a boring "man asks friend or doctor for advice" 
sketch, Stangl had it told thru an oracle's perspective, which 
was new and fun to watch. Alone, the concept of fetal alcohol 
syndrome would have been funny, but by taking it down a 
different avenue, it was better.

1. "The Wrong Number Sketch-0" by Chimpanzee {Tom Knapp} 2:36
[Stangl, Knapp, River, Clarke; comedy sketch]  Sadistic 
telephone operator and parrot harass customers.
Good writing and acting. The only problem I had with this one 
was the physical comedy at the end. Physical comedy's good. 
Nothing wrong with that. It just looked really awkward. Physical 
comedy can only be good with a lot of practice (unless it's 
intention is to be awkward) and given No Shame's lack of 
rehearsal time, this physical comedy should thus, be limited.  

2. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part One: Microcosm" by Al Angel 0:21
[Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  A romance begins.
I'll split my review for each section. First off, the title is 
interesting to me. Normally, I would think the true in "true 
love" would mean the actual loving is honest, respectful, etc... 
but since it's all capitalized, it looks as if its saying the 
trilogy is true as in like t.v. movie titles (i.e. "The True 
Tale..."). I don't really know what is being said by all this, 
it just sparked my interest. Perhaps Al Angel could tell us what 
it means on this crazy message board?

3. "Amanda's Storytime" by Amanda 2:36
[Amanda; comedy improv]  Extemporaneous tale of "Arlen's Fat 
Butt" involves Arlen's consumption of squirrel pee.
Nervousness is really funny to me, so I liked this piece a lot. 
I know Amanda probably has a nice niche with this storybook 
improv style and it does definately work, but I'd like to see 
her try different things. She obviously has a knack for creating 
stories, so I wonder what it would be like if she put her ideas 
into a drafted script. She should try it. If it fails, then  
maybe go back to improv.

4. "Blind Man's Bluff" by Tom Kovacs 6:05
[Kovacs, Negron, Rust, Phoedra Gay, River, others; comedy 
sketch]  "Sam Negron" (Kovacs)'s blindness revealed as sham; 
"Negron" beaten.
This was good, but it went on too long. If Tom would have 
streamlined his core ideas into a strong four minutes, it would 
have been really good. 

4.4. "Things That Were Wrong With `Batman and Robin'" by Joel 
Schumacher )0:08 [?, ?; comedy sketch] George Clooney and Arnold 
Schwartzenegger are those things.  Blackout.
Someone suggested that they should have said the title before 
the lights came on. Although I agree that this may have created  
a stronger reaction from the audience, I think it was just a 
savvy comedic move. For people who remembered the title from 
read-thru, it became a twist on joke-telling (set up/thirty 
minutes later... punchline) and for for people who didn't 
remember the title, discovering the title later would have also 
made it a twist on joke-telling (punchline/then set-up). And if 
people still discover the joke, then its just weirdness and 
that's funny, too.

5. "Normalization" by Kate Chisolm 6:04
[Chisholm, ?, ?; comedy sketch] Bar girl's conscience laments 
her bargirl behavior.
I think "first performance" jitters were pretty evident with the 
breaking in character and such. Hopefully, this will get worked 
out with more performances as they become more comfortable. For 
anyone planning to do a piece at NS for the first time, however, 
just be prepared for the audience to laugh, so you don't laugh 
with them. It's hard for some people not to laugh with an 
audience though... people like me.

6. "My Lovelife at Age Sixteen" by Nella Christo Arbock 2:51
[Clarke; monologue] Nella consumes hallucinogen, crashes four 
wheeler, contemplates naked man.
There's some interesting back-and-forth that's going on here. 
Although there was some definate Nella Christo Arbock touches 
throughout this piece (the poetic form of nostalgia, 
whistfulness, etc.), it felt very much like an Aprille Clarke 
piece because of her dedicated performance. This is by no means 
a criticism. I found it exciting to see two different people 
approach and create a concept thru writing and acting. This 
maybe a general lesson in "acting for others' writing." It's 
good to find a way to make it your own, but still give a feeling 
of someone else's art, so it gets the justice it deserves.

7. "Putty" by Lisa Day 4:46
[Day, ?; monologue]  Unwanted grapefruit dooms would-be romance.
Acting was very good. It seemed dedicated to sticking to its own 
point without straying for the audience's pleasure. I'm assuming 
this came from a lot of thought and rehearsal.

7.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Two: Parallax" by Al "Horatio" 
Angel 0:15 [Angel, Clark; comedy sketch]  Romance now includes 
sexual relations.
I liked these overall sketches because it was very "Ren and 
Stimpy"-ish. Not that the characters were gross or animated for 
that matter, but because there was this weird ambiguity between 
friends, secret lovers, overall gender. At first, I thought 
maybe it was a gay couple, but by this second sketch, they were 
in a position done commonly by heterosexuals (I maybe naive and 
wrong here, however), so it made me wonder who was playing the 
girl and who was playing the boy. And this was great because it 
allowed the audience to question what they find typical for 
genders in a relationship. 

8. "Coming Soon" by Adam Burton 3:26
[Okiishi, Clarke, Cassady, Weird Al; comedy sketch]  Trailer for 
film featuring sunblock superheroes and "Floppy Porn Guy."
Funny piece. Great acting. I wish Adam would write more. 

9. "Nobody Puts Baby In the Corner, OR Do You Wanna Wanna Mahna 
Mahna" by Dan Fairchild 2:11 [Fairchild, Clarke; dance]  Comic 
dance to Jim Henson's "Monomonop."
Good that this wasn't forced into some comic set-up or 
resolution. Just it by itself was good enough.

10. "Who Do You Think You Are?" by Aprille Clarke 5:15
[Rust, Clarke, Fairchild; comedy sketch]  Prostitute specializes 
in golden showers; janitor pretends to be business mogul. 
Since I liked this piece and didn't find anything wrong with it, 
I'll just use this space to apologize for me fucking up the tone 
in the end by running into the curtain.

10.5. "Genre Pt I: Horror, Also Known as Comedy" by Arlen Lawson 
0:28 [Campbell, Lawson; comedy sketch]  Man debilitated by 
nerves of steel.  Everyone laughs instead of feeling sad.
Its cool to see Arlen toying with his own conventions. He had 
done "the narrator describing characters" sketches for awhile. 
And doing it well, I might add. But by kind of parodying that 
style with this blackout sketch, it was humoursly self-knowing 
and deprecating (sp?).

11. "The Deadlies, Part Two; The Orange Pig" by Frank Schroeder 
{J.C. Luxton} 7:00 [Luxton, Okiishi; comedy sketch]  Man steals, 
eats pie, contracts negative body image.
This is a good lesson in taking a standard sketch and twisting 
it into another concept. The "eating someone else's pie" bit is 
so standard, but by turning it into a forum discussing body 
image and self-loathing, it made it new and interesting.

12. "Stillness a Mop a Kay" by Arly Farly 1:04
[River, Rust, Angel, Fairchild, Clark; musical piece]  Jamal 
bangs pot, leads marching chant.
This was so good-hearted, silly, and fun. Jamal should perform 
his sketches for No Shame audiences AND children. That's a 
compliment, too, by the way.

12.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Three: Resolution" by Al 
"Pretty pretty pretty" Angel 0:17 [Clark, Angel; sketch]  
Romance dissolved on bus.
Funny that this was entitled "Resolution" since it commonly 
wouldn't be considered one. I liked it alth

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 05:45:19 GMT     IP: 128.255.107.234

11. "The Deadlies, Part Two; The Orange Pig" by Frank Schroeder 
{J.C. Luxton} 7:00 [Luxton, Okiishi; comedy sketch]  Man steals, 
eats pie, contracts negative body image.
This is a good lesson in taking a standard sketch and twisting 
it into another concept. The "eating someone else's pie" bit is 
so standard, but by turning it into a forum discussing body 
image and self-loathing, it made it new and interesting.

12. "Stillness a Mop a Kay" by Arly Farly 1:04
[River, Rust, Angel, Fairchild, Clark; musical piece]  Jamal 
bangs pot, leads marching chant.
This was so good-hearted, silly, and fun. Jamal should perform 
his sketches for No Shame audiences AND children. 

12.5. "The TRUE Love Trilogy; Part Three: Resolution" by Al 
"Pretty pretty pretty" Angel 0:17 [Clark, Angel; sketch]  
Romance dissolved on bus.
Funny that this was entitled "Resolution" since it commonly 
wouldn't be considered one. I liked it although I think it could 
have been better if it had a joke in it like the rest. Not a "ha 
ha ha" joke like the others, but a sort of bittersweet joke.

13. "My Own Private Sitcom" by Paul Rust 6:08
[Rust; comic monologue]  Psychosis/ desperation leads boy to 
enact family tragedy as one-man situation comedy.
Sorry this went over five minutes.

14. "This Is Who We Are" by Neil "Balls" Campbell 4:38
[Campbell, Thompson, Lawson, Cassady, Galbraith, ?; comedy 
sketch]  Parade of horrors commonplace and extraordinary all 
lost in apathy at restaurant.
Sly, funny way of commenting on society. Instead of beating the 
audience over the head with, "See how stupid people act and 
talk," it was done thru jokes and acting that seemed silly 
enough to not feel like a sermon.

15. "Brown Dead Leaves" by Chris Stangl
Chris avoided boring the audience by not just reading a story he 
had written aloud. He created a character that had a justifiable 
reason for telling the story. This was also good because it was 
one of the few times that I felt music, lighting, and props were 
needed to enhance the story and the mood. They weren't just 
there to be different or cool. That would be a distraction and 
these weren't.

That's it. By the way, ALL my songs are now up at 
www.mp3.com/paulrust. Check them out if you feel so inclined.

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 03:03:08 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

The whole thing of not taking you that seriously has nothing 
to do with what you are or who you are.  What it is is this: 
since you don't have the common courtesy to give us your 
name, if doing so is so damning, why should we trust what 
you have to say and take you seriously?

Furthermore, I was not just talking about you.  You are the 
most vocal example and so I used your "name" just as you 
did.

Also, I'm sorry if you took my words as insulting to you.  The 
hypothetical situation described using those words does not 
describe your situation at all since we have always known 
that your real name isn't Two Cents.  This should also have 
been clear by the fact that you, as far as I know, have not said 
anything that could be considered malicious in this board.

The purpose of the hypothetical situation was to show that if 
you want to remain anonymous, there are ways to do it and 
be taken seriously.  That part was directed at you.  But like I 
said, the situation itself does not describe yours so I was not 
calling you a bitch. Even if the hypothetical situation was 
pointed solely, directly at you, the term "bitch" was used to 
show the frustration that results from all this anonymous 
garbage.

But even though I did not call you a bitch, I still apologize for 
the perceived insult.  And it had nothing to do with your review 
of my piece.  I didn't even perceive your review to be that bad.  
It accomplished what I thought it would I agree with you 
where you said it faltered.

What I find interesting is the fact that you would rather 
disappear completely from this board room and not voice 
your opinion at all than give a real name.  But I guess that 
after all this crap, bickering and what not, giving your real 
name would be kind of awkward and I definitely apologize for 
that since I've been a part of it.  I'm prepared to drop it.  The 
whole purpose behind my posts was that there's a better way 
to remain anonymous is all.  If you want to drop it and tell me 
your real name, email it to me and I won't tell.  If I know you, 
so what, if I don't, then so what again.  If you don't want to tell 
me, once again, so what.

wuv,

dan

Time: Wed, 28-Mar-2001 20:21:24 GMT     IP: 128.255.193.23

Re reading the posts, alluminating them with the light of sleep, 
I find areas that seemed dark at the time are really only gray. 
Rather, I seemed to have jumped to unfounded conclusions, my 
apologies.  You seem to have landed straight on my situation, to 
name myself now would be a bit awkward.  I hope I can offer you 
some solice in that if I where suddenly to drop my real name you 
would not know me any better than you do now.  I am, more than 
not and more so than you, an audience member.  Does that help?
TC

Time: Thu, 29-Mar-2001 04:01:27 GMT     IP: 208.50.80.71

I don't pretend that I have anything valuable or interesting to say 
about the show.  If you have a problem with me posting a review of 
the show anyway, grow up.

0.5 "The Girl Trouble Oracle" by Chris Stangl. 1:03

This piece manages to enact every stock feature of the Drunkard 
Skunkard formula, yet still come off as fresh and original, as well 
as amusing.  How?  Perhaps it is the sheer volume of pieces in this 
category which causes each new one to seem unique.  Perhaps it is 
the fact that, while dealing with hackneyed subject matter, and in 
many cases hackneyed jokes, the pieces achieve some sort of 
originality in writing -&- character voice.

1. "The Wrong Number Sketch-0" by Chimpanzee {Tom Knapp} 2:36

Clever writing was eclipsed by clever and apt casting.

3. "Amanda's Storytime" by Amanda 2:36

Amanda's things have been my hardest laughs of the semester.  I 
didn't laugh as hard this time as I did at the first Amanda thing I 
saw; I believe the smaller space (not to mention her yucky 
trousers) detracted and distracted from her peculiar mode of 
spontaneously generated humor.  I really like the stage persona she 
projects - a sort of amphetimine joy which reminds me, like all 
good things, of Ani DiFranco.

4. "Blind Man's Bluff" by Tom Kovacs 6:05
There were some funny things in here, but it clearly needed some 
editing, and this is something I would have said even if I hadn't 
seen the running time.  In fact, the time would perhaps be more 
reasonable if the excessive beating had not taken place.  But time 
is not the issue.  As with almost every Kovacs piece, there's too 
much stuff in here which doesn't really matter to me as an audience 
member; or rather, it doesn't matter enough to warrant its effect 
on pacing.

       4.4. "Things That Were Wrong With `Batman and Robin'" by 
Joel Schumacher )0:08

I liked this piece a lot at the time that I saw it.  I had no 
recollection whatsoever of the title, and I don't think I would 
have liked it if I had remembered the title.  It's a great little 
blackout to simply have two people whose faces I don't recognize 
identify themselves as people I don't know whose faces I would 
recognize.

       5. "Normalization" by Kate Chisolm 6:04
       [Chisholm, ?, ?; comedy sketch]

See separate post.


       6. "Putty" by Lisa Day 4:46
       [Day, ?; monologue]

I felt like this came closer to accomplishing what Normalization 
wished to accomplish - perhaps by seemingly acknowledging the 
potential of laughter within a serious piece: humor and laughter 
which do not make an audience happy or giddy, but stab like diamond 
daggers into their eyeballs.  Though I had assumed that 
Normalization pursued a similar tack, that intent was clearer here.

       7. "Coming Soon" by Adam Burton 3:26
       [Okiishi, Clarke, Cassady, Weird Al; comedy sketch]

A fun bit of seeming fluff which provided a bit of relief from more 
serious pieces.  A lot of really well crafted jokes and some very 
well advised casting.  Most floppy porn guys do look a bit like 
Mike, after all.

       9. "Nobody Puts Baby In the Corner, OR Do You Wanna Wanna 
Mahna Mahna" by Dan Fairchild 2:11

A fairly successful attempt on Dan's part to capture the joy of AJM 
River's distilled humor; a single non-joke drawn out to a long, yet 
tolerable length allows the audience to give up on trying to find 
the joke and laugh and/or enjoy theirselfs because whatever is 
happening, it's neat and fun, and most importantly - in the same 
way as a song by a talentless bubble-punk band - it's fun to watch 
because the people doing it look like they're having fun.

       10. "Who Do You Think You Are?" by Aprille Clarke 5:15
       [Rust, Clarke, Fairchild; comedy sketch]  

Enjoyable and depressing and sexual like most Aprille stuff.  
Neither as affecting nor as laughable as it may have had the 
potential to be.  Why?  1) Golden showers hold relatively little 
inherent shock value.  2) That the janitor was really the boss etc. 
was obvious too early in  the piece to establish the kind of really 
affecting reversal that Clarke usually uses to drive home her 
morals.

       10.5. "Genre Pt I: Horror, Also Known as Comedy" by Arlen 
Lawson 
       0:28
       [Campbell, Lawson; comedy sketch]

What is an extra-short piece?  It exists as a moment set within 
blackness.  Because the ratio of piece length to blackness length 
favors blackness so much more than longer pieces, the blacknesses 
and the pauses become the primary feature of the peice.  Thus there 
is no space in which to establish a universe with tangiable 
parameters, the piece exists outside of the parameters of daily 
life, or of imaginary space.  In this unique area, anything said 
holds a strange resonance, as if we have been given an objective 
glimpse though a tear in our own reality.  That is why I feel that 
this piece so genuinely made the utmost use of its structure:  Here 
arlen calls into burning, deeply painful reality the insanity of 
the idioms we fling around thoughtlessly.

       11. "The Deadlies, Part Two; The Orange Pig" by Frank 
Schroeder 
       {J.C. Luxton} 7:00
       [Luxton, Okiishi; comedy sketch]

I believe that, though 7 minutes long, this piece had only two 
lines: "Chris, is this your pie?" and "I'm such a fat fuck".  Yet 
enough things occurred through the course of the piece that it did 
not lose my interest.  A fantastic use of space and silences took 
the place of dialogue effectively.

       12. "Stillness a Mop a Kay" by Arly Farly 1:04
       [River, Rust, Angel, Fairchild, Clark; musical piece]

Having not been able to see this from the audience, I can't be 
certain how it read.  I didn't have the impression I was 
participating in a comedy sketch.  I'm not sure what I was 
participating in, but it was fun, and neat, and a good simple idea.

       13. "My Own Private Sitcom" by Paul Rust 6:08
       [Rust; comic monologue]

This was my favorite Rust piece so far, and of course that says a 
great deal.  Did what several previous Rust pieces had attempted 
and failed at: set up a pathetic situation the full weight of whose 
pathos only gradually became evident.  The same situation's 
whackiness burned itself out, therby revealing the pathos secreted 
beneath.

       15. "Brown Dead Leaves and a Dirty Broom" by Chris Stangl 
6:20[Stangl, River; autobio monologue] 

Placed in a deliciously immersive sensual environment:  dim lights, 
watch chain, sleeveless undershirt, hatful of dead leaves, misty 
thumb piano.  There was enough strength in the purely sensual 
elements to make the piece work regardless of the text, but the 
text evocatively echoed the spooky environment of the stage and its 
rythm let it work as lyrics in a sort of accidental song in 
communication with the thumb piano which, yes, did seem to come 
from a mysterious, elemental source rather than from a personality.

They Called me Mister Tibbs,
     Now they call me Nick Clark 

Time: Thu, 29-Mar-2001 18:15:18 GMT     IP: 128.255.109.19

No help needed, but thank you.  Like I said, so what.  Just 
wanted to make it less awkward if you did want to tell your 
name.

dan

Time: Sat, 31-Mar-2001 01:02:47 GMT     IP: 4.4.74.81


1- I did not at any point take or attempt to take Tom Kovacs' 
shoe from off his person at any No Shame performance.

2- I DID drunkenly rush Tom Kovacs during his piece last Friday, 
albeit in a mob of others.  The persons leaping from the 
audience seemed unruly and not invitation-only, and I honestly 
thought Tom Kovacs would not mind-- indeed WANTED-- people to 
mock-beat him.
       Having read the script, I do not think I affected the 
outcome of the piece (it was over, same ending), but since he 
feels my unwelcome presence onstage hindered his performance, I 
apologize.  I did not take or touch his shoe, which would be 
mean.  I apologize again.

3- I did misspell Phaedra Gay's name.

4- Re: Sam Negron's Kovacs impression.
 Kovacs asserts that I don't know him well enough to judge 
Negron's impression.  That shouldn't matter, and doesn't: If the 
audience has to be best friends with T. Kovacs to "get" the 
jokes of him, than those are  self-indulgent inside jokes, 
useless to most of the audience.
     That, however is not what I was criticizing: Negron's 
evocation of Kovac's at-home backstory is not the issue here.  
Sam Negron did a poor impression: that is, he doesn't sound or 
move like Kovacs.  In an impression one would copy and 
exaggerate Tom's speech patterns, personal tics, etc.  Example: 
Negron's voice is naturally lower than Kovacs', whose voice 
sometimes squeaks and cracks.  Instead of tightening his vocal 
cords and going for the upper Kovacs-registers, Negron 
nonsensically LOWERS his voice and talks like Chris "Corky" 
Burke, which may have been funny and weird... but it doesn't 
sound like no Tom Kovacs.
   Tom Kovacs, for the record, does a pretty fucking good Sam 
Negron.
                      -Chris Stangl

Time: Sat, 31-Mar-2001 08:42:51 GMT     IP: 205.244.160.53

NO SHAME THEATER  March 30, 2001

Announcements, order:  Aprille Clarke, Neil "Balls" 
Campbell

0.5  "The Dream Girl," by Chris Stangl:  C Stangl, A Lawson.  
[C and A discuss the merits of having an alcoholic girlfriend; 
comedy sketch]

1.  "Union Bar Mid-Winter Contest 2001 aka Tits -&- Ass Meat 
Show!!!" by Jenny Stoke -&- Erin King:  J Stoke, E King, A 
Galbraith.  [J and E get fully clothed, accompanied by Bjork 
and A; comedy sketch]

2.  "Son of Nelson," by Al Angel, Virgie Woolf, -&- Noam 
Chomsky:  A Angel, nearly everyone else who has ever 
written or performed at No Shame and was in the audience.  
[A falls down, pandemonium ensues; repeat.  A finds 
quarter; comedy sketch]

3.  "800 Feet Deep," by Dan Fairchild:  D Fairchild.  [D 
whimpers, cries, and eventually leaves the stage; 
patheto-comedy blackout]

4.  "Atrophy Wife," by Mark Hansen:  Steph Braun.  [While 
talking on the telephone, S reveals her gradual loss of body; 
serio-comic monologue]

5.  "The Deadlies, Part Three:  The Yellow Frog," by Melissa 
Crownover:  JC Luxton, A Burton, A Galbraith.  [AG lassos 
and gets pizza, AB repays debt to JC by being hogtied; 
comedy sketch.]

6.  "Ken Interrupted," by Tom Kovacs:  T Kovacs, A Galbraith.  
[Despite disapproval by the light booth, T delivers a 
Romeo-and-Juliet-based monologue to a Barbie; comedy 
sketch.]

6.5.  "The Tale of the Giggly Bumblefucker," by Andy 
Plumshower:  N"B" Campbell, M Cassady.  [N"B" and M 
reveal the true source of Dr. Chris Oki Ishi's massive libido; 
comedy sketch.]

7.  "Genre, Pt. II:  WESTERN," by Arlen Lawson:  A Lawson.  
[In a Western setting, A reveals the beauty of an 
unconscious Indian, ever the butt of local jokes; serio-comic 
monologue.]

8.  "ImproviZe This!" by Jeffrey L. Hansen:  JL Hansen, M 
Hansen, D Fairchild, S Griffin, M Cassady, JC Luxton.  [Most 
of the aforementioned receive roles and motivations, then 
improvise; improvisational comedy bit.]

9.  "African Violence," by Aprille Clarke:  A Clarke, C Stangl.  
[Woman eats African violet, man euthanizes dogs, pain 
ensues; serio-comedy sketch.]

10.  "Chemistry Sucks," by Erin King:  M Brooks, S Griffin, P 
Rust, M Cassady, E King.  [All but E represent variously 
charged sub-atomic particles; E describes; comedy sketch.]

11.  "Sock 'em, Rock 'em," by Spooge Spencer Griffin:  S 
Griffin, M Hansen, P Rust, D Fairchild, T Kovacs.  [S, M, and 
P use sock puppets to tell tales; they are accused of 
plagiarism; comedy sketch.]

12.  "Four Seconds in the Rectory," by Paul Rust:  P Rust, M 
Cassady, T Sherwood.  [M-as-priest masturbates, realizes 
source of arousal is a porn-star parishoner (T), mutual 
horror ensues; comedy sketch.]

13.  "A.A.," by Dan Katz:  A Clarke, N"B" Campbell, D 
Fairchild, M Cassady.  [Several Bobs attend an A.A. meeting 
with varying contributions; comedy sketch.]

14.  "The John the Baptist Blanket, or:  GOD!  Get Out of that 
Machine!" by Chris Stangl:  C Stangl, A Burton, A Lawson, M 
Cassady, N"B" Campbell.  [AB recounts an old-testament 
story of dancing and violence; N"B" dances under the 
influence of drugs; C takes off his clothes which made me 
not be able to pay attention to what he was saying; AL and M 
describe their S-&-M activites; comedy sketch.]

15.  "The Stare," by Neil "Balls" Campbell:  N"B" Campbell.  
[illuminated from below, sitting upstage right, N"B" delivers 
a monologue.  I apologize for not being able to provide more 
details; dramatic monologue.]

Time: Sat, 31-Mar-2001 17:11:18 GMT     IP: 205.244.167.101

Hey, I was rearranging things in the back seat of my car last 
night to make room for passengers and I found a set of 
keys, owner unknown to me.  The last time I threw anything 
in the back seat of my car was No Shame 3/23, so I'm afraid 
I picked them up there and then accidentally.

341-6682, describe to claim.  because you're supposed to 
say that about keys.

Time: Sat, 31-Mar-2001 17:43:07 GMT     IP: 205.244.160.86

1) #6.5 was not by "Andy Plumshower," but was in fact written 
by "Audrey Plumshower III."  A friend of mine.

2) A fair description of piece #15 might be "Monologue about 
staring through a car windshield."  Just for the record.

Okay.

Balls

Bonus Number! 3) Hitting return after entering name and email 
will not move your cursor into the subject window; instead, it 
yields unforgivable results.

Time: Sun, 01-Apr-2001 06:12:01 GMT     IP: 208.129.184.106

This is my first review.  I really have much theatre background 
yet, so don't expect any long words or truly deeo thoughts, 
which I have none of.


0.5  "The Dream Girl," by Chris Stangl:  C Stangl, A Lawson.  
[C and A discuss the merits of having an alcoholic girlfriend; 
comedy sketch]
This is just another point toward the fact that excessive 
drinking always yeilds whacky results!  I have come to  love 
these little show starters like a brother I had, but moved 
away.  

1.  "Union Bar Mid-Winter Contest 2001 aka Tits --&-- Ass Meat 
Show!!!" by Jenny Stoke --&-- Erin King:  J Stoke, E King, A 
Galbraith.  [J and E get fully clothed, accompanied by Bjork 
and A; comedy sketch]
Anything that is making fun of the mauscline, testosterone 
driven bar called the Union is always good.  You were expecting 
the girls to take off thier clothes!  not put them on!
it was a welcomed poke at the seedy underbelly of Iowa City.

2.  "Son of Nelson," by Al Angel, Virgie Woolf, --&-- Noam 
Chomsky:  A Angel, nearly everyone else who has ever 
written or performed at No Shame and was in the audience.  
[A falls down, pandemonium ensues; repeat.  A finds 
quarter; comedy sketch]
random humping + lot of running + lots of screaming = Hilarity!

3.  "800 Feet Deep," by Dan Fairchild:  D Fairchild.  [D 
whimpers, cries, and eventually leaves the stage; 
patheto-comedy blackout]
I didn't know if I sould cry or laugh at this, I ended up 
laughing at it.  I'm not sure if that was the message he was 
trying to get across, but crying is usually funny in most 
circumstances.

4.  "Atrophy Wife," by Mark Hansen:  Steph Braun.  [While 
talking on the telephone, S reveals her gradual loss of body; 
serio-comic monologue]
I liked how it was actually like a phone conversation, she kept 
breaking in between sentences and doing typical phone like 
things.  this monologue was sad in a freaky-sad sort of way.

5.  "The Deadlies, Part Three:  The Yellow Frog," by Melissa 
Crownover:  JC Luxton, A Burton, A Galbraith.  [AG lassos 
and gets pizza, AB repays debt to JC by being hogtied; 
comedy sketch.]
The funny thing about this one is it was surprizingly lifelike.  
This kind of thing has happened to me before.  Not the entire 
being hogtied thing, but the lasso type thing.  Someone wants to 
show off a new found skill, but they find they are not skilled, 
and then we laugh at there misfourtune.

6.  "Ken Interrupted," by Tom Kovacs:  T Kovacs, A Galbraith.  
[Despite disapproval by the light booth, T delivers a 
Romeo-and-Juliet-based monologue to a Barbie; comedy 
sketch.]
The lightbooth interaction at the beggining was very neat and 
original.  I also like how the lightbooth guy sounded like some 
sort of god.  I didn't really like the idea of the G.I. Joe and 
Barbie, that seems alittle to predictable to me, but It was 
overall a funny piece.

6.5.  "The Tale of the Giggly Bumblefucker," by Andy 
Plumshower:  N"B" Campbell, M Cassady.  [N"B" and M 
reveal the true source of Dr. Chris Oki Ishi's massive libido; 
comedy sketch.]
These kind of sketchs are the reason I come to no shame.  They 
are short, very funny, and the best part is that they leave 
little to think about so you can be ready for the next skit with 
very little follow-up questions...the only question I had was, 
was that a real X-ray of a penis?

7.  "Genre, Pt. II:  WESTERN," by Arlen Lawson:  A Lawson.  
[In a Western setting, A reveals the beauty of an 
unconscious Indian, ever the butt of local jokes; serio-comic 
monologue.]
I like Arlen's writing alot, I done remember much about this 
skit.  I just remember Arlens type of stuttering acting making 
me giggle like i used to back in 3rd grade.

8.  "ImproviZe This!" by Jeffrey L. Hansen:  JL Hansen, M 
Hansen, D Fairchild, S Griffin, M Cassady, JC Luxton.  [Most 
of the aforementioned receive roles and motivations, then 
improvise; improvisational comedy bit.]
I think this could have been better, but it was improv...so 
there is not much you can really do.

9.  "African Violence," by Aprille Clarke:  A Clarke, C Stangl.  
[Woman eats African violet, man euthanizes dogs, pain 
ensues; serio-comedy sketch.]
This one's ending had me thinking all night.  It was a powerful 
skit that stuck with me well into the night.

10.  "Chemistry Sucks," by Erin King:  M Brooks, S Griffin, P 
Rust, M Cassady, E King.  [All but E represent variously 
charged sub-atomic particles; E describes; comedy sketch.]
Alot of running + chemistry made fun = This sketch!

11.  "Sock 'em, Rock 'em," by Spooge Spencer Griffin:  S 
Griffin, M Hansen, P Rust, D Fairchild, T Kovacs.  [S, M, and 
P use sock puppets to tell tales; they are accused of 
plagiarism; comedy sketch.]
I have been reading this board for awhile now...and I really 
want to know who two cents is too.  I don't remember much fro 
this skit either.  I know I laughed at it quite a bit, I just 
don't remember exacaly what it was though.

12.  "Four Seconds in the Rectory," by Paul Rust:  P Rust, M 
Cassady, T Sherwood.  [M-as-priest masturbates, realizes 
source of arousal is a porn-star parishoner (T), mutual 
horror ensues; comedy sketch.]
masturbating is also one of those things that will make people 
laugh no matter what, and this skit had masturbating everywhere 
you looked.  It had quite the plot twist at the end that made me 
fear to ever go into a rectory again.

13.  "A.A.," by Dan Katz:  A Clarke, N"B" Campbell, D 
Fairchild, M Cassady.  [Several Bobs attend an A.A. meeting 
with varying contributions; comedy sketch.]
everyone's name was Bob!..what are the chances of that!  very 
slim I tell you.

14.  "The John the Baptist Blanket, or:  GOD!  Get Out of that 
Machine!" by Chris Stangl:  C Stangl, A Burton, A Lawson, M 
Cassady, N"B" Campbell.  [AB recounts an old-testament 
story of dancing and violence; N"B" dances under the 
influence of drugs; C takes off his clothes which made me 
not be able to pay attention to what he was saying; AL and M 
describe their S--&--M activites; comedy sketch.]
This sketch is what made my night.  The beach party thing was 
fun.  This was your typical "really funny" no shame skit...and 
the dance at the end sealed the deal for me.

15.  "The Stare," by Neil "Balls" Campbell:  N"B" Campbell.  
[illuminated from below, sitting upstage right, N"B" delivers 
a monologue.  I apologize for not being able to provide more 
details; dramatic monologue.] 

I was honestly scared after this one...the though of a giant 
raccoon with a human head now lingers in my dreams.