What do you think of this as an idea for a play?

Hi guys. I'm a writer constantly developing new ideas for stories. This is one I came up with last month and am wondering what you think, whether you think I should pursue it? Here goes... It wants to be a Drama in Three Acts, and it tells the story of two theatre owners from the 'burbs. Katie and Andy are their names. They are husband and wife. Katie is a big deal actor who seems to have it all, but when a real estate agent enters her family's life she realizes that what she really wants. What she has yearned for her whole life is being the tempress leader of a big-deal cult on a property in NSW. That's all I got at this stage. I've got my finger on the pulse and am open to suggestions, so go for it. Let me know what you think?

Until I read the bit about wanting to be a cult leader I wasn't intrigued... Throw in some satirical insights about Scientology and cults in general and you've got quite a funny show. (If you haven't started to do research yet, I have so many links I can send you on cults, skepticism, and the like. There's so much to be found on the net, and quite a lot of it could make a play in and of itself) Singing oyster shadow puppet for sale at Puppets in Melbourne

You'll need to find a justification for them being theatre owners and find a way for her career to have got her thinking about the cult thing. Are they short of money or is she looking for something new. It might be nice to have her husband and the audience believing she is actually serious and then finding out she's cynical that leads you into Na's suggestions above. Be careful about putting too many undeveloped ideas on the net or you may find someone else will write the play first. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

For story-structure purposes, sure, have 3 acts...by which I mean an introduction section which leads to the first big cliffhanger; a middle section which amps up all the drama, twists and complications; and a final section which has the big climax or twist, and then wraps it up. But I would totally avoid thinking about writing it in 3 actual acts with 2 intervals, and in fact I'd suggest trying to write it into ONE act unless the story structure absolutely demands being split into two halves with one interval. Splitting a play into acts requires each part to virtually work as a play all by itself. The end of an act needs to leave us definitely wanting to return, the beginning of an act needs to start from scratch and pull us back into the action after being distracted outside. Far easier to write it as a complete uninterrupted unit. Don't impose an interval unless you're sure you can pull it off. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

And dont base the names on real people you have an axe to grind with!

As a new member to this site, I wasn't entirely sure I would receive a response to my post, so no small thanks goes to; "Na", "Logos", and Craig for their intial responses and earnest insights. I appreciate it very much and I want to tell you three that you have made me feel welcome. Anyway, let's continue dancing, indeed. I'm what some will call an "aspiring writer" - which seems like code, these days, for wanting to turn a hobby into a profession - so I value the inspirational and insightful story-structure details. I can see the good sense of setting out to write this play in One Act and then using intervals if and when they're needed and as described. A play people will want to read, see, or hear is one which will often need cliffhangers, twists and complications. If I keep in mind what Craig has outlined than that's solved for now. Thanks again, Craig. The warning on including too much story here, in fear of having someone else write the story first is very much a valid one. Thanks for the heads-up, "Logos". I'm a fast writer and will use the popular script registration the Writer's Guild offers to stamp a date on the work when it's finished. The storyline: If we take and use our world famous actor here in Australia, Cate Blanchett, as inspiration for our lead heroine than what we have is the beginnings of our exploration of her justification for her setting out on this particular course of her life. She is a woman who is loved the world over, no doubt. However, she comes to the realization that even with the power of this massive celebrity she can't really do much about such a trivial thing as it first appears; her neighbours keeping her and her family up, night after night, week in week out. While the idea to move comes up, she realizes there's a bigger thing at play here. Essentially, she can't do much about being surrounded by people she dislikes or who she judges as unworthy of being in her presence. People not as educated as her, or those simply who don't have her impeccable manners and refinement. To a large extent she can control who comes near her. But, she lives in society and not on some mythical patch of turf above it, so as in society she will eventually come into contact with a number of people she finds undesirable and has no control of meeting. Not just her neighbours mind you, it's these "clingy, sweaty people" from the wings of common life as she describes them. She sees herself as intellectually superior so if she can solve the problems posed at the "Canberra Summit" she can solve the problem of this pressing need to become something more in her life and create this utopia for herself and her burgeoning family. Yes, there is some more to flesh out here to round off this need for her, emotionally, but it's pretty much on the surface and with "Na's" suggestion of researching Cults on the internet, I should find the common thread inherent in most, if not all, cult leaders before they became cult leaders. "Na's" cynical aspect idea for the story may be good to explore if I get stuck, but at this stage it feels better to explore this dark need of her's from the pit of her emotional being. I'm sure we all know or can sense the dynamics behind people's attractions with such things, so getting beneath her skin, so to speak, should prove easy enough. I can do wit, but comedy is not my strong suit so I'm not sure I could pull-off a "funny show". On the other hand a play does need laughs in the right places as Ira Levine would say, so I won't discount satire entirely. To continue; I get her to the meeting with a new visitor in her life (possible love interest here) which is the real estate guy, let's give him the refined name of Reginald; who offers her the slice of country NSW property which will accomodate her vision and drive to get this thing going. As mentioned, and being true to the idea - which makes Reginald more likely to be her lover - is the notion that he sparks the cult idea in her mind. Maybe he says something like (and this is the only thing I know about cults apart from a few things about the R/C medieval cults) that Australia was the first country to deem Scientology as not a cult, in fact, but a religion. The intricacies of such a judgement is really interesting to explore and seems it could be a real pivot in the story, where and when it would fit. Then, country life begins for her and her family, amongst tertiary students who come to stay by camping on the expansive property. If she can manipulate the media, there shouldn't be too much difficulty of doing the same with students who bow before her temptress ways. What is here that will interest audiences? Is it sex? Is it the likely failing of yet another utopia? Is it both? Is it the continual exploration of her need to be in this position, amongst these "normal" people as she calls them? Or, is it something common in Australian society which has an opened dialogue, but which hasn't been explored thoroughly? The lights come down and the music fades... Thanks guys.

My apologies for the lack of paragraphs but in my excitement I guess I got carried away.

Why not, Walt? ...even if say I do happen to be holding an axe.

Be very very careful of using real people as identifiable models unless you are using material that is incontrovertibly true. Other wise you may find yourself in the courts. Writing satire is not necessarily a protection against libel charges. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Not to nitpick, but as an aspiring writer, can you please use paragraphs? That's really hard to read... (And here I'll add that I did an editing course and so it's natural for me to 'nitpick' in this fashion) EDIT: Never mind, just saw your apology... Anyway, the common thread of any cult seems to be having a charismatic leader (find out more about where 'drinking the kool aid' phrase comes from, or look at fundamentalist Christian groups for examples, or as mentioned, scientology), as well as perhaps an idea of 'salvation'. There's plenty of cults out there who believe aliens are coming to save us too. The issue for you I think will be making your character charismatic enough to pull something like that off, whilst still retaining a certain amount of obnoxiousness as required by her being snobbish. Another thing you could look at is an architect (I forget the name, but he's very famous, American, and worked in the 60s) who set up a whole camp where he would invite students to develop ideas and designs. It became very cult like (I wish I could remember the name now) Perhaps combining a throng of young idealistic/naive actors on a camp somewhere works as a cult? Anyway, just some thoughts... Singing oyster shadow puppet for sale at Puppets in Melbourne

Are you thinking of Paolo Santi the arcology guy. Edit: Sorry, Paolo Soleri. Duh, I'm an idiot. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I agree with you Craig. 3 act plays are a bit of a theatrical relic now I'm sorry to say. Not a lot of contemporary audiences have patience for them - and the complexity of your theme may be difficult to sustain over such a long performance. Many writers find a lot of value in writing shorter works and workshopping them with actors. In Melbourne we have Crash Test Drama, Short and Sweet and the Melbourne Writer's Theatre to rattle off just a few. Perhaps, while you are still playing with ideas, themes and characters you may like to pen a 10 to 30 minute version of your work and try it out. You may then discover that your work lends itself better to a 50 minute timeframe. Hope this helps. Tulipa.

Don't know. I watched part of a doco, and can't remember the name. If I remember or find out what it is, I'll post it. Singing oyster shadow puppet for sale at Puppets in Melbourne

Absolutely. Thanks, Tulipa. That is certainly the best way to go, I can see that now. After all, writing should be a journey of discovery, a journey into the unknown. Allowing the play to develop without any preconceived structure will give it a more organic construction in the end. If we in Sydney don't have anything like what you have described - which I think is unlikely, but I don't know, so I'll check - than it proves, yet again I'm afraid, that Melbourne is the cultural capital of Australia. Thanks Tulipa.

Many thanks. All your comments, warnings, thoughts, and ideas - encourage me to give this subject matter a firm application of my effort. I have printed them out and stuck them to the wall beside my work area. All except Walt, that is. The canvas is stretched and the framework you have helped to construct demands I make a start forthwith. I'm indebted to you ...and the best way I know to repay your assistance to me is to assist others on this site in the way you have assisted me. Cheers, Daniel.

I am not entirely convinced that the well made 3 act or 2 act play is dead. I realise we are attempting to attract people who are used to getting their entertainment in bite size chunks of 30 minutes or 1 hour on TV but none the less the stories we are trying to tell must sometimes take more time than an episode of 2 and a Half Men or CSI. I have written a number of 10 - 15 minute plays and they are great for exploring an idea and can be very entertaining. I have been involved with or produced a number of shows comprising of these plays and have done reasonably well with audiences but I still think that the true measure of our medium is a full length play. It give both the writer and the actor a chance to thoroughly explore a character and bring it to life as well as really exploring the true depth of the message or issue that you wish to examine. I do agree that developing an idea through several stages can be productive particularly if the various stages are in some way taken through a process of dramaturgy but in the end you must decide how long the play is going to be and write it but be careful of unnecessary padding to make it the length you think it should be. If a scene does not drive either the character or the plot on further then it is probably unnecessary. Sydney has it's own Short and Sweet Festival and there is almost certainly some sort of writers organisation that offer some assistance. The Australian Script Centre is in Hobart but they have a website you can check on and if I remember they have links. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

As a new member to this site, hopefully I may throw some thoughts of assistance your way. I tend to agree with some of the other feedback on your question, that the play needs to be broken down into three parts. What I think I would need to see is where the relationship thread comes from with Katie and Andy being Theatre owners and who the real estate agent is to them. Also how that real estate agent envokes Katie's urges to be a cult leader. As regard to the genre being Drama, my first impression was that it may work as a black comedy, with slippets of clues that lead you into each act. This would keep the audience interested abit like a noisy neighbour with their nose over the fence. Thank you for the chance to contribute my first post. Go for it Maggie Mac

Theatre owners, the 'burbs... I'm being drawn to the idea that they inherited this business after a family members death. And even though Katie perhaps got her start in acting here many years ago, there just isn't the same magic she felt as a youngster and well running the place is a full-time career in of itself. The question of: What are we going to do with a theatre, now that we own one? - is being interposed with loud music, shouting and the constant noise from the next-door neighbours. The real estate agent is perhaps not the first person you ring when faced with unruly neighbours, but with, a money no object mentality the thought to move does come up. Reginald could be the young son of the family friend who got Katie and Andy's present dwelling. I'm not sure about Katie and Reginald's meeting. Sometimes the characters just have decide for themselves during the writing process. Or, in this case you can assist me by making a suggestion. I'm not sure Katie goes into it solely to be a cult-leader, maybe that's in the back of her mind because of something Reginald said to her, didn't say, or something else in or from her life. She certainly has this urge to fully control her life. I mean she's just lost a loved one, because she's inherited the theatre, so thoughts associated with that come to the fore, and there's also the fact that being a celebrity she's being wheeled around like some delicate puppet with little to no say in the matter. And, I think we all know what happens when we become sleep deprived. A utopia, from a philosophical point-of-view or standpoint begins to become a real attraction. What do you need for such a place? A big country property. Who can help with that? The real estate agent. I like your black comedy idea and "the slippets of clues" can possibly be of how she's going to regain control of her life. That could certainly be interesting, especially when the fence we have our nose over happens to be a celebrity. ...just need to check the wall beside my work area.

An earlier suggestion: "It might be nice to have her husband and the audience believing she is actually serious and then finding out she's cynical." So I'm thinking perhaps vice-versa. Having the audience believe she's cynical after the idea came up to found a utopia in the country, and finding out she's not. Perhaps now that I've written the above I'm not sure about it, however there is a thread here that suggests to me that it's important to absolutely decoct the common links already made, with what will be engaging for us the audience. I need to strecth that canvas a little tighter, me thinks. Many thanks, Mac.

I'm sure there are many cults which get started with the leader less fanatical. Then as they develop more fandom and more pressure to provide 'answers', they start to believe their own hype. I reckon that's how scientology's gotten where it has; one loony man in the 60s who wrote some books, had some crazy ideas, but then people latched on and he started getting a little more loony. Rinse, repeat. It seems the bigger the fanclub and the more they believe, the more the leader is able to drive the belief. If you haven't, do check out cults at Wikipedia, there's a lot of good examples and stuff. For more of a 'debunk', there are also plenty of pro-science, pro-critical thinking blogs and sites out there. (Can't think of one specifically on cults, but you can always hunt around randi.org; I know there should be something there on scientology. If nothing else, it makes for a good read on how people come to believe things that aren't necessarily true or right) Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

Definitely good ideas and inspiration. "Debunk" - which I hadn't thought of - will be good to pose questions for the opposite side of the debate that either Katie or Andy will hold, I think.

Yes, I think the trick here is to figure out the arguments on both sides, and then apply what is relevant to each character. I actually wrote a monologue years ago on someone who still believes the earth is flat: it's quite tricky to write from that point of view (well, someone else's POV) without either making it sound over the top, unrealistic, or poking fun/being abusive. I guess for me making the character seem 'normal' or at least making the audience believe that there might be something to the theory is to put a human face on it. Whilst the ideas themselves may sound silly (and many of them are, since there's no evidence behind them), there are people who legitimately believe them to be true; whether it be in the form of pure faith, or from anecdotal experiences from friends and family, to believing 'trusted' or 'well-respected' authority figures. (Case in point: people believing that condoms don't work because the Pope says so. Which of course isn't scientifically true) I'm not sure if my point is clear, but I hope it makes sense on some level. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

I understand the point your making completely, but as a practising Catholic who actually applies critical thinking to the authority of the Vatican (and that is to say I don't agree with everything they come out with) I will choose to overlook your "case in point" as in my view, there's significant evidence supporting Pope Benedict's argument, ie: the Phillipines scientific survey into the matter (making it scientifically true.) The Pope, and Church teachings is a whole other thing here, but since you knew from my earlier posts that I knew something about the R/C medieval cults it was likely that you could have thought that I was someone who was Catholic. I don't know why that's important and I don't want to get into it with you, apart from saying that it's not appropriate to what we've been discussing from the outset. I mean the Vatican has been a positive force for human kind for 2 millenia and they do in fact have their own scientists now. Scientists who have more independence to give voice to their findings than those scientists, say, who came up with the WMDS findings in Iraq. Now I'm ranting, me thinks. I hope it's fair though, what I've said. Nevertheless, the common resolution for instances such as the one we have found ourselves on because of your "case in point", in this Liberal scientific Democaracy is to agree to disagree. Heck, what you've said makes sense on several levels. I certainly don't think of you any less for it. Wait at a minute -- Is that Katie's or Andy's line. Whoa... Now I definitely need to get away from this computer for a while. Peace out, my friend. Australia is the best country in the world.

I'm sorry: let me just say that I had no idea that you are Catholic from the posts. I assumed nothing about your personal religion from what you wrote, in fact it didn't even enter into my head about your beliefs until I read the above comments - I only mentioned the Pope thing as I happened to be reading a rather long discussion on it a week ago and it just happened to be an example of what I was saying. Don't take offense by my comments, it was certainly not intended to be anything; and I'm not making any statements as to any religious beliefs or religion in general. Again, the story just came to mind and I'm not equating it with cults; perhaps I've been off in my own head too much and didn't think about the sensitivity of religion before I typed. I apologise for that. (As for science and anti-science in regards to religion, let's just leave that out of the conversation since it's not particularly useful in context of your question/play. I think on that, yes we probably would agree to disagree) Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

I appreciate your comments very much. Shows you to be a person of high regard. Let me just add that I had no intention that my own position with the inclusion of my statement about my religion was to somehow suggest to you that you moderate your comments, here. You're entitled to your opinion, I respect you for it, and while we're on the 'net and anything goes, first and foremost we are Australians and it is the best thing in the world, indeed, that we could discuss religion in public and not get shot over it, or shoot one another. We all get that way... Topics get into our head in this constant, 24/7 news-cycle world and whether we like it or not we take a position.

Oh, I'm not moderating my comments. I'm just trying to stay on topic: I really don't feel like getting into a discussion on religion here on a theatre website. Plus, you are quite right: religion is a sensitive topic and I could easily put some people's noses out of joint without intending to. Angels fearing to tread and all that ;) I think it's also that I've been reading a lot of pro-science stuff lately, and it crosses over into debates on religion. There are some quite militant atheists out there, and I think there is a tendency on the net to forget that the anonymity of typing does not mean you should belittle other people's beliefs. I disagree with these particular methods of debating religion, and so I'm making more of an effort myself to avoid coming across as offensive. Either way... I'm all for open discussion, just not where it starts being offensive. (What's the phrase... "your rights stop at my face" or something :)) Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

Staying on topic is fine with me. Anyway, science and religion cannot co-exist. They just can't. So, when you have one person reading a lot of pro-science stuff and another contemplating his position in regard to his own religion, you're going to get some sort of conflict along this old fault-line. I think we can agree on one thing: No offense has been taken by either of us. I'm glad. I know, I know... stay on topic!

I was all prepared to return to discussion on the play idea, but on coming back to type, I realised actually some stuff that's not on topic along the lines of what we've been discussing might be useful to you. (Ah, well, not quite on what we've been discussing) Funnily enough, the way I started reading pro-science topics was basically similar to you. I was hunting for some good things to write about for a play, and am always fascinated by mythology. So I started reading about random topics, like cryptozoology, alien sightings, etc. That lead me into topics on cults, which lead me to pro-science (really skeptical sites) stuff, and that lead me to astronomy, and that lead me to places like randi.org, which is all about critical thinking. I can spend days at a time just reading the comments on one blog post about a controversial topic; and actually the debates are intelligent (for the most part) and quite insightful. A number of times I've had my own ideas about my life (though not my religion, as I don't have one) challenged, or a new thought occured. This may seem irrelevant for discussion on your play, but thinking on how I got to reading certain things made me realise that many of the topics you've suggested are interconnected: participation in a cult requires a certain set of thinking to be pushed aside, like critical thinking. A leader of that cult must be able to find a way - whether they realise it or not - to suspend critical thinking. Whether it's belief in Bigfoot, aliens, or that girl over there is actually the god Thor (for the sake of keeping this discussion going, keep in mind, I'm not offering an opinion on religious beliefs or equating cults with religion), there is a certain mindset that appears. Funnily enough, it's probably the same thing happening in cults that happens when you go to theatre; a suspension of 'reality'. I have two really good examples of weird cultism and lack of critical thinking. This one is a real eye-opener. http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html A woman in America who believes she is the channel for a 35 000 year old 'spirit guide' from Atlantis and/or heaven (from the article it seems to be both). The woman seems to have thousands of followers, and a copyright (wait for it...) on access to this spirit. Honestly, there's enough in there for 20 plays. If you really dive into what the woman says and read the stuff from her followers, it's a good insight into human beliefs. For a real world example of something similar to your idea (and here it should be mentioned that it's not a cult, but certainly has some cult-like aspects of the 'leaders' being made into martyrs by their own fans/believers) look up anti-vaccination and Jenny McCarthy. Do especially read comments on both pro-science and pro-McCarthy sites. There is a bucketload (actually an entire planet's worth) of debate going on out there, which gives excellent insight into how people think and relate to authority figures - whether the authority is warranted or not. Note that you shouldn't be looking so much at the reasons behind the whole anti-vax thing, since there's legitimate emotional responses behind that (although not science), but rather the way the movement has latched onto its princess, Jenny, and seem to take her word over the word of a doctor. If you don't know her background, look that up too, as she has rather interesting beliefs even before the anti-vax stuff. (It should be noted that this particular example has absolutely nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs whatsoever; it's a fight completely over science) For something else useful, I recommend checking out this site: http://skepdic.com It has a lot of really good historical posts; kind of like a Wiki for skeptical topics, including lots on cults and events relating to cults, and further reading links/books. There's also plenty of articles on the mind and the way the mind works in regards to believing in things. Anyway, the whole reason I replied to your thread in the first place is because I find the whole cult/mythology stuff fascinating; and reading both for and against arguments are a great way to figure out both how people act on either side, but also figuring out how your characters should think, talk and act. Hope all of that makes sense, and you can start to see the angle I was coming from in previous posts. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

"I'm sure there are many cults which get started with the leader less fanatical. Then as they develop more fandom and more pressure to provide 'answers', they start to believe their own hype. I reckon that's how scientology's gotten where it has" You can probably go further back than that. If we could ask Jesus whether he intended his teachings to be turned into the Christian religion, I'm sure he would not have been called a 'fanatic' in the way many Christian groups now are.

I think if you were to ask a theologian that question he would absolutely say that Yes!, Jesus intended his teachings to become a religion. (St.) Peter was the rock upon he built his Church. Period! Which Christian groups are you referring too, in particular? I don't know that any one or sevral are fanatical as such. What do you mean by fanatical? I don't know that any Christian group are using their beliefs, ie: The Bible - to start Holy War. Perhaps you are mixing things up with those Muslims who misinterpret the Alcoran? Those that have got us into this disorderly accumulation of hate and violence around the world. And more... As far as I'm willing to go back...? There's plenty of evidence available, now, in our present history to draw inspiration from, me thinks. I apologize in advance if that sounds wrong to you, I understand you were just wanting to make a positive contribution. Perhaps don't latch on to a topic so hard next time around. Peace out.

Danmak, I highly suggest DFT (hover your mouse over the acronym for an explanation). I suspect a troll... Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

WOW! When you said you had some stuff on this topic you weren't kidding. This is beaut-bonza, "Na". Let me say; I'm glad you replied initially, and have carpeted the thread with your thoughts. New and exciting avenues are opening up in my writing (yes, I've started the play) and inspiration, and that basically means more options for the characters to explore. Primarily though, the idea to perhaps show how Katie begins to relish the power as the leader of a Utopian society and her wanting more and more of that power, and showing how that becomes skewed toward Cult behaviour and authority. There's a certain narrative within that dialogue that has the potential to interest audiences, I think. And there's plenty more here to explore... What can I say, you're a writer, you know how it feels to be really excited by an idea.

I see... Cool. I get it, now. Told you guys I was new to this place.

I'm glad it's inspired you, or helped in some way. For me, what began as a passing whim to read up on odd beliefs has given way to an entire universe of new topics and ideas. As for being excited about writing... not much these days. I update my site 5 times a week, plus make puppets to sell and free tutorials... there's so much going on, it's hard to stay excited for long; kind of why I needed an inspirational boost with all these topics in the first place. (Although I have to admit, something I'll be posting on this website on Friday will be pretty huge. I'm very very excited about that) Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

I'm sure you can sense from my posts that it has. I'm glad. It's nice that there's a place like this and that it is what we make it. Thanks for the exclusive. I (I'm sure we all) look forward to your post on Friday.

:) I too am glad. It's wonderful when verbal exchanges can offer something useful on both sides (especially on this site, where of late I have found it increasingly abused by trolls) Tomorrow's 'exclusive' will be good. I spent today preparing for it, and I'm glad to say that my preparations went well and that people should enjoy the fruits. I've been planning this since late last year, so it's pretty exciting for me. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

It has been recently suggested to me from someone of little noteworthyness and substance, that I'm a lazy (insert expletive here:) for posting this topic for discussion. It was conducted through "private" message on this site. Let me assure everyone who has made a positive contribution that that is not the case. I'm always writing. While I'm working on something I'm already thinking about another possible work which may need doing. This was such an instance, and I value all your contributions and assistance. I think you know that. By allowing myself to open-up a new idea I allow my subconscious to get to work on solving its inherent problems, and somehow the idea progresses, changes, and eventually finds its way onto the page. In this case you had all helped to accelerate this process. If in some imagined future of mine I feel it would be necessary to give credit, honour, or citation of some sort to the assistance you have provided me, than I hope you all know that it would be forthcoming. Peace out, Daniel.

Dan, my advice is to ignore it. People tend to get snotty here (generally the trolls I mentioned); I think part of the comments made to you probably stem from the fact that last year someone took the rather vitriolic comments from this site and turned it into a satirical play. And then there was backlash because people who agreed to give their comments for use got a small fee, and a whole bunch of people complained about the payments. The person who contacted you probably don't understand the concept of 'collaboration' or 'brainstorming'. (To the person who will no doubt contact me for saying such: bring it on. Unless you are one of the regulars - which I doubt - I stand by my words) Personally, I don't see what's wrong with asking for advice and guidance, especially when stuck. Theatre isn't presented in a vacuum, why should the script writing process be caged to one person in one room? Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

I appreciate your words very much. But forget about me, today is all about you. Congrats are in order. A scoop with Mr Biggins, who has just stepped off the stage in "Travesties" at the Opera House to "Avenue Q" and an interview with you. Great initiative. I think this site is very lucky to have you grace it with your positive and professional presence. I havn't seen the interview just yet (damn computers!) but I'm looking forward to it. Peace out, Daniel.

Before I forget: I should add that since I don't know who said what to you, my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. I will also add that Dan, it's best to avoid controversial topics (hence me avoiding religion for the most part) unless you want to spend days in a flame war. .. Thank you for your comments about my interview. I thought I'd take a shot and see if I could get it, and was lucky. Even luckier that the person I was interviewing offered some good insights (I've interviewed people who were almost impossible to get anything out of, trust me, it's hard work). Jonathan was really nice and easy to talk to. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

Grain of salt: Got it. Cumbersome flame-thrower: Much to heavy to be carrying it around anyway. Off, and onto the ground it goes. Mr Biggins does seem to be a fun guy. I've caught him a few times here and there on the 'box'. "Q&A" comes to mind. Expecting to see some more of him speaking with you. Out, Daniel.

:) Unfortunately, the interview's likely to be a one-off thing. I did it specifically because puppets are involved with Avenue Q, and that's what my website focuses on. If he produces/directs/acts in another puppetry show, I may be talking to him again. But then, this is the first time I've ever interviewed someone for my site (I've interviewed other people as a writer for a company, but never for myself), so I really didn't plan on it being a regular thing. It takes a lot of time, which I just don't have at the moment. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne