Act 1 of Counting Down The Days, by Antony Sammeroff and Finn Townsley (with subtitles for humour)

Aritist: (Excited) Oh so you’ve read Adorno’s On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening.

[Oh, fantatic! You're someone as smart as I am!]

Lush: Yes, indeed, I found it most enlightening, but I have to say Tea-adores reliance on outmoded views expressed in the last instalment of Marxes Das Capital somewhat retrograde. (Cooughs) But speaking of cultural theory, did you not find Sartre’s Nausea expressed a most simplistic view of human angst.

[Yes, slightly smarter, but lets talk about something I know more about than you. I'm feeling angsty but am so emotionally stunted I can only refer to it obliquely.]

Arist: I no longer remember anything of, nor can I comment on Angst. It seems so far away, distant, ever since I met the woman. 

[Sorry dude, can't feel ya, I'm getting laid!]

Lush: A Woman? Singular? Surely the plural would be far more worthy. Why, Would Byron set his heart on one? Was Alexander to be tamed? Would Huxley settle for that ragtag Laura alone? But of course not! A man of letters exists to be loved: if by one, well it is, if by more than one, why even more so. For imagine if a man should conclude to write only, arbitrarily, with the letter D. Such a stunt upon his vocabulary would that bring. And likewise, why should the language of love be so limited, if only for a woman.

[What? Just by that one chick? 99 Problems and a Bitch ain't one! Variety is the spice of life! It's good that one chick is into you, but so much better if more people want to shag you. Why would you give it all up for one woman?]

Artist: But were she a letter she would express all the syllables and more so besides. Had you had seen her eyes, like the sun and moon burning bright within that face of which the cosmos is merely an effigy, then you would surely only begin to fathom the depths of affection that well within my breast. Then you would know, that there could be no other sun and moon that could possibly illuminate, nor capture, the heart of the man that I may hope to one day call the earth that these heavenly bodies humble in their orbit.

[She's the best thing ever! If you saw her face the way I did you'd be like "I wanna tap dat" but you wouldn't even know how much I wanna get with that shit! I'm bangin' her and it's so awesome! Do you know how awesome it is? No, cos you're not bangin' her, obviously, but it's so awesome that I don't wanna bang anyone else, ever! And I just feel so lucky that she wants to bang me too!]

Lush: I have gazed upon those celestial bodies that you declare all too fare, as those common features of her face, and I feel you are too much romanced my friend and all too soon, by those baubles that sparkle, not with the light of the sun but only in the sunlight. I fear you will taste these forbidden fruits, much to your folly, and from the gates of Eden I will have to bid you a sad farewell. 

[Yeah she's got an alright face, but it ain't nothin' to write home about. One the spark dies down you'll be all like Dang! Wish I'd put bros before hoes!]

Artist: If Eden is the price to pay for bliss, then for what? When Eden holds no longer bliss, for that which we dare call Eden pales in comparison to those temptations held without, then of what is this fair paradise Eden reduced to but mere shadows upon the walls opposing the platonic form of Love. But we are excommunicated from Eden only to return to it, perhaps not in body corporeal, but in our ethereal heart of hearts, where we find that very true bliss of union with the god incarnate in man, is in the womb of that fair rose we call the woman. 

[Yeah the stuff we done like drink, philosophise, go out sarging (and bum) was pretty awesome at the time, but bangin this chick is so far beyond all that shit. Infact bangin this chick is the new drinking, philosophising, sarging (and bumming.)]

Lush: Why deny the possibilities of the infinite joys that could exist outwith, for those finite joys that must exist only it the confines of that paltry warmth that is her one. As a great man once said, “Marriage is the tomb of love.” Yes, indeed sex is a battle and love is a war, but would Sun Tzu commit himself to strike on only one front in neglect of all the other affairs of state? “The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike,” and you, my friend, will forget her. 

[But there's so much more than bangin this chick to experience. You shouldn't bang her to the exclusion of everything else because when it end you'll feel totally empty.]

Artist: “This soul should fly from me, and I be chang'd
Into some brutish beast! All beasts are happy,”

[Let me feel empty, she be drainin' me dry bro!]

Lush: “For, when they die,
Their souls are soon dissolv'd in elements;”

[Yeah, and when you're dry you'll be nothing.]

Enter Victoria.

Victoria: Fare artist do you await my call? Charming lush are you yet here past the sunset? With tongue so eloquent yet step’d in vicious poison. Away! Lest thy carriage reveal thy true nature, for it is but a pumpkin dressed in grandeur awaiting the stroke of dawn.

[Hey babe, you ready to go? Oh god not you! The sarcy cunt, why don't you fuck off on home.]

Lush: Save they words sweet scented succubus. Do you not see how you have reduced this once great man, in swaddling bands, to worship in the shadow of thy visage. Will you leave him weeping at the gates of hades as you dance back into Pluto’s arms?

[Yeah you're hot but you're still a bitch. You've got him pussywhipped alright. Go to back to Hell and fuck Satan.]

Victoria: Oh how your words wound me like the sharpest bolts of slings and crossbows. Should you feel that the appeal of thy wits are of more allure than eves of mine tender bosom, then let the kind artist decide how better he should spend out those last dwindling hours of twilight.

[Harsh! Well if you think he'd rather hang around gabbin' to you then get down with this, why not ask him what he thinks?]

Artist: Let me not decide! 

[Duuuuude, unfair!]

Lush: ….Dare thee use thy womanhood to seduce? For what do you think you are but Helen come again?! Do not tempt Agamemnon to send his ships for I will besiege the gates of Troy if it means to lose Achillies a thousand times over in the pursuit. Yet till the morrow, have your wicked way, for Odin held trust enough in Loki’s better nature to let him roam free and to fall (to artist, without pause) by his own errors.

[Got him pussy-whipped, huh? You think you're all that and then some? I will go to town on you bitch! But fair enough, if he wants his hole I'm willing to stand back and let it happen.]

Victoria: (mockingly) Then let our paths not cross once more till Ragnarok ensue. Come now gentle artist, turn thy sweet fingers again through these fragile threads and sing of me once more my praises.

[See you in Hell! Come on babe, tell me how much you love me.]

Artist: Yes, a thousand times! A thousand times and yet a thousand more should it please the swooning heart which beats within thy tender breast.

[Sure, I'll do anything for you.]

Act 1 of Counting Down The Days, by Antony Sammeroff and Finn Townsley

This is the kind of thing that Finn and I do when we're up till 9am drinking rum.

Aritist: (Excited) Oh so you’ve read Adorno’s On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening.

Lush: Yes, indeed, I found it most enlightening, but I have to say Tea-adores reliance on outmoded views expressed in the last instalment of Marxes Das Capital somewhat retrograde. (Coughs) But speaking of cultural theory, did you not find Sartre’s Nausea expressed a most simplistic view of human angst.

Arist: I no longer remember anything of, nor can I comment on Angst. It seems so far away, distant, ever since I met the woman.

Lush: A Woman? Singular? Surely the plural would be far more worthy. Why, Would Byron set his heart on one? Was Alexander to be tamed? Would Huxley settle for that ragtag Laura alone? But of course not! A man of letters exists to be loved: if by one, well it is, if by more than one, why even more so. For imagine if a man should conclude to write only, arbitrarily, with the letter D. Such a stunt upon his vocabulary would that bring. And likewise, why should the language of love be so limited, if only for a woman.

Artist: But were she a letter she would express all the syllables and more so besides. Had you had seen her eyes, like the sun and moon burning bright within that face of which the cosmos is merely an effigy, then you would surely only begin to fathom the depths of affection that well within my breast. Then you would know, that there could be no other sun and moon that could possibly illuminate, nor capture, the heart of the man that I may hope to one day call the earth that these heavenly bodies humble in their orbit.

Lush: I have gazed upon those celestial bodies that you declare all too fare, as those common features of her face, and I feel you are too much romanced my friend and all too soon, by those baubles that sparkle, not with the light of the sun but only in the sunlight. I fear you will taste these forbidden fruits, much to your folly, and from the gates of Eden I will have to bid you a sad farewell.

Artist: If Eden is the price to pay for bliss, then for what? When Eden holds no longer bliss, for that which we dare call Eden pales in comparison to those temptations held without, then of what is this fair paradise Eden reduced to but mere shadows upon the walls opposing the platonic form of Love. But we are excommunicated from Eden only to return to it, perhaps not in body corporeal, but in our ethereal heart of hearts, where we find that very true bliss of union with the god incarnate in man, is in the womb of that fair rose we call the woman.

Lush: Why deny the possibilities of the infinite joys that could exist outwith, for those finite joys that must exist only it the confines of that paltry warmth that is her one. As a great man once said, “Marriage is the tomb of love.” Yes, indeed sex is a battle and love is a war, but would Sun Tzu commit himself to strike on only one front in neglect of all the other affairs of state? “The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike,” and you, my friend, will forget her. 

Artist: “This soul should fly from me, and I be chang'd
Into some brutish beast! All beasts are happy,”

Lush: “For, when they die,
Their souls are soon dissolv'd in elements;”

Enter Victoria.

Victoria: Fare artist do you await my call? Charming Lush are you yet here past the sunset? With tongue so eloquent yet step’d in vicious poison. Away! Lest thy carriage reveal thy true nature, for it is but a pumpkin dressed in grandeur awaiting the stroke of dawn.

Lush: Save thy words sweet scented succubus. Do you not see how you have reduced this once great man, in swaddling bands, to worship in the shadow of thy visage. Will you leave him weeping at the gates of hades as you dance back into Pluto’s arms?

Victoria: Oh how your words wound me like the sharpest bolts of slings and crossbows. Should you feel that the appeal of thy wits are of more allure than eves of mine tender bosom, then let the kind artist decide how better he should spend out those last dwindling hours of twilight.

Artist: Let me not decide!

Lush: ….Dare thee use thy womanhood to seduce? For what do you think you are but Helen come again?! Do not tempt Agamemnon to send his ships for I will besiege the gates of Troy if it means to lose Achillies a thousand times over in the pursuit. Yet till the morrow, have your wicked way, for Odin held trust enough in Loki’s better nature to let him roam free and to fall (to artist, without pause) by his own errors.

Victoria: (mockingly) Then let our paths not cross once more till Ragnarok ensue. Come now gentle artist, turn thy sweet fingers again through these fragile threads and sing of me once more my praises.

Artist: Yes, a thousand times! A thousand times and yet a thousand more should it please the swooning heart which beats within thy tender breast.


Click here for awesome annotated version!

Adorno on Popular Music

In 1941 Adorno wrote his famous essay "On Popular Music" in which he ripped the piss out of Tin Pan Alley and Jazz. Or in more academic terms, (so you can give me a citation in your essay*): a harsh critique of popular music that attacked both its artistic and political integrity, with particular reference to the most prominent forms in his time: in Pan Alley and Jazz. (It is worth noting that Rock n' Roll had not yet emerged from its roots in black music at this time.)

*NB. anyone who does actually reference me in their essay gets a cookie. That's called bribery.

Adorno draws a distinction between popular music and what he calls "serious music" IE. Classical or what we might call "art music." That is not him saying that pop music cannot be serious, he means it's not sophisticated in the sense that classical music is. (Frank Sinatra said Rock N' Roll was the music of "Cretinous Goons" so it's perfectly possible that people who are into one thing just plain like flinging mud at people who are into another thing.)

Adorno continues to say that the "fundamental characteristic of popular music is standardisation," pointing to the prevalence of 32-bar choruses and predictable structures (no prog-rock to speak of in 1941.) Consider that these are the very forms that the Punk Rock backlash to early 70s excess embraced, "Three Chords and the Truth Baby!!!!" Simple hooks and interchangeable chord sequences.

In my view Adornos best argument for what makes classical... ahem, sorry, "serious" music, better than popular music is (perhaps by no coincidence) the main thrust of his argument: Popular Music puts emphasis on the parts of songs rather than the whole, whereas classical music is through-composed. That is to say a listener enjoys the overall evolution of the piece, to quote: "Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece." Adorno evokes the example of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. He states that the second theme in the piece only gets its "expressive quality" through its context in the whole of the piece and explicitly states that "Nothing corresponding to this can happen in popular music." (Well, Adorno obviously never heard of the concept album, and probably a good thing, he'd probably have scratched his ears out.)

Whenever I'm trying to explain this to someone in lay terms I always take the famous March from Tchaikovsky's nutcracker as my example, listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj0xuPF6Es

At 0.00 you get that ever memorable: bum-bumbumbum-bum-bum bum-bum-bum

Then at second 0.25ish you get the rather ominous variation: bum-bumbumbum-BUM-bum-Dun-Dun-Duuun!

Now for my money, the second piece of music I'm pointing at is way more awesome that he first one, but the awesomeness of it would make no sense at the beginning of the piece. That variation is so cool because you've heard the first one already, in Adorno's words: it "derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece." (As it so happens, Adorno dismissed Tchaikovsky, also, for writing "pop tunes" - he didn't like music that sold itself on melody, and the fact that lay persons would find 'good melody' synonymous with 'good music' because it was something easily comprehensible to them.)

We do have things in popular music that derive their sense from the concrete totality of the piece, such as going to the relative minor for a middle-8 after the second chorus or guitar solo, but that's hardly a rebuttal of Teddy's assertion that popular music is standardised. That trick is so widely used that quite the opposite is true. Teddy's got ya by the balls pop.

Adorno says that market competition created the musical standards: hits are then copied in other songs that imitate the successful one, but for people who can hear out their ears it's booooooooring. We still see it today, short-lived sub-genres, like hair metal in the 80s, nu metal when I was in school , emo a couple years back. The Used make it big and there are a million Fall Out Boys and Panic at the Discos to follow. Adorno says that when one trend is superseded by another the standards of structures (32-bar choruses, ABABCB etc.) tend not to change, he says they have become "frozen." .... But hold on a minute Teddy, haven't you heard of SONATA FORM? Classical Concerto FORM? Rondo FORM. ABA ??? What about Bohemian bloody Rhapsody? oh well...

Adorno did admit that chord sequences found in many standards and jazz music are often far more harmonically sophisticated than most classical music (sadly untrue of the 4-chord wonder that is the main staple of the pop charts today) but he really doesn't give a damn. He wants music that is "challenging." Oh yes! Says he, "Structural Standardisation aims at Standard Reaction" ...

What the f&%k does that mean?

It means that popular music's "Inherent nature... [is] antagonistic to the ideal of individuality in a free, liberal society [which] promotes conditioned reflexes." ...

What the f&%k does that mean?

It means that contrary to the popular view as rock music as catharsis for the rebel, the standardisation of popular music reflects the wish of the ruling class to subdue the populace into some kind of Orwellian group-think.

Actually I can see it: Paul Stanley of KISS sings: "This is my music, it makes me proud, these are my people, this is my crowd, these are Crazy Crazy Carzy Craaazzzzy Nights! Oooh Yeah" and that is a song all about finding fellowship in your music, but you know it's "shouted out loud" by a bunch of over-excitable fans in black leather, PVC and IDENTICAL Gene Simmons face paint... The chorus was written specifically to be anthemic! So even with so-called "alternative" music you're vibrated back into the mode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjNBd7sO6M (you will find me on the dance-floor whenever this comes on, and balls to Adorno if he tries to stop me.)

So what are the other horrendous functions of this music in Adornos eyes? Well, the music is one of "distraction and inattention," you listen to it as an escape from the banality of life, it "induces relaxation because it is patterned and pre-digested." What do you think about that?

I can see it personally. If I was out having Crazy Nights of my own maybe I wouldn't feel the need to be listening to my favorite Glam Rock band while typing an essay on Adorno for no grade - on a Saturday night no less. But I have to find some means of procrastination so here I am.

So is Adorno just a Nancy-Negative or has he something contrasting to offer up? He says a "fully conscious experience of art" is only possible for those whose lives are not so demanding that during their spare time they want to overcome boredom by doing something inactive. (Jesus Christ, Martin should make this case to the music department who love to give us twice as many essays per credit to write as any other department in the same 11-week time frame! It's kind of ironic.) In other words, you come home from work, you're tired, and you don't want to think about music, you want to relax, you don't want to try and understand Schoenberg or Weber, and who can blame you? Who the f%&k does? Why would you? Honestly? You've got proper studies to do, and the baby needs changed. It's all dirty Capitalism's fault. If you could sit about doing nothing all day while sponging off the state then maybe you'd be more likely to take an active interest.

Adorno also says the music industry faces a major dilemma in that if people pay no attention to a song it won't be sold, whereas if they pay proper attention they may no longer accept the derivative crap it spews out. He also says that while the industry claims to be giving people what they want, people want it [standardised goods and pseudo-individualisation] only because the process of labour. Ie. working on the assembly line in a factory, or in an office denies people any freshness and they're so used to doing "the same old crap day in day out" at work that they don't know how to appreciate anything other than "the same old crap day in day out" at home when they're listening to music. Says Adorno, "They seek novelty, but the strain and boredom associated with actual work leads to avoidance of effort in that... chance for new experience." Another day another dollar.

Many people switch on classical music to "drift away and relax" so it's highly dubious to claim that it's more strenuous to listen to. But that's not Teddy's point. In fact he'd go nuts. He doesn't want you to listen to the 7th Symphony to "drift away and relax," he wants you to bother your lazy arse to understand and appreciate what makes it so good you ignorant beatnik. Get out of the bath and stop listening to Smooth Classics ffs, it's Radio 3 tonight you no good layabout. Get some freaking taste.

I've saved the most outlandish claim for last (bet you can't wait.) Adorno says that popular music is a "social cement" and it appeals to two main types of socio-psychological people. One is the "rhythmically obedient type" - that's you on the dance-floor after one of those blue pills that set you back a tenner but you bought it anyway because otherwise you'd have to spend £3.80 a pint on booze. The other is the "emotional" type - that's you sitting in the corner of the room crying after s/he's dumped you while listening to that tune that was playing that time in the cafe when s/he fed you the last teaspoon of hot fudge sundae even though s/he paid for it, just because s/he liked the way you smiled when s/he did something nice for you.

The Rhythmically Obedient Type are susceptible to crowd-mindedness, and music allows them to allow rhythmic patterns without the distraction of unexpected changed. The Emotional Type are susceptible to the romanticism of the music, they consume it as an outlet for all their pent up frustrations which they can't otherwise vent constructively.

Yup we're still dancing, and we're still buying CDs that take us back to way back when. But is that really pathological or is that something deeply rooted in human nature? You tell me.

I don't think it's exclusive to popular music, we've heard plenty of dances in art music, not to mention the outpourings of the Romantic Composers, not least those that Adorno cites examples of in his essay: Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak.

Maybe Adornos theories are true to life, or maybe pop and classical music both have a place and fulfill separate functions. What do you think? I like some really crap music when I'm out, like the Blitzkreig Bop by The Ramones say, because it's really fun to jump about to and sing along to, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. When I'm at home 70-80% of the music I listen to is classical but I''m only analysing the music when I'm not doing something else like reading or tidying my room. Sorry Adorno.

Post Script: After writing this I took a taxi home and on the radio they played songs like I Got A Feeling by The Black Eyed Peas and The Lazy Song by Bruno Mars and found myself in a reassessment.  It really is standardised shit!

Taste vs. Quality

On one end of the spectrum we have the position that the quality of music is just a matter of taste, on the other the idea that music has an objective quality which can be compared between examples.

Neither is particularly satisfactory. We want to be able to say that Ashkenazi is a better piano player than Cameron who I'm putting through for Grade 1 this year. We want to say that Beethoven's music is "better" that Brittany Spears, and when you say Band X is better than Band Y you do not usually mean: "I prefer Band X to Band Y" otherwise that's what you'd say. You are trying to assert that Band X is to some degree better.

If the quality of music is all a matter of taste then an autistic child drawing some perverse plesure from hearing the needle continue to scratch at the end of a record is enjoying the pleasure of a work of art just as valid as your cognitive swells at the mere sound of your favourite Goldberg Variation.

On the other hand, it's just so damn hard to give any reasonable objective criteria for what makes good music good. Is it bizarre unexpected harmonic or melodic changes? Or interesting rhythmic features? That kind of thing can sound amazing to the trained musician but go right over the head of a lay person, and by the same token those kinds of innovations can be present and the music can be an absolute pile of crap to listen to.

So how do we zone in to what makes what we consider "good music" good and "bad music" bad? If it's a sliding scale there's plenty of room for what falls in between.

The Biggest Taboo on Television

I've been thinking about how television, despite being almost ubiquitously garbage, covers almost everything in some capacity, indeed in every capacity with the exception of one: you.

You are the biggest taboo on television.
Everything else is a target: the state, the market, the beaurocrats, the bankers, the civil servants, the politicians, the capitalists

I have seen programs exposing naughty bankers, but I've never seen a show on how some entrepreneur or community set up a credit union.
I've seen politicians exposed and fingers wagged at them but I've never seen a show on practical action that individuals or communities can take to make the need for poiliticians redundant.
I've seen shows about dysfunctional families but rarly one on how to reduce conflict within the home.
I've seen shows on eating healthy, but I've never seen a mainstream expose on the condition of facorty farms or raising ethical questions on how we should eat, with regards to both the welfare of animals and the environment.
I've seen shows on flagrant instances of child abuse, but never a simple look into the effects of yelling at your kid, or even using physical punishment despite the fact thw wealth of evidence that children, even occasionally hit, have poorer relationships with their parents, lower IQs, are more likely to resort to violence in order to solve problems, display antisocial behaviour and have anxiety problems.
please comment with more examples

The biggest taboo on television is anything that will make people have to reflect upon and reconsider their own behaviour.

Going over old work

An interesting thing about going over new work, even things that you are quite proud of in a way, is you realise how much you've improved in certain ways.

Like some of Lock is a real pleasure to read and it's always been the proudest of the plays I've written, but for example I realise how much better I've got a structuring work, foreshadowing, making the dialogue flow more freely and naturally, not getting bogged down and verbose, getting to the point in fewer words where need be or deliberately taking the long way round to build suspense, making the characters motivations deeper - giving them each their own individual voice that are distinct from those of the others!




This is something that I recommend everyone do from time to time! Go over your old work and see what ways you'd do it differently if you were writing it now. If you can't think of anything new to write, rewrite something old and make it better :-)

Lock and the Emerald Eyes for New Writing Festival

I just finished the 3rd major rewrite of the second play I ever had staged "Lock and the Emerald Eyes" ("Lock..." for short - teehee.)

It's been a nostalgic ride, Laura Jones did a great job of stage managing it last time it was performed at the end of 2009! (Wow sounds like a long time ago when you put it like that!) We had some very memorable actors take on the roles and do very well in them, and Finn Townsley stage managed it not long after our friendship was beginning to burgeon into something more than valued acquaintances, we've never stopped working together since.

The most important changes are that the roles of the two most prominent females have been expanded considerably which was more in line with my original intentions, and the ending has majorly been expanded to the same effect. There are some new jokes, which are always welcome additions in my book.

I don't really know which excerpt would be fit to leave so I might just put in some of my favourite lines/jokes:

LADY2: Oh Lock you are a delightful scoundrel! I fancy you must have a girlfriend!

LOCK: A girlfriend? Heavens no! Nothing of the sort! I have merely a wife, a mistress and a lover...

THRICE: Did you remove Self's eyes?

LOCK: Why should I care to remove Self's eyes?

THRICE: It is of no interest to me why you should care to remove Self's eyes. I have asked whether you did or not, and that is all I want to know! For if you did, then here is the end of you mischief, Lock.

LOCK: I, er... I... 

THRICE: Have I not asked you a direct question?

LOCK: One must ever be watchful of asking a direct question lest it provoke a direct answer… 

THRICE: I shall break every bone in your body and fling what is left of you, piece by piece, across the sky and beyond the very sun!

LOCK: What good would that do to Self? Whether I removed her eyes or another did, I'd wager that I alone have the skill and cunning to find new eyes to replace them. If you carry out your threats Thrice, then you will always have an eyeless wife...

LOCK: Would you agree, if only for the sake of argument, that if all men were to defer to the law of the jungle in governing their affairs, pandemonium would result?

TEAR: I’m as likely to agree for the sake of avoiding argument.

ZISA wraps her hand around [the emeralds] gently within TEAR's palm and the two struggle over them.

TEAR: They. Need. To. Be. Re…turned…

ZISA: Not. On. Your. Life… They’re. To. Be. Cast. Into. Our. Rings…

TEAR: You. Don’t. Understand. Their. Worth…

TEAR prizes them from her grip at last, and with them in hand he makes to leave.

ZISA: I believe the going rate is THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER!!!

LOCK: Though there is little doubt that most of what men say and do amongst men is only to influence others into acting in whatsoever way we may please, perhaps... it is my bent to be more direct in the matter.


LOCK: Now come with me and I shall show you a fine trick! Follow me as I journey to the very pole of this sphere, where the earth meets the sky and sucks it into its fiery lungs! In that place lies is a fissure which opens into the heart of this hollow sphere, where dragons flush their wings against the scorching rays of the inner sun, and nearer the surface, dwarves mine both day and night for gleaming stones to fill their treasuries. 

DEVALYN: To what nature do we owe this sudden visit... Is it business? Or is it pleasure...

LOCK: Pleasure naturally. I never involve myself in business if I can possibly avoid it! Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say... that all my business in invariably pleasurable.

LADY1: Now she does nothing but toss and turn in her chamber, a sullen ship on stormy oceans, dreaming of her love...

LOCK: My dear Thrice, I do not crave attention, I command it! 

Love pretty much all of Self's new lines:
SELF: Predacious Privation! Exploit and Extort! 

SELF: (making to scratch his eyes out) I shall do unto you quite the same injury!

SELF: Give to me my due you duplicitous deceiver!

SELF: You beast! You shamelessly unscrupulous, scandalously insincere brute!

LOCK: Oh how your words pain me like the sharpest bolts of slings and crossbows.