Scripts — or is it audiences? — are too wedded to cause and effect. 

When evaluating a story, particularly how a character decides to act, the majority want to see a causal relationship between plot points: A leads to B, which leads to C, which leads to D, so on and so forth. And if there isn’t sufficient clarity as to what fuels the bridging between these letters, it’s considered a deficiency of continuity, AKA: plot holes, or lapses in logic.

Which implies human behavior is easily understood. 

Has that been anyone’s lived experience on this thing called Earth ?!

When people say that the world is becoming senseless, perhaps the world isn’t changing as much as we believe; what if the frameworks we’ve long used to make sense of existence — paradigms propped up by the artistic tales we tell each other — were inherently flawed, imperfect, and specious?

Yes, art can strive to cohere cognitive confusion, but can’t — shouldn’t? — art also show life’s empirical perplexity in all its thorny glory? 

Episodes of manic hysteria are real. Individuals behaving in confounding ways is too real. Moments of explicably incomprehensible irrationality exist.

And yet, when art depicts a character acting in a manner that defies established reason, even if we can piece together incomplete answers to venture a guess as to why, we still fault the art, as opposed to citing the potential errors in our established reason.

I want to double down on absurdism, to flesh out a naturalistic Theatre of Chaos.