Re-thinking about re-tooling and re-evaluating

Second-guessing is not a good idea, especially when dealing with an established story line. As shared here in this blog ad nauseum, I'm my own worst enemy when it comes to editing my plays. Actually, one play in particular ("you couldn't be referring to 'Old Soldiers' now, could you, Eleanor?") which could be but not necessarily so, depending on yet another read-through evaluation of the story line and dialogue flow.

The reason for this conclusion came as a result of a sleepless night and for whatever reason - it's better than counting sheep - started thinking about the characters in my various plays and whether they are believable. It's been my experience that the lack of sleep precipitates my old friend, creeping doubt, to make its presence known. The play, as anyone who has followed the saga of writing and finishing 'Old Soldiers' knows, has had many incarnations and updates. The uncertainty last night was that maybe the original story line, is in the end, the best one after all.

This conclusion was reached at two-thirty a.m. until four a.m. in the morning while staring up at the ceiling. That's when self-doubt works best providing visual images of the characters playing out their scenes. Questions arose to the surface as to the various re-writes and incarnations and the rationale behind making changes.

Issues like whether or not Daisy the dog character is relevant and is her inclusion necessary? What would happen if she was dropped? Given that the dog is featured in one scene only, does it play an integral part of the whole? More importantly, would Daisy be insulted?

"Why drop me?" Daisy would most likely ask if she could. "After everything that Joe and I have been through, together, over many years, my contribution is important."

In the first copy of the play, there was interesting verbal inter-action between Joe and a bus driver discussing the reason for Joe's trip. It was subsequently dropped in later re-writes but I'm toying with the idea of writing it in, again. My thoughts behind this is that perhaps it would provide more background information on the character.

When sleep finally took over, I was no further ahead than before other than the conclusion that this is a really good play - if it's ever really finished. Whether that feeling of not one more word can be added or deleted will ever be experienced.

And there-in lays the problem.

THREE DREADED R'S: REVISION, RE-THINKING, RE-WRITING OF "NEIGHBORS"

*UPDATE NUMBER 3

Do I sound frustrated? Trying not to be but am reaching that point (insert lots of sighs here).

Last night and this morning, did some more editing on "Neighbors." Can't call it a play - yet - since it's still in the revision stage. That in itself is a problem but there's also this on-going annoyance that gnaws at me like a dog with a bone.

Having reached and read and did some revisions until sixty pages, there is still no resolution. This makes me think as to whether there is a problem that can be resolved or whether there is a problem, period. It's obvious at this point that I'm going to have to do some major editing and change of direction. One of the characters may have to be eliminated since his contribution to the story line really isn't necessary. In other words - the story could survive without the character.

I've got a dramatic ending in mind but this can't be accomplished unless the story is shortened, somewhat, so it can play out naturally. The female character would play a major role along with one of the lead characters.

I'm also toying with the idea - strictly at the idea stage - of having something dramatic occur in the bar i.e. a hold-up...something. That means there are two possible endings. Perhaps one of the characters would save the life of the other, something totally out of character... Really - I don't know at this point.

Lots of choices and directions to go and time is marching on. But am I?