About Philosophical Plays

The Author/Editor

Copyright/Permissions

All Plays/Issues

> 

Latest Play

FAQ

News

DOWNLOAD a free PDF.

ORDER a printed copy.

REVIEW copyright & permissions.

< PREVIOUS (none) | NOTES | CITATION | NEXT (Scene II) >

CHARACTERS:

Christianus, a satisfactionist
Katherine, a lawyer

The scene throughout is in a London pizzeria.
It’s late afternoon, Wednesday, March 21, 2007.

SCENE I. The Floridian Liti-Gator

1 CHRISTIANUS. Katherine! There you are!

2 KATHERINE. Chris! At last! It’s so nice to see you!

3 CHRISTIANUS. And it’s very nice to see you too, my dear!

4 KATHERINE. Is it two years?

5 CHRISTIANUS. No, it’s almost three years since I saw you in Miami.

6 KATHERINE. Really?

7 CHRISTIANUS. Yes. Time does fly, doesn’t it?

8 KATHERINE. It sure does!

9 CHRISTIANUS. Have you been here long?

10 KATHERINE. No. I just came myself.

11 CHRISTIANUS. Great! And you’re not too mad at me for being a little late?

12 KATHERINE. No, of course not. I was late myself.

13 CHRISTIANUS. Problems?

14 KATHERINE. Well, not any real flight problems, as such. I mean, we had some extra security procedures in Miami before we boarded, so we got a late start. But I don’t mind that, if it really improves the safety.

15 CHRISTIANUS. Yes. In these days of global terrorism and suicide bombings one cannot get too much security.

16 KATHERINE. Exactly. And then when we were approaching Heathrow this morning, we were already a little off schedule, so we couldn’t land immediately but had to circle for a while. So we got even more delayed. But safety-wise, there were no problems; the flight just ended up being very late.

17 CHRISTIANUS. Well, if that’s all you have, then it doesn’t sound so bad, especially for a transatlantic flight. But that isn’t all, is it?

18 KATHERINE. Let me put it like this, Chris: apart from the delays, everything went quite smoothly all the way from Miami to the Heathrow baggage claim area.

19 CHRISTIANUS. Uh-oh.

20 KATHERINE. Yes. They lost my luggage! Can you believe it?

21 CHRISTIANUS. Oh dear! That’s terrible!

22 KATHERINE. So I had to spend hours at Heathrow trying to deal with it.

23 CHRISTIANUS. That’s outrageous!

24 KATHERINE. Yes. And it gets even worse: I had some very important documents in my luggage.

25 CHRISTIANUS. But don’t you think that the airline will find your things?

26 KATHERINE. Maybe. But I doubt it.

27 CHRISTIANUS. Hey! Cheer up, Katherine! I mean, even if they don’t find your things, I am sure you can handle it. You are not exactly afraid of ‘expressing yourself’ in matters of civil and corporate law. After all, you are known as ‘The Floridian Liti-Gator’! [1]

28 KATHERINE. Sure. But it’s still a lot of work to litigate. [2]

29 CHRISTIANUS. Yes, yes, of course. No doubt.

30 KATHERINE. And there is more to the story.

31 CHRISTIANUS. More?

32 KATHERINE. Yes. I left out some details that really complicate things.

33 CHRISTIANUS. Oh, no!

34 KATHERINE. Oh, yes! Remember I said that I had some very important documents with me?

35 CHRISTIANUS. Naturally.

36 KATHERINE. Well, those documents are not only very important — they are completely irreplaceable. So even if I take the airline to court and manage to get some recompense in dollars and cents, it’s still not good enough. If I can’t get my luggage back with all those original documents, I will be in a hell of a lot of trouble. Personal trouble.

37 CHRISTIANUS. I am very sorry to hear that, Katherine.

38 KATHERINE. Yes, it’s a nightmare! When I realized that I actually had lost my luggage, I felt like I was in The Scream. [3]

39 CHRISTIANUS. You mean, Munch’s scream?

40 KATHERINE. Yes, Munch’s interminable scream. But it was also my scream, mixed together, somehow. [4]

41 CHRISTIANUS. So perhaps I shouldn’t say, then, ‘Welcome back to London’, after that interminable terminal event of yours?

42 KATHERINE. Don’t worry, Chris: I am very happy being back in London, even though Heathrow certainly was a much too expressionistic experience for my taste. But I am much better now: more together, more centred. Actually, I almost feel like I am sitting in Monet’s boat when I am here with you.

43 CHRISTIANUS. Ah! Your favourite Manet painting! [5]

44 KATHERINE. Yes! You remembered!

45 CHRISTIANUS. Of course! Who can forget that light, that tranquillity, that boat?

46 KATHERINE. Yes. It’s a very serene scene.

47 CHRISTIANUS. Yes, and it’s very satisfying for the heart.

48 KATHERINE. Very!

49 CHRISTIANUS. But it’s not very satisfying for the stomach. So perhaps we can have a look at the menu now?

50 KATHERINE. Sure, but I am not all that hungry.

51 CHRISTIANUS. Ah, yes. You are mostly kapha, aren’t you? [6]

52 KATHERINE. Yes, I think that’s what my ayurvedic doctor says.

53 CHRISTIANUS. I thought so. As for myself, I am predominantly pitta. So I simply must have something right now. I am starving! [7]

54 KATHERINE. OK. What would you like?

55 CHRISTIANUS. Let’s see . . . what do you think about one of these Venetian Blinds?

56 KATHERINE. Well, it sounds somewhat dangerous. I am not sure that my ophthalmologist would approve of it, since my vision already is somewhat impaired. Maybe the Romantic Romana is safer? [8]

57 CHRISTIANUS. Could be, at least from a purely ophthalmic viewpoint. And it certainly sounds less eruptive than the Vesuvian Volcano, too. Does the Romana come with extra cheese, you think?

58 KATHERINE. They say it does; it’s listed on the first page of the menu.

59 CHRISTIANUS. Ah, yes — there it is! But what would your psychiatrist say about ordering such a romantic preparation, considering your most recent traumatic divorce and your otherwise so tumultuous love life? Isn’t he a Freudian?

60 KATHERINE. Sure he is. But I don’t care what he says; he’s more traumatic and tumultuous than I am!

61 CHRISTIANUS. Fair enough. It’s your life.

62 KATHERINE. It certainly is. So should we share a Romana, then?

63 CHRISTIANUS. Maybe. How big is it?

64 KATHERINE. Well, they say it’s for four people.

65 CHRISTIANUS. Hmmm. I feel like three people myself. How about you?

66 KATHERINE. I normally do have a reptilian appetite. But today I’ll settle for less. So if you could feel more like two people instead of three, then we may have a deal. What do you say?

67 CHRISTIANUS. OK, sounds great! Let’s order. Waiter!

< PREVIOUS (none) | TOP | CITATION | NEXT (Scene II) >

Notes (SCENE I)

[1] I:27, Floridian Liti-Gator: There are many colourful actors on the Florida scene, including some very bright litigation lawyers, some very hard-hitting American football players such as the University of Florida Gators [http://www.gatorzone.com], and, says BBC (2006), even some attacking alligators. Katherine’s character is presumably an amalgamation of various aspects of these.

BBC (2006), ‘The threat from Florida's alligators’. BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk], 15 May 2006, 15:39 GMT.

[2] I:28, litigate: According to Burton (1985, p. 317), the verb litigate may mean: ‘altercate, appeal to the law, assert in court, bring action against, bring an action, bring suit, bring to the bar, bring to trial, carry on a lawsuit, contend, contest in court, contest in law, go into litigation, institute legal proceedings, litigare, prefer a claim, press in court, pursue in court, seek legal redress, start a lawsuit, start an action, sue, take to court, urge in court’.

WILLIAM C. BURTON (1985), Legal Thesaurus. Complete and unabridged. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., and London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.

[3] I:38, The Scream: Edvard Munch’s (1863–1944) famous The Scream (Norw. Skrik) exists, according to Bischoff (1997, p. 53), in more than fifty versions. The version that Bischoff calls ‘the main one’ (in oil, tempera, and pastel) was painted in 1893 and measures 91 x 73 cm (National Gallery, Oslo). See Bischoff (1997, p. 52) for a nice colour reproduction. Another version (a lithography) was made in 1895 and is reproduced in Gombrich (1953, p. 423).

ULRICH BISCHOFF (1997), Edvard Munch. Köln: Benedikt Taschen Verlag.

E. H. GOMBRICH (1953), Kunstens Historie. With 370 illustrations. Copenhagen: Steen Hasselbalchs Forlag. Original edition (1950): The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press.

[4] I:40, Munch’s interminable scream: Gombrich (1953, pp. 424) asserts that we will never know what lies behind Munch’s scream. And yet, Katherine seems to be pretty sure that Munch’s scream is interminable. But how can she know that? One explanation may be that Katherine did not take Gombrich’s proposition very seriously. So although she presumably did inspect the painting visually in order to know more about it, she may also have read Munch’s own description of the scream in his 1892 diary: ‘I was walking down the road with two friends — the sun went down — I felt like a gust of melancholy. The sky suddenly became red like blood — I stopped, leaned against the fence, dead tired — saw the flaming skies as blood and sword — the bluish-black fjord and town — My friends continued to walk — I stood there trembling of anxiety — and I felt like a big interminable scream through nature’ (Bischoff 1997, p. 53; my translation from the Norwegian).

[5] I:43, favourite Manet painting: Christianus probably refers to Manet’s 1874 painting Monet working in his boat (Neue Pinakothek, Munich). See Gombrich (1953, p. 389) for a beautiful colour reproduction.

[6] I:51, mostly kapha: Ayurveda is a very elaborate system of ancient Indian medical teachings. One of its cornerstones is the tridosha doctrine, which to some extent resembles the Hippocratic (ca. 460–370 B.C.) doctrine of the four humours (as presented in On the Nature of Man) and the Galenic (ca. 129–210 A.D.) system that continued on that path (Lindberg 1992, pp. 125–126). The ayurvedic tridosha system teaches that there are three (Skt. tri) humours (doshas). The three doshas are: phlegm (kapha or shleshman), wind (vaata), and choler or bile (pitta) (Wujastyk 2003, pp. xvii–xviii). These govern ‘all biological, psychological and physiopathological functions of the body and mind’ (Heinrich, Barnes, Gibbons, and Williamson 2004, p. 176). As Vasant Lad remarks, ‘[t]he individual constitution determines disease-proneness’ (1984, p. 37). The idea is that a person whose constitution is, say, predominantly kapha, may experience certain diseases that are typical for the kapha constitution, for example ‘repeated attacks of tonsillitis, sinusitis, bronchitis and congestion in the lungs’ (1984, p. 38).

MICHAEL HEINRICH, JOANNE BARNES, SIMON GIBBONS, AND ELIZABETH M. WILLIAMSON (2004), Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy. Foreword by A. Douglas Kinghorn. Epilogue by J. David Phillipson. Edinburgh and New York: Churchill Livingstone.

VASANT LAD (1984), The Science of Self-Healing: A Practical Guide. Illustrated by Angela Werneke. Santa Fe, NM: Lotus Press.

DAVID C. LINDBERG (1992), The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

DOMINIK WUJASTYK (2003), The Roots of Ayurveda: Selections from Sanskrit Medical Writings. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Classic.

[7] I:53, predominantly pitta: Christianus’s statement may be compared to Lad’s description of a typical pitta individual: ‘Pittas have a strong appetite, strong metabolism, and strong digestion’ (1998, p. 22).

VASANT D. LAD (1998), The Complete Book of Ayurvedic Home Remedies. Illustrations by Vasant D. Lad. New York: Three Rivers Press.

[8] I:56, impaired: Note that Katherine uses the word ‘impaired’ here. According to Bradford (1999, p. 9), there is a difference between visual impairment (or visual acuity impairment) and visual disability: while visual impairment (20/80, 20/200, etc.) points to a condition of the eyes, visual disability (moderate low vision, severe low vision, etc.) points to a condition of the individual. So ‘[t]wo individuals with the same visual impairment measured on a Snellen eye chart may show very different levels of functional disability’ (1999, p. 9).

CYNTHIA A. BRADFORD (1999), Basic Ophthalmology for Medical Students and Primary Care Residents. Seventh edition. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology.

< PREVIOUS (none) | TOP | NOTES | NEXT (Scene II) >

HOW TO CITE: Bo C. Klintberg (2008), ‘The Floridian Liti-Gator’ in Katherine’s Questionable Quest for Love and Happiness. Online edition of Philosophical Plays, 1 Jan. 2008. Retrieved [today’s date] from http://philosophicalplays.googlepages.com/pgKQQv1sc01.htm.

Latest Play | All Plays/Issues | The Author/Editor
About PP | Print Edition | Online Edition | Philosophical Dialogues?
News | Copyright/Permissions | FAQ

All published material in Philosophical Plays, both in the print edition
(ISSN 1654-6296) and in the online edition (ISSN 1654-6318), is
Copyright © 2007-2008 by Bo C. Klintberg. All rights reserved.
No part of these publications may be reproduced, or re-
published, or stored in a retrieval system, without
prior permission in writing from Bo C. Klintberg.

(click the W3C logos to revalidate
this page's code quality at w3.org)

Last updated: Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 22:18:17 GMT
Assembled by PPOBuild, rev. 2.022