The Redemption Ouroboros
By Susan Kattwinkel
New Untitled Monologue
(a work-in-progress)
By Mike Daisey
Emmett Robinson Theatre, College of Charleston
Spoleto Festival, USA
Mike Daisey questions everything now. He filters
all his experiences, the things he sees, the stories he hears, and the
stories he tells through a lens of questions. Questions about truth,
and narrative, and verification. He's "obsessed with fact-checking"
now, he says.
Daisey got lost in his own lies -- for that is
what he calls them -- and in the "great and terrible thing" that he
did. And after the scandal surrounding his monologue The Agony and
the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs -- and "scandal" is the word he uses
-- he found himself again on a trip that he and his partner Jean-Michelle
took to "recreate the Orient Express."
In his new as-yet-untitled piece that premiered
in June 2012 at the Spoleto Festival in Charleston, South Carolina,
Daisey turns his searing vision on himself, and on the construction
of stories and the line between story and truth. For nearly two and
a half hours the audience watched a spell-binding storyteller consider
the very nature of storytelling. "Story" is a hot topic these days,
not only in the Ouroboros of contemporary journalistic self-inquiry,
but in science as well. Jonathan Gottschall's recent popular science
book The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human describes
the work of psychologists and neuroscientists who are trying to understand
how and why our brains create the stories they do. Focusing on the written
word, Gottschall claims that "A writer lays down words, but they are
inert. They need a catalyst to come to life." Gottschall believes that
catalyst is the mind of the reader, but Daisey knows there is an even
more powerful potential intermediary -- the oral storyteller. "The act
of speaking gives life to words," he says. And once those words have
been given life, they grow on their own, beyond the intentions of their
originator.
There is that sense in this new piece that Daisey
is trying to deflect blame for what happened, even as he exposes (like
the raw skin produced from a Turkish massage he experienced) his own
weaknesses that allowed things to get so out of control. "We're not
used to having our narratives constructed for us," he muses. That's
a telling statement. For certainly there are many people in the world
quite accustomed to having their stories told by someone else; having
society decide who they are, what they think, and what they are worth.
Perhaps, as a white man of privilege, this is his first experience being
misunderstood, or misinterpreted, or dramatized, or spectacle-ized --
but his repeated insistence that his experience of having his story
taken from him is unique somehow is disingenuous at best. After all,
isn't that what got him in trouble in the first place -- fabricating
the stories of others?
Every city that he and Jean-Michele visit contains
a story that serves as a metaphor for his own. Every city has a story
that he questions for its veracity; unable to accept anything at face
value he wonders incessantly how much truth lies in the mythology of
a place and whether it matters. And he seems to magically encounter
relevant stories in each city -- the sculptor of stories about the wild
west who never visited there, the fictional character treated as real,
the reluctance of locals to discuss a political protest, the physical
manipulations that made him feel alive again. He comments often on how
personal narrative is created. And ultimately, he is creating his own
personal narrative about his downfall, his "breaking in two," as he
puts it, and his journey back to himself.
Vision is a thematic through line. Throughout
the journey, Jean-Michele's failing eyesight becomes a metaphor for
how Daisey lost sight of everything that was important to him, and how
he struggled to see things for what they were. He uses Jean-Michele's
vision problems as a touchstone, but he's not telling her story at all;
he's telling his. He keeps saying "we," but it seems that he really
means "me." He cannot speak to what Jean-Michele must have been feeling,
and he does not even try. One senses that he is afraid to speak for
anyone else right now, and sometimes he even seems afraid to speak for
himself. He occasionally describes his personal experiences in the second
person. Discussing the reviews of The Agony and the Ecstasy
he says, "You read these things," and then corrects himself -- "I read
these things." There's a feeling of distancing, like he can't quite
look all of it in the face yet.
Now Daisey has to embrace the experience to go
through it, because he did "a large and terrible thing." Embracing it
turns the spectacle into art, and he seems desperately to want to turn
this spectacle into art. The show itself hovers between the two, with
the audience, as he acknowledges, "looking for blood," and Daisey trying
to create art out of his own disaster. He says this is the only story
he can tell right now. Perhaps he needs to turn it into art -- with
its inherent tinge of fiction -- before he can move on.
Daisey was reborn in Istanbul, he says. It's
a throw-away line, but closes the narrative loop nicely. He suggests
hope for his future stories when he puts himself in the shoes of Istanbul’s
most daring inventor, waiting to soar into myth on man-made wings. The
piece, however, ends with a treacly message of hope that is intended
to inspire but instead feels manipulative and false. Daisey is grasping
at the most superficial of personal renewal actions, even as he acknowledges
that living your life on stage comes with terrible responsibility. "It
can be a radical act to tell a story," he says. Mike Daisey still wants
his stories to be radical acts.
[Author's note: although Daisey described
this piece from the stage as a "work-in-progress," it was
advertised by the Spoleto Festival USA as the “premiere”
of a “brand-new monologue." Since the performance I saw,
he has titled the work The Orient Express (or, The Value of Failure).]