The
Little Revolution
By:
Tamara Peachy
Cast List
Rachel Linheart
Daniel White
Peter Lock
Alex Dalve
ACT 1
SCENE 1
Low-end studio apartment in Washington DC. Room
is cluttered with Pro-Life protest signs, and Pro-Life flyers are stacked on
the desk and coffee table. RACHEL is sitting at the desk, typing on a laptop
computer. DANIEL is using a stencil to create another Pro-Life sign that will
read: If It’s Not A Baby, Then You’re Not
Pregnant.
Rachel:
(Stops typing)
It’s useless. I’m useless.
DANIEL:
You’re not useless.
Rachel:
I’ll just summarize my thoughts in a flowery
tweet. Who needs a lengthy article?
DANIEL:
(Annoyed)
Not the twitter argument again.
Rachel:
Who wants to read a brainy article about
injustice when one can read a Facebook status about farts?
DANIEL:
You are delusional. There are thousands of
intellectual activists salivating for a tantalizing read.
Rachel:
You live in an activist bubble.
DANIEL:
A what?
Rachel:
An activist bubble. All your friends rage at
injustice, but you ignore the fact that the youtube generation is apathetic and
nearly unconscious. They are watching Brittany Spears dance with a snake.
DANIEL:
Even my activist friends are watching that.
Rachel:
You’re sick.
DANIEL:
It was a joke, Rachel. Laugh.
(Pause)
Last night, all you could talk about was
Margaret Sanger and the repercussions of her work with birth control. You told
me people must be held accountable for their actions, no matter what their motivations.
You knew this article would change people’s perspective. You couldn’t wait to
write it. What changed?
Rachel:
I woke up the next morning. I know the majority
of people won’t read it. They don’t care, Danny. They don’t have the motivation
or the drive to process the atrocity. They don’t even know the definition for
infanticide. They don’t want to think about it.
DANIEL:
Don’t rob them of the opportunity. Just write
it. Stop worrying about who will read it and who won’t.
Rachel:
Fine. I’ll write the article. After I send
this flowery tweet.
(Types on Computer)
“Dear
American Public, you murder unborn babies. I hate you all.”
(Presses enter key)
Send!
(Laughs to herself)
DANIEL:
(Sarcastically)
That will win them over.
(Knock
at the door. DANIEL looks through the door’s peephole and unlocks the door’s various
locks, including a bolt. PETER barges in)
PETER:
Adam Groderman has done it again! Let me read
you this quote from the Project Paper! Rachel is “a weepy prophet who is too
emotionally charged to see the issue rationally.”
(Rachel
is noticeably angered)
DANIEL:
(Goes
to her)
Rachel, stay calm. The Project Paper is an
insignificant college newspaper. I think only 23% of the student body even reads
it.
RACHEL:
Peter read it. He isn’t even a part of the student body.
DANIEL:
Peter reads everything from everywhere
by everybody.
PETER:
It is essential to stay cultured by processing
an amalgamation of varying points by immersing oneself in samples of scholarship
with minute levels of circulation.
DANIEL:
(Gives
PETER a look of disgust)
Peter! You’re doing it again. You didn’t just
spout out that sentence to teach us something. You’re just trying to impress us
by sounding astute. You know that drives me crazy. Rachel and I are trying to
have a civilized spat. Don’t interrupt. Rachel, continue.
RACHEL:
Adam Groderman is an egotistical reincarnation
of Hitler! A pampered two-year-old who acts like Chucky. He needs to be held
accountable for his words.
(After
some thought)
We need to have an official debate.
PETER:
That’s a great idea!
DANIEL:
That’s a horrible idea. Can’t you see she
wants blood?
RACHEL:
We can have it on the college campus. If the
college newspaper covered the rally, the campus might be open to hosting the
debate.
DANIEL:
Rachel, you need to write your article. Bicker
with Adam some other time.
RACHEL:
Adam can’t just throw words around and not
face retribution. I should be able to defend myself.
DANIEL:
Defend yourself? To Adam! So he said you were
“a weepy prophet” So he said you were “too emotionally involved”. Those are accurate
compliments. Adam is the one who is detached. Adam remains calm and composed.
You go insane.
(Beat)
It’s slaughter, Rachel. You should be emotionally involved. But,
don’t waste your breath on Adam. He’s a hard head. Write your article for those
who are wrestling with their conscious. We don’t have the money or the time to
organize another debate to argue with someone who won’t budge. We need to focus
on those who will listen - for those who are malleable.
RACHEL:
(Playfully
dejected)
We can’t convert Hitler?
DANIEL:
Nope.
(With
youthful enthusiasm)
However, we can reach those under his
influence - with information.
(Returns
to stenciling the sign)
PETER:
I still love a
good debate with a hard head.
DANIEL:
That is because
you don’t respect results like I do. You worship the intensity of truth
battling with a lie, even when that battle rages with no culmination. The thrashing
of words stirs your adrenaline. However, it does nothing to change our society. A riveting debate that falls on deaf
ears, in my mind, is senseless.
RACHEL:
(Seizing
this opportunity)
And an
intellectual article written about Margaret Sanger presented to a generation
who sings Justin Bieber lyrics is just as senseless.
DANIEL:
That isn’t the
same thing.
RACHEL:
Yes it is Daniel.
Deaf ears. It is the same argument.
DANIEL:
It is not the
same argument. Your article will be available on the Internet. Search engines
use algorithms that cater to the users’ social demographics. Your audience is
already filtered for you. Those who come across your article will be receptive
scholars and activists. They will want to hear what you have to say and will
appreciate your astuteness.
RACHEL:
We can’t ignore
the lazy Facebookers! Or the Wikipedia researchers! The tweens will be
receptive to our message. We just need to use their language.
DANIEL:
We are limiting
our audience to the impressionable scholar because we, as a group, decided they
influence the sectors of society that need to be changed. Let the youtube
generation skim over our article link and click the porn advertisement. It
isn’t our concern. Out target audience is the receptive scholar.
RACHEL:
I know that is
what we decided, but…
DANIEL:
If we target a
larger audience, we will compromise our message. You aren’t willing to do that.
None of us are willing to do that. We met together as a group and decided,
(Speaks
the next phrase with exhaustion)
“We couldn’t
afford to taint the message to captivate a broader audience.”
(Looks
to PETER)
Wasn’t that the
exact phrasing?
PETER
(In
jest)
Yeah. I think we
argued more about the phrasing than the actual philosophy behind our motive.
RACHEL:
(Becomes
more somber)
I know we are
supposed to avoid spiritual jargon when we…
PETER:
Uh oh.
DANIEL:
Rachel! If you
want to limit your audience, start talking about spirituality!
RACHEL:
I have no religious
affiliations. You know that. I approach this subject from a purely scientific and
political perspective. But, today, as I was ruminating over my article, which you are pressuring me to write, I just
felt this urgency to reach people who aren’t as intellectual as us. It felt
like it came from my soul, I guess. If that even explains it.
PETER:
(Mocking)
Your soul told
you to reach out to a broader, less educated audience?
RACHEL:
I don’t think it
was exactly “my soul”. I don’t have a descriptor for the experience because it
was foreign to me. But, it doesn’t really need an explanation. All I know is:
we need to rally the apathetic, overstimulated tween.
DANIEL:
What will they do
with the information? Nothing. They will return to playing angry birds on their
cell phones. We need to influence lawyers, doctors, scientists, and…
RACHEL:
and our future
teen mothers and those impregnating bad boys.
PETER:
That is a valid
point.
DANIEL:
We don’t speak
their language, Rach. It would be like a gorilla talking with a fish.
RACHEL:
We are
researchers. The fashionable research topic of the sociological and
psychological world is investigating the Internet’s relationship with the youth.
There is vast material to help us understand their culture and thereby
influence them.
PETER:
I’m with you Rachel.
I love a good challenge. It will give me a reason to flex my anthropological
muscles.
DANIEL:
Our work won’t
last for generations if it is demeaned. There is no honor in what you are
suggesting. I’m done arguing about this. I’m going to the grocery. I need to
restock my fridge. I’ll come by to finish the sign tomorrow.
RACHEL:
You are such an
introvert. You always avoid spontaneous confrontation. You say a few rehearsed statements
and then you exit the building to plot your next profound statement. Go! Enjoy
yourself. Find solace in your loneliness and avoid everyone around you.
DANIEL:
Thank you Doctor
Rachel Lineheart. I will be sure to pay the receptionist on my way out. It is
good to know you put your college degree in human behavior to work. Now write
the article and stop wasting your breath on a hard head like me.
(Exits
the door)
Scene 2
The next day at
4:00am. Peter and Rachel have been up all night working on the article. Peter
is lying on the couch. Rachel is sitting at the computer.
Rachel:
(Exhausted
from a long night)
I really
appreciate you helping me out with this, Peter. I think having a man’s
perspective will control my bias. Not that I am bias or anything. But, it could
help protect me from any accusations.
Peter:
Anything I can do
to help.
Rachel:
I still think the
introduction is more potent than the conclusion.
Peter:
(Yawn) Yes Yes
Rachel:
(Reading section
outloud) Abortion is no longer an issue
of privacy because technology has given us a non-evasive way to monitor the unborn
fetus. (To Peter) You still think the word “fetus” is the proper
descriptor? (Pause) Peter?
Peter
Rachel, we don’t
want to offend them with language. We need to focus on our central argument. We
can’t give them an escape through offense.
Rachel:
You’re right.
You’re right.
Peter
As always. When
did you say Alex would get here?
Rachel:
She promised to
bring us breakfast. It’s 4:00 now, so
she should be here in the next few hours.
Peter:
She
is such a good cook.
Rachel:
She is a good cook. She is also researching
why men seem to have shorter lifespans than females.
Comments