Recapping the
proceedings…
IN A DESIGNATED CAVE JURY ROOM, A JURY, COMPOSED OF ELEVEN
“HUNTERS” AND ONE “GATHERER” HASH OVER A CASE IN WHICH THOG ACCUSES THEG OF
STEALING THE “KILL” THEG INSISTS WAS AN ABANDONED CARCASS.
(Reminding Note: “Hunter” dialogue is printed (appropriately)
in red, “Gatherer” dialogue in “Blueberry Blue.”)
“GATHERER”: “By the way, what have you got against
‘Gatherers’?”
“HUNTER”: “Did you ever get mauled by a raspberry?”
“Stop a crazed walnut dead in its tracks?”
“Lose an arm to a rampaging raisin?”
“HUNTERS” REACT IN HILARIOUS DERISION.
“So you think what we do is wimpy.”
“We know about ‘thorns.’”
“And ‘life-threatening allergies’.”
“Eat a bad plum and your head swells up.”
“A congenital ‘stooping’ injury.”
THE ROOM EXPLODES IN HYSTERICS.
“So you’re not a ‘Real Man’ till you’re disfigured?”
“We respect a man with a scar. A man who can hold four apples in one hand?”
“Jugglers do
that?”
“Fine. But keep that
in mind while we deliberate.”
“Keep what in
mind?”
“That you’re prejudiced people.”
THE “HUNTERS” REACT ANGRILY.
“What prejudice? Thog
and Theg are both ‘Us.’”
"It’s only ‘prejudice’ if it’s ‘Them’.”
“Which, by the way, is a tested ‘Survival Technique.’ The wrong ‘Them’ can really ‘bad news’ you.”
“Here’s the case in a nutshell, to use one of your words: Theg stole Thog’s food.”
“Or – according to Theg – Theg found an abandoned carcass in
a public thoroughfare and he took it.”
“It had meat on its bones.”
“Barely any, according to Theg. And even if there were a few clinging morsels, is there a rule designating ‘It had
meat on its bones’ or “It didn’t’?
ELEVEN “HUNTERS” IN
UNISON: “Two morsels!”
“If you were a ‘Hunter’ you’d know that.”
“Okay, here’s another thing I don’t know. Why would a ‘Hunter’ leave a not-entirely-cleaned
carcass out on a public thoroughfare?”
“Thog was relieving himself in the privacy of a tree area.”
“That’s what Thog testified.
But maybe, just maybe, Thog did an imperfect cleaning job, and walked
away before he was finished.”
THE “HUNTERS” COLLECTIVELY ROLL THEIR EYES.
“Okay, ’Gatherer.’
Here’s ‘The Jury of Your Peers.’
We know Thog. When Thog takes the meat off an animal, Thog takes the meat off an animal.”
“He’s a professional ‘Hunter.’”
“And a man known
not to waste meat.”
“So you know Thog.
But what about Theg? Isn’t he
also a peer?”
“HUNTERS” REACT LESS ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
“What? You have
something against Theg?”
“HUNTERS” HESITATE TO COME FORWARD.
“This is important.
What do you know about Theg that makes you believe Thog?”
MORE “HUNTER” HESITATION.
“Come on, out with it!
Or I’m calling the bailiff and declaring a ‘Hung Jury.’”
WITH NO ALTERNATIVE, A “HUNTER” FINALLY RELENTS.
“Theg colorizes his handgrip.”
“He what?”
“He colorizes his handgrip.”
“And that’s bad?”
“Let me explain our ways to you, ‘Gatherer.’ To maximize balance and accuracy – am I being too technical for you?”
“I understand ‘balance and accuracy’.”
“Okay. For reliable
balance and accuracy, you grip your spear in exactly the same spot. So he could ‘find it more readily’, Theg
painted his spot red.”
“Nobody does that.”
“You just grip and you chuck.”
“Which makes Theg ‘different.’”
“Who colorizes their handgrip?”
“Okay, let’s summarize, here… remembering you are no
strangers to prejudice.
And by the way, if I can’t change your minds, I will abandon
my objections and vote with the majority.
“Since nobody was there, what this finally boils down to is
a matter of ‘Thog said’, ‘Theg said.’ You
believe Thog because you know Thog. You
do not believe Theg because you know Theg.
“I’m not saying this is true – it could be exactly the way
you see it. But think about it.
“Isn’t it possible you believe Thog and not Theg is because
Theg colorizes his handgrip?
“Let’s take another vote.
Given the evidence – and maybe an unconscious bias concerning that evidence – who believes beyond a reasonable doubt that
Theg is still guilty?”
ELEVEN HANDS IMMEDIATELY SHOOT UP.
“Okay, so we’re done here.”
THE JURORS GET UP AND FILE OUT OF THE JURY ROOM.
“You turned nobody,
smart guy.”
“No.
“But wouldn’t it have been wonderful if I had?”
THEY EXIT.
FADE OUT.
(Note: In 1957, a feature film was made about a
similar matter and, being a movie, not
the jaded ramblings of a cynical blog writer, the outcome was different.)
1 comment:
I enjoyed these two posts. As you've proven time and time again, you are the master of conversation - at least written conversation. You are so convincing that I found myself siding with the Hunters after their lines and the Gatherer after his lines. Do you make a special effort to give both sides valid arguments or is that just good writing that any writer should be doing? I say "just" not meaning I think it is easy. For me, with the little writing I do, dialogue is the very hardest part.
I guess that writing for TV is all written conversation but are there other aspects to it as well? When you write a script, is there any description of places and characters? If a series has a narrator, is that different from when two or more characters are having a conversation? There probably isn't much writing for a narrator in television. Is that more for writing a book?
Post a Comment