I named the play Love Disorder. But when the staged reading was done at Theatre Artists Studio, it was introduced as Love Disorders. Then, on the producer’s contract, it was written Love Disorders as well. There seems to be an expectation of multiple disorders here, whereas I consider the considerable disorder displayed by the play’s three couples to be facets of a single, unifying Love Disorder. This singular Disorder covers the emotional condition or dis-ease that often accompanies love, as well as referring to the chaotic choices and behavior that ensues on the stage itself, which is quite a bit of disorder in a collectively singular sort of way.
I could put this up for a vote, but I’m not a huge fan of the idea of artists asking their audience to help them decide things about their work. Not just because I’m an artist, in this case. Even when I’m the reader or the audience, I really don’t care to have a say in the making of the art — you make the art, I’ll enjoy it … or not. It’s marketing 101 these days to engage customers by giving them the feeling they have some say in the product they are purchasing — one reason why you’re getting hit with online surveys all the time. But I reckon if a play isn’t good enough to engage an audience, without making the audience feel like they had a hand in its creation, then there’s something amiss with the play. Or the audience, for that matter.
Not long ago I went to a play reading, after which the playwright started asking us, the audience, all kinds of questions we couldn’t possibly answer, including: should this play be developed further? If the playwright has to ask the audience that, there’s something seriously skewed. Actually it was a bit patronizing, because I found it hard to believe the playwright was really leaving that question up to us. At least, I really hope she wasn’t.
I’m keeping Love Disorder a collective singular, but if someone can convince me why it should be otherwise, I’m listening. I suppose.