"McIntosh?" Really? Fire your copy editor.

@lew thanks! I can take very little credit. he's a good talker, that one.

@brendan: EUGH. Fixed, thanks.

Can anyone explain why a smart person who wants to broaden the world's consciousness on a really important issue is doing it through a monologue on a stage in Portland? Why not write it on a sea turtle, or perform it in sign language in a blacked out theater?

Write a goddamned article or book, precious.

^-- Philistine

Well, he's touring, first of all, in India as well as the US. And I think he's performing a monologue because performing monologues is what he does exceptionally well, well enough that it's likely more people will see his show than would read a "goddamned article."

You should go to the show, CC. I'll even give you the blogtown keys so you can write it up for us, perhaps provide a counterpoint to the blowjob of a review I'm no doubt going to write.

@ Alison, I had planned on making this my first TBA thing, since the subject seemed so interesting, and you seemed so, uh, taken with him. If I go, I'll write something up, and we'll see if my question gets answered in a satisfying way.

I simply don't understand why it's an either/or between writing something & performing monologues. People pay good money to buy books of nonfiction essays, and they'll pay out the ass to see them read live, if you've clearly got a good way of telling a story (I think you can tell which quasi-nonfiction-writing essayist/monologist I'm referring to).

If his goal is clearly activist, as he says, then his mode of communication should be tailored to reach the broadest audience, or at the very least, a targeted audience than can have the most potential impact on changing the situations he decries.

There's something a wee bit narcissistic (I used the word precious) about DRASTICALLY restricting the possible scope of your audience, so you can play to your biggest personal strength as a Performance Artist.

It shouldn't be a controversial point that his chosen audience is the crowd most likely to be primed to agree with him, e.g. I was only interested in going to hear him flesh out what I already know he's going to say.

Finally, I'd like to see the attendance figures when all is said and done - I can't possibly believe that more people will see this show than would read a well-researched piece published online by any number of possible sites (Slate, newspaper op-eds, etc).

(this is an iPhone comment, so pardon brevity/typos)

I don't think it's an either/or situation--and he actually does write; see "how theater is failing America" (think that's the title), "21 dog years" and a forthcoming book that I believe is either a monologue collection or an essay collection. Plus there is actually an artistic component to all of this; he structures his monologues in such a way that they're far more that just polemics. The points he makes are very rooted in the medium in which he makes them.

And I'm not sure if this is something he's considered, but it probably is--the people going to see monologues at art festivals are definitely the type to also be apple consumers. (see: me typing this on my iPhone.) in that sense it's very targeted.

@ CC: Why give Mike Daisey grief over doing his work in the way he sees fit as an artist? If there were no polemic in the piece it would not be an issue. Would you charge apolitical performance artists with playing to a narrow audience?

I am not super-informed on Foxconn/Apple but I would find it difficult to believe that the Nation, Z mag, online progressive type blogs etc aren't already reporting on the issues or at least putting em on their editorial agenda. The suicides made the international press.

I have been an activist on similar issues in the past... I identify more as an artist now, largely due to burning up over just this type of "either/or" mentality in the left. I believe that a multiplicity of approaches, strategies, audiences, etc is a good thing. Just cos Daisey is doing a show at this moment instead of writing "a goddamned article or book" won't preclude him or anyone else from doing so in the future. He knows what it takes so many lessons to learn: that his energy and talent are best spent doing that which inspires him. "Narcissistic" to you may be realistic for him; life and spark are finite and there is no end to the number of harsh ways you can cut yourself off without ever beginning.

I actually think that his performing this monologue (which I did make my Apple-loving family see with me) in Apple-fetishizing Portland, OR at a, shall we say, slightly bourgeois arts festival for an organization sponsored by some of our hometown corporations (including Nike, no stranger themselves to the global sweatshop- corporate code of conduct issues) had a couple of unique strengths: 1) He was able to say things in a personal, powerful, direct and passionate way, live, using the performance milieu, which I think we can acknowledge may have qualitatively different subjective-emotional effects on its various audience members than nonfiction writing / reading. 2) The audience may well have included people in positions to wield their influence/ spending power as Apple consumers to directly communicate with Steve Jobs, Apple, manufacturers, etc. What the overall effect may be is difficult to judge, but my Apple fanboy spouse came right home and fired off an email to sjobs@apple.com and I'll be doing so as well...