this is a non-fiction tale:
oh how to start? i don’t do this often, try to tell a narrative of people in situ (as opposed to in print, i love telling stories of the holy words of different persons). hm.
this thing is limitless, where to cut the boundaries? let’s say i was at home, studying feverishly, wane yellow light, snow out the window. it’s december 2007, a day or two before an exam. blah blah this part isn’t very important. let’s quicken the pace.
received a text via my cinci grapevine (which i don’t think i knew existed until this moment), stating, in satisfied tones, that there was a script reading that night for a play titled: “Cincinnnati at Rest”. for free. OH WELL, I WAS HOT AND BOTHERED by this, but i stayed the course and studied for my exam. good for me, pat on the back.
shortly after that exam, i did decide to hunt for this play though, to find out exactly what it was about. followed a bizarre little rabbit’s hole chase through theater collective websites, and off off broadway actor listings. after many odd and unanswered emails on my part, i finally received a response and was connected with the playwright and the email chain of my dreams (um kinda like this, remember? [honest question: how did I ever come across this?! i have no recall])!
well, to cut to the eager-ness of it, according to the play-wright, it wasn’t about cincinnati, sorry. ACK right? wrong. it was about (the title was, as they say in the biz, working title, and i believe was changed) aaron burr chilling, killing, and pimping (but mostly about hamilton dying).
well “purportedly”, hamilton and burr were both superfanaticos of the Society of the Cincinnati, and the play plays with that idea. big whoop. “did i want him to send me the script?” of course not, why in the world would i want that. go away
EXCEPT, reading his email, and chewing on the cud of my disappointment, i came across this little epiphany: cincinnati is plural.
duh. i took latin. 1 cincinnatus; 2 cincinnati, 3 cincinnati, 4 cincinnati, etc. = 1 tom, 2 toms, 3 toms, etc.
BUT THINK ABOUT IT. we (*ahem* you?) have a city that is in the plural form. weeeeeEEEEEeeeEEEEeeeellllllllllllll. i don’t know, but that’s rare. that’s downright bizarre.i remember growing up, someone would occasionally ask: “name all the teams in the NBA that are not plural”, or someone would ask: “name all the fruits that have a pit”. well to them i say: “name all the cities that are plural” presto: cincinnati.
- at the time, and still, i think this is a very bizarre name for a city. it’s like naming a city after the followers of a great person, instead of the great person mismo. anybody ever heard of George Washingtons, WA? it’s mixing up the act of “believing” with the thing that is believed in.
- oh this gels weirdly with the whole “cincinnati is a city with dual souls” argument that taylor, jr. puts forward. predestination and jeepers creepers son, that’s all.
- aren’t we (*ahem* you) just cincinnati instead of cincinnatians? i mean, isn’t cincinnatians like a third-order naming? cincinnatus –> cincinnati –> cincinnatian. is there something debasing in this?
- this might have some affect on ideas of citizenship in the city. really. hm.
for some reason if i think about this too long it makes me head hazy, and my stomach a little like my head.
post-script: anyway, i communicated some of this to him (in a slightly more restrained manner), and did end up asking for the script. he never replied. shucks dang shoot. life goes.
pps: oh the play was a comedy
ppps: this is one of the stranger blogs. pynchon lurks somewhere here (if i refer, i am pretentious, but literary instead of weird). maybe the chorus.