But before that, a brief word on Hitchen's grand book. I won't harangue you with large swaths of the text or bang-on endlessly about how much I believe all religion to be deeply wrong, anti-humanist and the nearest we have to organised child abuse but I will share with you my favourite bit that made me laugh out loud on the bus to the theatre.
One recalls the question asked by the Chinese when the first Christian
missionaries made their appearance. If god had revealed himself, how is it that
he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?
Like the best texts that outline the case against religion, Hitchens presents the argument that for me is the desperate undoing of all the organised forms of human control: is your god/gods willing to prevent evil but unable? Thus she/he is impotent. Or is your god able to stop evil but unwilling? Thus making she/he malevolent. Or perhaps your god/gods is both willing and unable? Thus they are evil.
Back to Zero, as I mentioned, yesterday was our opening night and it went very well indeed, aside from some sound issues and tonight promises to be another grand adventure.
As well as reading Hitchens, I've been digesting some of Leon Trotsky's essays of late and was struck that his idea of the working class looking to transcend the world of material goods and material wealth in which they could never hope to be a success in, is in part reflected in the story of the terrorist in the play itself.
The idea that when the world of money and wealth seems so far away as to be unreal, a fantasy, then action can be taken to transcend this world by acts of violence in order to become something in another way, in order to find a degree of success in humanity by playing by a different set of rules.