←Recommendations of Poetica

Oh, what a dream two-hander for two actors. SCOTT SICKLES is a true master of witty banter, and POETICA is a prime example. Wine... I blame wine for most of this conversation that SICKLES gives us a ring-side seat to.

When a short 2 hander is done well, it's like a brief respite. Or a good, long swallow of a sweet drink with a tart aftertaste. I could definitely see "Poetica" staged with 2 actors, engaging in the staccato dialogue over wine. Enjoyable from start to finish!

Am I the only one who wants to see this little diamond sparkle as a denouement for a larger piece? I wanna see what happened to make Jordan hand Flannery this glass of wine. :)

There's a frothiness to Jordan and Flannery's conversation that only happens in a play. We only WISH we could be as smart, as eloquent, as damned entertaining as these two characters from Scott Sickles imagination. And since he wrote them, I guess Scott IS that smart, eloquent and entertaining in real life. If we ever meet, I'll be straining to keep up my end of the conversation. OR I could just read or watch his work and enjoy his company that way, as a satisfied audience member. That's a fact, NOT opinion.

As Mr Sickles allows this to be performed by any adults, I immediately transported myself to a bar in Dublin and watched Jordon and Flannery's funny, slick conversation spill out over their pints of Guinness (Yes, I
replaced the wine with beer, sorry!)
This two-hander is a lot of clever fun, so there must be many ways it could be performed.
But that's just my opinion......

If you don't know a Jordan in real life, you ARE Jordan.
"Poetica" is a semantic tennis match that is a delight to read and would be a joy to see on stage. Better yet, I could see this being performed in any public space, because the conversation would inevitably draw everyone into its orbit, whether or not they intended it.

Scott Sickles has written an entertaining and deliberately exhausting comedy that two actors with excellent chemistry will adore. "Poetica" feels like a fencing match with advances and retreats and reversals and deep dives and approvals and rejoinders and all for the sake a very pleasant conversation.

This conversation that juxtaposes poets and semioticists and includes a discussion of the fallibility (or infallibility) of opinions is a real hoot. To the question of whether or not Flannery will come back for more, let me say I hope so and I hope that we will be privy to it.

I love conversations like this, and a conversation like this always needs wine. A sparse set, two good actors, and some wine glasses, and you’ve got the makings of a great play. Fun and fruitful, with hints of citrus and sarcasm.

Wine-influenced conversations are the most enjoyable, just like this show. The reasonings, assumptions, and the logic of the artistic really shine in this show. Like the playwright says, you have had this conversation before, though topics may vary. The quick wit and naturalistic dialog is a real gift to actors and the ease of production is a gift to producers. I really enjoyed this.