Comedy in a play is a collective effort. The playwright, director, actors, technicians, stagehands, costumers, sound and light designers, and finally the audience must all interact to create the final outcome: laughter. The author who can get his play staged and have everything work all together can consider herself very lucky indeed.

One such lucky playwright is Steve Arbuckle, a writer / actor / comedian who had his original work, "All Work and More play," staged at the One Act Festival at UCCB recently. I had the pleasure of being present for the event. It was obvious that a good portion of this play's appeal was sensory. A reading of the script may have produced laughs - I didn't have a chance to do so - because the actual lines are brilliantly funny; but the added "oomph" of wonderful costumes, vocal and facial expressions really make this play shine. It is difficult to know how much of the play's blocking and action was inherent in the lines, how much was explicitly written as stage directions and how much was the work of the director. In this case, because the playwright acted in the play and was directly involved, it is especially difficult. So how do we evaluate a playwright's work based on viewing alone? After seeing it, it would seem impossible, to me, to judge the words without the actions. So, then, is a play the property of the playwright alone? Doesn't the author of a successful play owe half of his success to those who brought it to the stage? It certainly seems that way.

And yet, as a writer, I would have difficult in sharing the byline success of a play I'd written with someone who didn't write any of it, no matter how much they'd helped in the production. I'd certainly share the glory in the production, but the play is all mine.

Or is it? Is a play merely words on paper? Or is it incomplete until staged?

Perhaps I'll ask Steve Arbuckle.