I'm reasonably good at talking onstage, but actually holding court in a pub is all to do with power dynamics which I don't think has anything to do with fiction.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
When you're a performer, of course you want an audience, but it's very, very different from courting fame.
I could talk more directly in a nonfiction voice than I could in fiction.
My problem is that the audience is more fiction-literate than ever. In Shakespeare's day, you probably expected to see a play once or twice in your life; today you experience four or five different kinds of fiction every day. So staying ahead of the audience is impossible.
Before I started writing, I'd never read much fiction. I was more interested in non-fiction. I'm taking the same approach to theatre: I can operate from a position of ignorance and make up my own rules instead of being bound by customs and practice.
I'm not from a theatrical background where people do like to work it out on some stage space.
In the courtroom, it's where a lawyer really becomes an actor. There's a very fine line between delivering a monologue in a play and delivering a monologue to a jury. I've always felt that way - I've been in a lot of courtrooms. The best lawyers are really theatrical.
I find with television, you have to play personality, whereas onstage, everyone talks about 'the character,' and what you do. It's a very different thing, because stage is much bigger, but on television, for things to come across to the public, I think you have to play a bit of your personality.
There is a big difference between what I do onstage and what I do in my private life. I don't put my living room on magazine pages.
Theatre can be so patronising. So often, it's just proselytising for the theatre.
I'm always trying out new stuff onstage. That's where I do all my writing.
No opposing quotes found.