This is one overt reference to balance in the play. Agnes says this line with an exaggerated tone, but I think this is only out of her comfortably with being all of these roles. Her character is the type to like holding countless titles and would mock anyone that cannot "balance" these things. Her fear of going mad does show some vulnerability regarding this balance that she maintains and aides in her momentary "would I be better off as a man?" thought. However, she soon talks herself into a realization that there is a balance that is maintained in being a man, as well. Agnes enjoys the balance she strikes up as a woman but fears the risk that comes with its delicacy.

The ellipsis here show a careful selection of language on Agnes' part -- something that I notice comes up often in each characters dialogue, reminding us that each word choice is purposefully, if not confidently, chosen. This moment that precedes the "I'm a alcoholic" discussion from Claire focuses on the nuances of addiction. By Agnes' terms, one is addicted when it is compulsive and later, Claire's distinction of the drinking into oblivion being "by choice" makes her "beyond forgiveness." Meanwhile Agnes is so concerned with her own potential "uninvited" madness that she can't see how similar the two things are as far as control goes. Agnes creates the definitions for these things with her own words and those become truth -- one that she imposes on others. Claire will do the same when she makes the distinction between her being a drunk and an alcoholic.

(Hypothesis didn't recognize the text so I couldn't add a normal annotation): "Good evening. I'm sorry to -- bother you, but we just thought we'd better let you know that we haven't got anything left. We sent up all we had. There's no more food down here (111)."

In Ben's communication with someone on the upper level, he shows a clear subordination to whoever it is. The pause after saying "sorry" made me think he had a momentary thought of: "I didn't sign up for this, why am I apologizing?" This is a fleeting thought though, if one at all, because he goes on to explain their inability to provide anything more. Without even knowing why, he's taken on the responsibility of giving Gus' things to an unknown "higher power." This bit of dialogue made it very obvious that the play is highlighting a blind adherence to authority, even if it's nonsensical to the viewer. We may even question our own judgement of it -- the hidden authority doesn't give us the space to clearly judge it. It can come off as humorous or frustrating that these orders have made the men panic.

This is the first character we meet that isn't visible to the audience. For me, the lack of visibility suggested that the character wasn't real and set up the same expectation for the rest of the guests that followed. As viewers or readers, we aren't accustomed to believe what isn't "visible" (with reading this is harder because it really is based on imagination and feigned reality for the time being). We are either left out of a true interaction that is going on -- the end of the play maybe suggests we were -- or we are aware that the Old Man and Old Woman are imagining these guests to justify or have company in their suicide. For most of the play, the invisibility gave way to humor but it got quite dark at the end.

This dialogue between Harper and Todd gave me ideas for where this world is situated. It doesn't give the sense of a natural landscape or an ecosystem we would recognize. There are identifiable nationalities (Dutch, Ethiopian, Canadian, etc.), however animals seem to have no specific environments. We get no information as to how they learn the information about these animals and people but it seems as if these animals can be encountered anywhere. Elephants, crocodiles, and deer go by this worlds boundaries of survival when it comes to climate and space. Fuchs tells us to identify these aspects of the world, and on paper, there seems to be little to no order to its ecosystem.