Textbook

AT RISE:

A MAN.

MAN:
Traditional dramatic structure would have me come out here, introduce myself in a way that the audience would not find too jarring (unless jarring interaction with the audience is the point), introduce the conflict or conflicts, and then go about resolving those conflicts, or not. Though it should be noted choosing not to resolve a conflict is in itself a method of resolving a conflict.

A DUDE enters.

DUDE:
And yeah, in a kind of traditional meta-textual sort of thing, there would be some kind of public acknowledgement of the tenants of the dramatic form which the audience was reading, thus making it, in away, a formula in and of itself.

A LADY enters.

LADY:
And then of course there's all this meta-meta crap, which talks about the meta-ness of being meta in a very non-meta way.

A WOMAN enters.

WOMAN:
And of course there are examples of dramatic writing which make no sense at all. This usually from a complete lack of storytelling, rather than an example of tortured, anti-establishment genius, as many writers would have you think.

MAN:
Because, see, you need structure to allow the audience to follow along.

DUDE:
And yet, being aware of the structure itself is an excellent way to both comment on it, and try something new.

LADY:
Basically, you need to know the basics to break them.

WOMAN:
And even when breaking them, you still have to follow them in some sense. or basically, the whole thing goes to shit.

EVERYONE:
GOT THAT, THEATRICAL COMMUNITY?!??!? MAKE SOME DAMN SENSE NEXT TIME!

The AUTHOR enters.

AUTHOR:
And now, a joke about a duck.

LADY:
Where's my duck?

MAN:
You don't have one!

Icy silence.

DUDE:
That wasn't a joke.

WOMAN:
Was that meta?

AUTHOR:
Yes?
(beat)
Snickers for everyone!

Snickers bars rain from the sky! What a good play!

BLACKOUT. END PLAY.