{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034227039361095266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009697661152310326, 'mean_word_length': 5.048275862068966, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Henry Livings The Rough Side of the Boards London: Methuen, 1994. £8.99 (pbk). ISBN 0-415-67860-1.

The aims of this disappointing book are to confirm Artaud as a seminal influence on theatre, and to make his ideas accessible. Artaud was a charismatic but problematic figure: an inept actor, an incompetent director, 'unable to sustain a coherent thought on paper' yet 'no one who works in the theatre now is untouched by (his) impact'. These essays miss the opportunity to examine the substance of Artaud's supposed legacy. Indeed, some of them seem to have only a tenuous link with the subject, including one on Witkacy and Artaud, who neither met nor knew of each other, and another on Korean shamanistic performance, which Artaud never saw. The better essays reappraise Artaud's influence: Naomi Green, in particular, explores his relationship with fascism, refusing to allow him refuge in madness. The book might have utilized a range of contemporary critical thinking. Surprisingly, there is no mention of Foucault, whose discourse on 'madness' could have been relevant, and there is little discussion of the extent to which Artaud's writings constitute deranged ramblings or visionary theatre tracts. There might also have been some reference to cultural imperialist critiques; it is no longer possible to acknowledge his fascination with the Balinese dancers without also investigating the notion of appropriation. The usual suspects are marshalled Brook, Mnouchkine but it would have been interesting to investigate the ways in which younger practitioners (e.g., Lepage, Berkoff) have been informed by Artaud. Artaud remains a conundrum. Although this collection is a helpful primer, a better structured, more methodological analysis is needed.