Vít Zeman

VIRTUAL DIALOGUE WITH THE INNER PARTNER AS THE CORE OF PSYCHOSOMATIC CONCEPT OF AUTHORIAL READING (WITH CONTINUAL REFERENCE TO IVAN VYSKOČIL)

Abstract

This article focuses on the role of the spectator within the process of authorial reading from a philosophical perspective. The first crucial question of the paper asks for the necessity of the spectator’s actual presence within the process of the ‘performance’, which seems to be the necessary condition for the concept of authorial reading. The author offers a possible solution using the psychosomatic discipline of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner (discovered and developed by prof. Ivan Vyskočil) as a useful tool and framework for the interpretation and practice of the discipline of authorial reading.

The second part (and the second main question) engages with the correlative intentional dialogue between the performer’s inner (internal) spectator and the real (external) spectator. This concept implicitly presupposes the theory of authorial tripolarity (where the author is considered to be simultaneously in the position of performer, spectator, and director of himself or herself), which is explicitly referred to throughout the works of Ivan Vyskočil.

The very end of this contribution deals with the problem of transformation on the side of the performer (public authorial reader) as well as on the side of the spectator. This mutual relationship will be explained on the background of Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy. There, reading aloud is introduced as a phenomenon which has (or at least should have) a real existential impact on both the reader and hearer of the text.

Keywords

authorialreading, dialogical acting, spectator, transformation

Introduction to the Problem

The phenomenon of authorial, scenic, or public reading can sometimes evoke the impression of the supreme importance of the text or its reader. Sometimes it’s an appropriate impression. Nevertheless, in this article I want to argue for the restoration of the notion of the importance of the spectator within the framework of psychosomatic authorial reading. (It would be more appropriate to speak about the term ‘audience member’ with its reference to listening aspect (while the term ‘spectator’ focuses more on the watching aspect of the entire perception). In the following text I will use the term ‘spectator’ in its wider sense which covers both aspects.)

This article deals with psychosomatic concept of authorial reading, which represents a specific subset of the phenomenon of authorial reading. As far as I know, there is no research on this specific phenomenon in the Anglo-American area. In the Czech environment, besides Ivan Vyskočil (2020b, 2011), the research on psychosomatic authorial reading (“its essence”) is carried out by Přemysl Rut (2014), Vítězslava Fryntová (2003) and Irena Hamzová Pulicarová (2010). Stanislav Suda and Josef Nota (2023) deal with psychosomatic reading from the point of view of personality education. However, the presence of the spectator in psychosomatic authorial reading has remained rather outside the focus of previous research.

In the following I want to stress the importance of not only the external but also the internal spectator. Hence, after a short exposition of the phenomenon of authorial reading, I involve the concept of the psychosomatic discipline called Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner, enabling us to go deeper into the phenomenon of authorial reading and gain more from it. Special emphasis, in line with the title and purpose of this paper, is put on the spectator’s presence and on the process of communication.

1. The Concept of Psychosomatic Authorial Reading

I would like to start with the term ‘authorial reading’. It can, of course, be interpreted in several ways. Here I introduce two of the most common interpretations. We can understand and describe the phenomenon of authorial reading as:

1. the kind of performance where an author reads his or her own text;
2. a school subject, which consists of writing and reading an authorial text.

In fact, this second definition contains at least one more subtle distinction, the core of which lies in some differently emphasized aspects. When the process of communication through reading has the greater emphasis, we can speak about (2a) authorial reading in the narrow sense of the term, or about Authorial Reading (i.e. psychosomatic authorial reading) as a school subject established among others by prof. Ivan Vyskočil. On the other hand, emphasis could be placed on the process of writing and creating a certain form. Here the reading process just follows as an supplemental part of it. Hence, we speak rather about the process of (2b) creative writing or the authorial reading in the wider sense.

Authorial reading in the narrow sense, is more focused on the process, on the emergence of sense (or nonsense), which surprises both: the author and the spectator. In the case of a typically interpreted creative writing subject, the author more or less knows which form it should take. The author is expected to write a text with some given form. Its reading is usually just a complement, an appendix. The exercise is more about the fulfilment of a task (VYSKOČIL 2011).

However, the common kernel stays almost unchanged. Despite the differences we have described above, it is possible to find a common essence of these different types of authorial reading. It is a situation where the author tries to convey something (knowledge, a story, emotion, feelings…) by reading his text aloud. While writing this definition, I was tempted to add “in front of the spectator (or spectators) or the teacher”. Nevertheless, we can at least imagine a situation where the author reads his or her text aloud and alone. Could we also label it as a kind of authorial reading? In the following text, we will try to tackle the problem of the necessity of the presence of the spectator during the act of authorial reading.

1.1 Ivan Vyskočil on the Topic of Psychosomatic Authorial Reading

In the following lines I would like to offer a longer quotation of Vyskočil’s text on authorial reading, which serves as a comprehensive and complex description of the specific concept of psychosomatic authorial reading with its specific accents.

Together with Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner, it is an abiding subject of our research and study in education leading and authorship.

It is basically a matter of reading a text out loud, preferably one’s own text or a text that has been authorially reworked, in a group of about twenty participants, who should all have a go at reading. This means that everyone’s turn will come. […]

The person reading knows – and this is something which is often called to mind and clarified for the participants – that the reading should be a certain kind of authorisation and verification of a text. This is why it is necessary for the reading to be clear and intelligible. So that both the text and the speech of the reader communicate and instruct, so that all the participants can indeed take part in what is happening. This means not only as viewers and listeners (that is: ‘consumers’) but also, – primarily – as colleagues, teammates. This includes the role of doubters, opponents.

These situations are probably best achieved when the reader reads their text as if it were someone else’s, and thus on the whole unfamiliar, as if it were a text which they are getting to know through the reading, during the reading. This means that the reader is also listening to the reading, observing it, receiving and reflecting it, forming an opinion on what is being perceived, like somebody else. What is achieved is a polarisation, a doubling. The reader enters into a relationship of feedback with the text they are reading, with the other participants, and with oneself as somebody else. The reader creates a situation of authorial reading, articulated and structured as organically as possible.

It is evident, I hope, that authorial reading is basically play. The participants know this too, more or less. Along with how, in what way, and why it can be considered play. That is not so difficult to understand, know, and explain further. The point however, is to realise authorial reading as dramatic play through action in the here and now. And it is not easy. It is not even widely held, widely considered to be something that is worthwhile, something that needs to be studied. This makes it even more difficult to study it. But from the perspective of educating people to authorship and leading people to personal responsibility for their own words and speech, to conscious and creative communication, it is clearly necessary to also study authorial reading.

A successful session of authorial reading, due to the interplay of the aforementioned feedback relationships, has the reader come to a better understanding of what it is they have written and are now saying. Often this is understood in the context of wider connections and possibilities, and the reader accordingly makes cuts, additions, clarifications. Sometimes they enter into a dialogue with their own text, with their own reading – their expression, their message and their communication – and sometimes it can be a conflict, a polemic. This, then, is a case of full authorisation and verification, it is a dramatic event which excites and activates all the participants, beneficial and inspiring for everyone.

Quite a few of those who give authorial reading a go, who attempt it, who study it, can sometimes barely come to understand that what they are reading and communicating is evoking such an interest and response, such communication, even wider meaning. This is the beginning of the realisation and clarification of one’s own and common topics. And in this way everybody can gradually come to discover their own language, their own ability, expression and narrative. And in one way or another they will get a taste of (if they aren’t already tasting) so‑called catharsis, that uplifting of the soul from the dust. No doubt everybody can experience this. Of course, some people have to have their attention drawn to the fact. (VYSKOČIL 2020b: 1–2)

2. The Problem of the Necessity of the Presence of the Spectator

To solve the problem stated above, we have to start with a short description of Ivan Vyskočil’s approach (i. e. the broader context of the previous quote). It will be done in the following text. After that I will return to the question about the spectator’s presence and its (un)necessity.

2.1 Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner

When Ivan Vyskočil writes about what we called authorial reading in the narrow sense of the term (2a), he mentions that it somehow derives from or somehow follows the psychosomatic discipline of Dialogical Acting with the Inter Partner (VYSKOČIL 2020b). This psychosomatic discipline was originally discovered in 1968 and further developed by prof. Ivan Vyskočil. The term „psychosomatic discipline“ is used as a label for a discipline (i.e., the process of increasing of one’s ability) which engages the whole human existence as the unity of the body and the soul (HANČIL 1997). Not only because both of them are carried out in the framework of open dramatic play (VYSKOČIL 2020b), but also (and mainly) because both of them are essentially about the ability of ‘responding to oneself’. It is about ‘self‑meeting’, generally speaking (VYSKOČIL 2011). In the case of authorial reading, this ‘self-communication’ is extended; the spectator (the term ‘external partner’ is maybe more appropriate) as well as the text are included into the framework of a dialogical situation, dialogical acting (HAMZOVÁ PULICAROVÁ 2010). A fuller description of the discipline of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner would exceed the purpose of this paper. We therefore should limit ourselves to a short approximation of this discipline.

 Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner is based on the experience with soliloquy and self‑inter‑acting when one is – ‘agent’ or ‘actor’ – alone. Thus, the very essence of this discipline lies in the transmission of this authentic acting into the situation of public solitude, where the spectators provide accommodating attention. We also should speak of it in terms of it being an experiment rather than about a performance as such (VYSKOČIL 2003). It is also a situation where, to use a metaphorical expression, the participant’s „ear is amazed at what the mouth is saying“ (VYSKOČIL 2020a: 1). The active participant of this experiment is encouraged not to anticipate anything. He or she just follows the situation as it arises, which gradually forces them to act. The second (and different) reaction to the same situation is de facto the inner partner; the different, changed body tension (SLAVÍKOVÁ 2005). Hence the participant is somehow polarized. This possibility of inner polarization will be crucial for our further thoughts.

The principle of Dialogical Acting – as we wrote above – is implicitly present in the process of authorial reading as well. Someone would now argue about the inappropriateness of this claim in the case of 1 and 2b because Vyskočil’s concept of authorial reading is identical just with 2a. The response, however, can be found within the concept of the common kernel I adumbrated above. The principles of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner can be applied in case 2b, where the possible application is buried under the huge heap of technical requirements, as well as in case 1, where over-acting and superficial performing is not necessarily required. Obviously, we do not want to claim that every authorial reading is necessarily based on and derives from Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner; the point I want to emphasize here is that the principles of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner can enormously enrich the process of authorial reading with a new deeper layer.

2.2 The Induction of the Inner Spectator

Before I try to answer the question we stated above (about the necessary presence of the spectator and his role within the process) we must examine one more step. Let me now try to describe and analyse Dialogical acting with the Inner Partner with Kierkegaard’s (2009) concept of dialectics of action and reflection. The basic pattern of this dialectic consists of three steps:

1. State of passionate immediacy which is quite intensive.
2. State of reflection with increasing extensivity and (hence!) decreasing intensity.
3. State of higher form which leads to qualitatively better acting. The new extensivity (gained in the second step) is here intensified.

We could label the first step as the primary action, the second one as the act of reflection and finally the last one represents qualitatively higher action based on previous reflection. It corresponds to a situation of dialogical acting, where the participant tries to reflect on his/her actions and to further act according to this reflection.

If I stated above that the process of authorial reading is de facto extension, specific embodiment and application of (the principles of) Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner, we should conclude that the process of authorial reading consists of those three steps of dialectics of action and reflection.

The dialectic process is (in the case of Dialogical Acting) supported by the public solitude and the tension it creates. Speaking about authorial reading, however, there is obviously no space for public solitude since the act of public reading is based on public communication; the author tries to convey something to his audience through reading his text.

The possible solution for the problem which has just appeared can be found in involving the aspect of the psychosomatic condition. Speaking about this condition we have to keep an idea of a set of scales in our mind. Everyone finds himself in a certain state of psychosomatic condition. Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner requires some condition, but at the same time practising it has the direct impact of increasing the individual’s condition. It is very similar to physical condition in sporting disciplines (HANČIL 2005). The following will be an attempt to describe how the presence and certain level of condition change not only the ‘performer’^[1] (actor) but also the spectator.

Let’s return for a while to the problem of public solitude within the process of authorial reading. For our purposes we can discern three possible states of the – generally and therefore very roughly speaking – ‘performer’ (actor) here:

1. solitude
2. public solitude
3. being in public.

It appears that, unlike Dialogical Acting, the concept of authorial reading includes primarily cases a) or c) and furthermore just one of them at a time. It is also quite obvious to claim that case c) somehow includes case a) in terms of the reading process. The fundamental situation thus can be defined as reading alone. But this reading alone can contain some dialogical elements (at least as a possibility). These elements lie in the field of reading aloud and thus involving the body in the situation. This body involvement opens a new layer of the text. Kierkegaard, for example, in the preface to For Self-Examination encourages his readers with the following words: “My dear reader, read aloud, if possible! […] By reading aloud you will gain the strongest impression…” (KIERKEGAARD 1991: 3). This advice is given because: “The written word becomes a dead letter unless it is subjectively performed by the reader in the present moment.” (GREGOR 2011: 79)

By reading (or speaking) aloud, the human is able to become external to himself. According to Vyskočil, the voice (verbal or nonverbal) is the only possibility how to do it, in a strict sense (VYSKOČIL 2005). If we speak alone but aloud, we can hear ourselves ‘from the outside’. It means we can adress ourselves as ‘you’. We are able to talk to ourselves as to someone else. It is a situation where human acts through (διά) word (λόγος) (PALOUŠ 1997). The very potential of that situation is almost perfectly exhausted when the reader adresses himself as ‘you’ – the appellative force of the text reveals itself immediately in it’s fullness. “While you are reading you must incessantly say to yourself: It is I to whom it is speaking, it is I about whom it is speaking.“ says Kierkagaard (1991: 37). He continues with some examples and “parables”. It will suffice to mention just one of them here: “That mighty emperor of the East, whose wrath the renowned little nation had incurred, is said to have had a slave who every day said to him: Remember to take revenge.” (KIERKEGAARD 1991: 37) This example serves to “show the need to hear a word that is not one’s own.” (GREGOR 2011: 79)

This very act of active soliloquy provides solid background for active and communicative reading. It needs, however, a certain degree of psychosomatical condition which is necessary mainly because of two things: in order to (1) notice and use this possibility of creative soliloquy we have to read aloud with (2) sufficient degree of expressivity. The appropriate intensity of expression is also one of the most important pieces of advice provided by Ivan Vyskočil (2005) to almost all participants of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner. (The long term practice of Dialogical Acting is one of the ways to increase the psychosomatic condition.)

We can conclude one more thing: the real ‘spectator’ who is physically present during Dialogical Acting is implicitly present also in the author’s reading as follows:

1. as a segment of his/her condition’s cause;
2. as a segment of his/her courage’s cause – i. e. as a piece of the recollection of public solitude’s accommodating attention (as a segment of its source);
3. via negativa in the author’s experience of reality (because a specific notion of reality is shaped by dialogue with others).

This recollection or notion of being observed supports the initiation of conductive tension – even if the reader is alone. Obviously it’s not the only possible way of getting into this state but it can accelerate the process of getting into the state without any qualitative loss.

The psychosomatic condition, however, has another – and maybe even greater – impact on the process of reading aloud alone. Especially in the state of open dramatic play, and with a certain amount of psychosomatic condition, the human can undergo the self-division into a tripolar being. The participant in that kind of play is formally divided into an author, a performer and a spectator simultaneously (ROUBAL 2003). It is also possible to understand it as a cooperation of three different powers or attitudes towards the ontological situation of play (considered as a safe space which is opened for man’s creativity):

1. the creative and appropriately directive power of the inner authorial (i. e. active and responsible) attitude;
2. the executive power of the inner need to share and communicate;
3. the reflective power of the appropriate inner detachment.

To sum up this chapter in one sentence: the increasing psychosomatic condition of the reader (author) is followed by the reader having a more and more discernible inner spectator (both the recollection of the experience of the other and the inner pole of authorial existence). It is also worth mentioning that these psychosomatic disciplines just cultivate, clarify and amplify the natural processes and states of human being.

3. The Relationship between the Internal and External Spectator

According to the previous thoughts I would like to suggest a model which describes the interaction between the reader and the spectator. This interaction could also be labeled as a communication because to read the text is to communicate (an idea or image…) in the first place (FRYNTOVÁ 2003).

Before I start to describe the model, we have to remind ourselves of the dialectic nature of this process. The basic pattern of this dialectics consists of five element motions:

1. Two aspects of the first^[2] motion:
   a. The reconstruction of an idea or an image of a certain part of the text by the inner author/director.
   b. Performers/actors articulation of the sentence towards the spectator.
2. Inner spectator’s perception of speech itself.
3. Reception of the external (physical) spectator’s reaction.
4. Reflection of that perception, by the inner spectator (i. e. comparison among other things).
5. Modulation of a mode and character of the communication according to results of that reflection.

For the purposes of this paper we should focus on the mutual relationship between the motion 2 and motion 4. This relationship is something we can describe as a virtual dialogue between the inner (internal) and physical (external) spectator.

3.1 Modes of the Virtual Dialogue

The interaction of motion 2 and 4 creates dynamic tension. This tension can acquire one of six possible modes (forms). Their origin is “mere” combination of aspect of reconstructing and communicating an idea or image provided by the text (itself). The inner spectator operates either with the authorial reconstruction of the idea/image (A) or without any certain reconstruction (0). The external spectator is also able to create his or her own construction (B). We can, however, imagine a situation where the author/reader changes his reconstruction and turns it into a new authorial construction (which is more or less inspired by the original one). Nevertheless it is largely a matter of dialogue between the author and his text which contains a footprint of the author’s past thinking and feeling (SCHOPENHAUER 1994). Hence we should limit ourselves to a description of the ‘2–4 tension’ for this moment.

MODE	INTERNAL spectator	EXTERNAL spectator
confusion	0	0
random reproduction	0	A
random generation	0	B
isolation	A	0
comprehension	A	A
co-creation	A	B

The first trio of modes is mostly influenced by the reader’s failure to reconstruct the original idea or image of the text. Thus the confusion is communicated (1st mode) or spanned by the cooperation of the external spectator with the text itself. This cooperation can lead to partial reconstruction (2nd mode) or strong (des)interpretation (3rd mode) of the original idea or image.

While the first trio is mostly determined by the reader the second trio is influenced mostly by the external spectator. In these three cases the author has succeeded in recreating the idea or image. Although he or she has done the task well, there may be error in the communication (for many different reasons) and thus the spectator doesn’t receive anything meaningful (4th mode). When the process of reconstruction and communication is successful, we can speak about comprehension (5th mode) or co-creation (6th mode). In the last case there is a noticeable shift of the final idea or image on the part of the spectator. It is caused by his or her active interpretation of the communicated message. Therefore we are right when we speak about the correlation between the reader’s and spectator’s idea (or image) because this somehow derives from (and depends on) that.

Before we end this part I would like to note one important thing. The virtual dialogue is actualized in author’s/reader’s mind. Thus, the external spectator is present through some kind of representation or reflection of their own immediate feedback which is immediately provided by the physical spectator during the process of authorial reading. The real impression and reflection of the external spectator enters the actualized virtual dialogue shaped by possible uncertainities in its sending, misinterpretation created within its receiving and also by possible errors or deficiencies of the communication channel.

4. (Spect)actor’s Transformation

I have tried to analyse the process of authorial reading with a special focus on the role of the spectator within it. But one question still remains open. It‘s connected with the problem of possible results or consequences of the actualized virtual dialogue. How does it affect the real ordinary life of the reader and spectator? And is there any real impact at all? I think there is.

The possible transformation is based on a three-step process. The steps are: formation, transformation and information (verification). The first step (formation) is very prerequisite for the whole process of authorial reading. The author has to articulate his mind and thoughts, they must form the content into a certain literary shape to be communicated later.

The second step (transformation) then engages the spectator too. The message (i. e. certain shape of the idea or image of the text created by readers actual way of reading) is imprinted in the spectator’s mind. The message contains some parts of the form and the content of the text unified by the specific way of reading into a coherent package. This package or message is transferred physically by voice. It provokes an (conscious or unconscious) emotional reaction on the side of the spectator which is immediately added to the semiotic analysis of the message. The relation between those two ways of reception can be described in the common terms of traditional formal logic: identity, equivalence, superiority, inferiority, compatibility, incompatibility, contradiction (absolute or on a certain scale), correlation. By the process of imprinting the spectator’s mind is transformed by the whole message as well as by the whole act of communication.

The last step (information) is based on what Ivan Vyskočil (2020b) calls verification of the text. The partially idealistic intention of the author is confronted with reality within the process of public reading and through confrontation with the spectator. Feedback (described above as motion 3) carries information about the appropriateness of the author’s initial intention. The presence of the spectator is indispensable for this process. It is the spectator who represents the whole reality. We can also note that the larger number of spectators is present, the more objective the final feedback is. Thus the author is informed about the almost objective state of their communication through a specific text. This information helps him, not only to fine-tune the future form, but also to know himself better.

Hence we could describe the process as a kind of ‘calibration of optics’. While the optics of the spectator are extended by confrontation with the new form or message, the author’s optics are calibrated by the information gained from the spectator’s feedback (motion 3). Thus – even in the case of fiction – both the author and the spectator are, by the end of the process, closer to reality than at the beginning of it.

When the process is repeated, the habit of creativity and responsibility for one’s work is strengthened and fixed. Here the experiment/performance/learning process overlaps with ordinary life. According to Ivan Vyskočil, we can conclude that the act of creation (and also that of active perceiving) is at the same time also the act of ‘self‑cognition’ and ‘self‑creation’ (ROUBAL 2003).

Conclusion

In this text I have adumbrated the importance of the external spectator as well as the inner one (who is co-created by the experience of the external spectator). I have described the mutual relationship between the actor/author and the spectator. I have tried to present the situation of public and also private authorial reading as a dialogical one. On the other hand, I have to admit that this description is that of an ideal state. Reality sometimes differs a lot. It doesn’t, however, prevent us from striving to achieve this ideal state.

Bibliography

FRYNTOVÁ, Vítězslava. 2003. O paradoxu autorského čtení. In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Hic sunt leones: o autorském herectví. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2003: 66–67.

GREGOR, Bryan. 2011. The Text as Mirror: Kierkegaard and Hadot on Transformative Reading. History of Philosophy Quarterly. 28 (2011): 1: 65–84.

HAMZOVÁ PULICAROVÁ, Irena. 2010. Vyznání autorskému čtení. In Michal Čunderle and Eva Slavíková (eds.). Autor – autorství. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2010: 101–107.

HANČIL, Jan. 1997. Dialogické jednání jako otevřená otázka. In Eva Vyskočilová (ed.). Dialogické jednání jako otevřená otázka. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 1997: 15–20.

HANČIL, Jan. 2005. Otevřený svět dialogického jednání. In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Dialogické jednání s vnitřním partnerem. Brno: Janáčkova akademie múzických umění, 2005: 35–49.

KIERKEGAARD, Søren Aabye. 1991. For Sef-examination. HONG, Howard V. – HONG, Edna H. (transl., eds.). New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991.

KIERKEGAARD, Søren Aabye. 2009. Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age A Literary Review. HONG, Howard V. – HONG, Edna H. (transl., eds.). New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2009.

MERLEAU-PONTY, Maurice. 2002. Phenomenology of perception. London; New York: Routledge Classics, 2002.

PALOUŠ, Radim. 1997. Předpoklady sokratovského dialogu. In Eva Vyskočilová (ed.). Dialogické jednání jako otevřená otázka. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 1997: 7–13.

ROUBAL, Jan. 2003. Vyskočilova koncepce (ne)divadelního autorství. In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Hic sunt leones: o autorském herectví. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2003: 32–43.

RUT, Přemysl. 2014. O autorském čtení. In Kristýna Bartoš et al. (eds.). Almanach textů studentů autorské tvorby/2009–2014. Praha: MAKE*detail, 2014: 233–241.

SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. 1994. O spisovatelství a stylu. Praha: Hynek, 1994.

SLAVÍKOVÁ, Eva. 2005. Dialogické jednání – z poznámek asistenta.” In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Dialogické jednání s vnitřním partnerem. Brno: Janáčkova akademie múzických umění, 2005: 53–62.

SUDA, Stanislav – NOTA, Josef. 2023. Experimentální dramatika: Výchova ke svobodnému sebevyjádření. In Zuzana Svobodová (ed.). Svobodný čas: pedagogika volného času jako výchova ke svobodě. Praha: Karolinum, 2023: 122–142.

VYSKOČIL, Ivan. 2003. Dialogické jednání: heslo k autorizaci. In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Hic sunt leones: o autorském herectví. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2003: 176–177.

VYSKOČIL, Ivan. 2020a. On the Study of Acting: Inaugural professorial lecture upon receiving a professorship in acting. [online]. Institute for Research into and Study of Authorial Acting. 31. 12. 2020 [1. 6. 2024]. URL = <https://www.autorskeherectvi.cz/post/on-the-study-of-acting-inaugural-professorial-lecture-upon-receiving-a-professorship-in-acting?lang=en>.

VYSKOČIL Ivan Vyskočil. 2020b. Ivan Vyskočil’s Introduction to the book Mama isn’t Home on the discipline of Authorial Reading [online]. Ústav pro výzkum a studium autorského herectví. 31. 12. 2020 [24. 6. 2024]. URL = https://www.autorskeherectvi.cz/post/predmluva-ivana-vyskocila-ke-knize-maminka-neni-doma-1?lang=en.

VYSKOČIL, Ivan. 2005. Rozprava o dialogickém jednání. In Michal Čunderle (ed.). Dialogické jednání s vnitřním partnerem. Brno: Janáčkova akademie múzických umění, 2005: 13–32.

VYSKOČIL, Ivan. 2011. Veřejné autorské čtení jako nutná, završující i iniciační fáze autorské slovesné tvorby. In Michal Čunderle and Vlastimil Švec (eds.). Psychosomatické disciplíny v teorii a praxi. Praha: Akademie múzických umění, 2011: 85–88.

_{Úvodní foto: archiv autora}

---

[1] To speak about the performer in the narrow sense of the term would be misleading. In the case of Dialogical Acting with the Inner Partner as well as in the case of the concept of authorial reading developed by Ivan Vyskočil one speaks in terms of the participant or experimentator, the homo ludens. On the other hand, it’s appropriate to speak in terms of a performer when authorial reading (as a performance) or creative writing is mentioned.

[2] This claim implicitly presupposes the Merleau‑Ponty’s (2002) concept of thinking through the speech – the silent speech executed just in mind is here considered as a kind of speech too.