By "truest" I mean a performance that is most in agreement with the drama it
means to complete. Some people call this concern play analysis or interpretation.
Certainly, iconicity relates to those endeavors. However, there is a fundamental
difference: unlike analysis and interpretation, iconicity is not concerned with
explaining or unraveling the meanings of plays in performance; its interpretive
(hermeneutic) position is that a play's meaning is its identity. Actors can cultivate
that identity in rehearsal and perform it if they are able to recognize it. The
process of iconicity enables this recognition. Consequently, iconicity can lead to
fresh, sometimes startling, discoveries about a play that, however unbelievable
they may at first seem, nevertheless ring true in performance.

The process of iconicity I am presenting is not fixed, nor are the conclusions
about it that I present definitive. Rather, this process remains in a state of flux or
transition from project to project. Therefore, while many of the ideas and
conclusions about the process presented here will prove lasting, others will
definitely change in the future.

The future of iconicity depends on its further practice, not only by me but also
on others who will have read this book, and explored and tested the ideas it
presents. However, this book is not proselytizing. I do not expect readers to
suddenly give up their artistic beliefs and take up the cause of iconicity. Such is
not my point. Artists have their own ways of doing things, of making art. That is
part of what being an artist entails. My first desire is that the reader will suspend
any preconceptions and try to evaluate my ideas and conclusions with an open

-xii-