William loves Anna and hates globalization. Anna does not care about globalization, for she is an actress &ndash; but she loves William, the strongest opponent of globalization here and now, as well as the writer from there and then: William S., you know who. He, in turn, is not loved by William. William and Anne struggle to find each other and fail. They do not escape their fate &ndash; fate as represented in the urge to change, fight against tradition, helplessness in front of injustice, pursuit of one&rsquo;s original dreams, necessity to redefine love, and burden of history. The play is a reconstruction of this story like after a stroke when everything is confused, when one must rebuild everything. It unfolds in fragments whereby a character tries to reconstruct what happened, why they got to that point. Many elements come up after a stroke, such as references from youth, memories from the past, and all that sort of things. It gets a bit mixed up.<br />Due to Internet surfing, we are now thinking in networks. We link various information and build opinions. This mode of thinking allowed Paul Pourveur to find a new approach to the fragmentary form. He translates the reality as a proposition of possibilities, between determinism and indeterminism, where information is layered in nonlinear sequences, and creates several points of view, more reading choices. This leads to a dramaturgy like a cobweb, with thousands of connections towards various areas, where the theme seems to explode in a total event. Pourveur reflects on post-modern biographies and, in a sense, hangs them up to dry on the progress of a rather easy-going relationship. At the end, everyone is dead, and the author recommends for the last time: <i>Live clean, think about the next one</i>.