Completeness

by Itamar Moses

How does a computer scientist hook up with a molecular biologist? He blinds her with science, of course. When Elliot builds a computer program to help Molly with her research project, the variables in their evolving relationship shift as rapidly as the terms of their experiment. This deft and imaginative new ROM-comedy shows that even the most sophisticated algorithm may freeze in the face of life's infinite possibilities.

Genres: Plays, Fiction, Audiobook, Drama

82 pages, Paperback

First published January 15, 2012

Reviews

[Jay French · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find myself in the middle of a streak of books about algorithms, but this was the first play and first love story in that streak. Interesting in being about grad students in science, and their interactions revolving around how the computer science guy and bio girl could learn something about their work from the other's studies. Cute, and makes me wish I had continued in college for the chances at discovery, on many levels. On audio, the recording included a lengthy discussion of the play by a scientist who explained some of the more technical topics that were part of the plot. I found the descriptions and discussion very interesting.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Completeness" by Itamar Moses is a sharp, intellectual exploration of the intersection between romantic attraction and scientific methodology. The play centers on Elliot, a brilliant but socially anxious computer scientist, and Molly, a driven molecular biologist. Their relationship begins as a professional collaboration—Elliot writes an algorithm to assist with Molly’s research—but it quickly evolves into a complex laboratory for testing the limits of human connection. The plot hinges on the "completeness" theorem, using it as a metaphor for the impossibility of fully understanding or predicting another person, which serves as a constant source of friction as they navigate their own insecurities and past romantic traumas.

The characters are defined by their reliance on logic as a defense mechanism. Elliot is defined by his obsessive need for control and predictability, which makes him a genius at coding but profoundly ill-equipped for the messiness of intimacy. His asset is his sheer intellect, but his flaw is a paralyzing fear of vulnerability. Molly is equally ambitious, possessing a fierce dedication to her work that often blinds her to the emotional needs of those around her. Her asset is her resilience, yet her flaw lies in her tendency to view human relationships as variables to be solved rather than experiences to be lived. Their dynamic is a constant tug-of-war between the desire for companionship and the fear of losing their autonomy, with the plot twists often stemming from their inability to communicate their true intentions without hiding behind jargon or technical complexity.

The play masterfully tackles themes of intellectual arrogance and the limits of reductionism. Moses posits that while we can map out biological sequences or write code to optimize efficiency, the human heart remains stubbornly resistant to being "solved." This theme of inherent unpredictability creates a haunting tone that shifts from witty, fast-paced academic banter to moments of quiet, devastating isolation. Another major theme is the nature of legacy and the desire to leave a mark on the world, whether through scientific breakthrough or personal connection. The characters struggle with the existential weight of their work, wondering if their professional achievements will ultimately compensate for the emptiness they feel in their private lives, suggesting that true completeness might be an unreachable mathematical ideal rather than a realistic life goal.

The performances in "Completeness" are essential to grounding its dense dialogue. Actors portraying Elliot and Molly must balance a rapid-fire, intellectual delivery with the raw, awkward vulnerability of two people falling in love against their better judgment. A standout portrayal requires an actor to make the character's internal monologue visible through micro-expressions, showing the audience the exact moment logic fails and emotion takes over. The supporting cast, who often play various romantic partners and colleagues, provide the necessary contrast to the leads, highlighting the different ways people fail or succeed at connection. These actors bring a precise, clinical energy to the stage that allows the play’s emotional stakes to feel earned rather than forced. If you enjoy the blend of romance, intellect, and human frailty found here, you might also appreciate "Proof" by David Auburn or "Arcadia" by Tom Stoppard.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Completeness is... fine. The dialogue is naturally funny and the scientific problem driving the plot is an effective thematic metaphor for the relationship between the lead characters. It works as a romantic comedy. I'm just so bored with plays like this and it's frustrating how a significant portion of the theatre community considers this exact type of story to be the most important genre of theatre being written today.

Our characters go through explosive breakups with people they obviously shouldn't have been with in order to fall fast into a new relationship with each other. This relationship is much better for both people and we know this because their dialogue alternates between flirty little incomplete sentences and lengthy speeches about their personal insecurities as if the audience is their therapist. In fact, they're so compatible that they simply must cheat on each other, otherwise the story would have a boring, happy ending instead of a pseudo-profound ambiguous one.

[Eliza · Rating 2 out of 5]

This... just felt pointless. I wasnt invested enough in the main couple to care whether they stayed together or not. And the writing felt like it was painting the FMC as being too "demanding" and playing "mind games" with the MMC. She was coded that way, even if it wasn't explicitly called out. It was supposed to be a tool for comedy, but that joke is way old.

I know the science was supposed to reflect their tumultuous relationship. But even that felt a little shallow.

And about three-quarters through there was a random "technical problem"? So because i was listening and not reading it, i have no idea if this was a part of the performance, or if during the recording of the stage show this really did happen and no one edited it out for the audiobook.

Overall, this wasn't for me. It wasn't funny. It wasn't compelling. And the technical problem didn't make sense for the published audiobook.

[Ian Carpenter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this - didn't listen to a CD. It's so well observed and has to have audiences howling in recognition of the push-pull, undeclared, teetering dance of people taking things from cheating hook-up to relationship and bailing for another hook-up. There's so much more to it, the science/programming/math background of it all is effective, if not profound. A little heartbreaking, a little hopeful. Hope to see it live.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the script for this play and so it was very quick. Although it went heavy into science jargon in some parts, I still got the symbolism Moses was going for. Very well thought-out. I can see why his stuff has been successful.

[Shiela · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story was cute, but I'm more of a character reader, so while I usually like the difficult, awkward, intelligent characters, I just didn't "bond" (pun intended if you've read it) with Elliot. And I ended up not rooting for anyone. :\

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Captures the awkwardness of grad students deftly; puts into words the fear and hope, clumsiness and clutching at pursuing new relationships after big ones fizzle out (for the first time). Can we be loved with all our baggage and scar tissue that just keeps on accumulating?

[Beckiezra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hoopla bonus borrow. I do enjoy these science plays but I also wonder who would actually go pay to see one. This one suffered a bit from same voice syndrome making characters hard to tell apart. Also it was very relationship focused and a bit risqué at times.

[Gil · Rating 5 out of 5]

for full review visit http://gilwilson.wordpress.com

[Ann · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Read the script. Didn’t listen to the audio, although Jason Ritter would be a great pick for Elliot. Fun moment in Act II - unexpected. Smart.

[mj manning · Rating 3 out of 5]

very good i just still am not a fan of stem plays..

[Julia Bartow Fuchs · Rating 4 out of 5]

I take back every time I said I hated biology. Biology is freaking beautiful bruh 🥲

[Julia Bartow Fuchs · Rating 4 out of 5]

I take back every time I said I hated biology. Biology is freaking beautiful bruh

[Melissa Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hoopla bonus borrow -- Jason Ritter totally has his dad's comedic gene! Big fan - this was a fun short audio play.

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

A love story and a science problem. Metaphors for each other. And a grad school setting makes it interesting for me. I liked it. Good cast. Interesting post-play discussion with a real mathematician.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Listened to audio performance. Bonus listen on hoopla. Ok. Angsty college students figuring out dating. Nice and short.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really didn't care for the characters as they really weren't very nice people. I do like the fact it was about math and science.

How did this book find me? It was a Hoopla Bonus Borrow.

[Jonathan Santos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots and lots of mathematical and scientific jargon. Need someone to write an analysis paper for a 5 year old to help me understand the greater themes. But all in all, a decent play. With a cute ending.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is always something a little off to me about plays that try to align computer programming and love...

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent play about love, relationships, yeast cultures, protein interactions, np complete problems and the traveling salesman problem.

[Patrick Grizzard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smart, funny, sad, and sweet, with a moment of formal inventiveness that breaks the fourth wall in a way that feels well-earned. This is what can happen when playwrights refuse to dumb down science and engage with big ideas.