WRONGNESS is a psychological horror audio anthology exploring failures in systems people rely on to understand reality.
Each episode presents a different type of breakdown — technological, cognitive, linguistic, or structural.
Episode 4 focuses on language and reference failure inside a routine professional environment.
If selected, you will receive the full actor-only script with delivery guidance.
I apologize for being behind on updates, but I wanted to thank each and every person who auditioned for the role of Mark. With every audition I am consistently blown away by how talented everyone is and how amazing each person's performances were.
I am going to try to catch up on auditions and reach out to the chosen actor as soon as possible. I will try to reach out via CCC DM first.
Thank you all again, and I will update once this episode enters production
MARK — Male — 30s–50s (flexible)
Naturalistic, grounded voice.
Mark is a contracts specialist reviewing legal documents out loud as part of a routine dictation process. His job requires precision with language, and he speaks the way someone used to legal review would: calm, analytical, and procedural.
This is not a theatrical role.
The horror in this episode emerges from language failing while Mark remains rational and controlled.
The performance should feel like someone calmly talking through their work, not narrating a story.
Tone & Performance Style
Naturalistic
Controlled
Analytical
Procedural
Important:
Mark is not frightened in a dramatic way.
He remains composed even when something becomes wrong.
Actors should avoid:
• “Horror voice”
• Dramatic tension
• Audiobook narration style
• Over-performing pauses or emphasis
Think of the delivery more like:
• a lawyer dictating notes
• someone reviewing paperwork out loud
• calm problem-solving
The performance should feel matter-of-fact and believable.
Emotional Range
This role relies on subtle shifts, not big reactions.
Across the episode Mark moves through:
• routine professional focus
• mild analytical confusion
• quiet attempts to rationalize something incorrect
• growing cognitive dissonance
• exhausted procedural persistence
Even at the most intense moments, Mark does not become theatrical or panicked.
He keeps trying to explain the problem using the same calm system he always uses.
Recording Style
The audio should feel intimate and natural, as if the listener is hearing a private dictation recording.
Actors should be comfortable with:
• natural breathing
• quiet delivery
• conversational pacing
• letting small hesitations occur naturally
Clean, grounded delivery is more important than dramatic performance.
Audition Instructions
Please record the audition lines naturally, as if you are:
reviewing contracts out loud for a personal work recording.
Do not perform this as narration.
Avoid dramatic pauses or emphasis unless it feels natural.
The goal is believable speech, not performance.
What I’m Listening For
When reviewing auditions I am primarily looking for:
• A natural speaking voice
• Clean, believable delivery
• Comfort with quiet, grounded performance
• The ability to sound like a real professional doing their job
The performance should feel effortless and real, not stylized.
If your audition sounds like you are narrating an audiobook, the performance is likely too theatrical for this role.
(Natural, procedural, calm) Contract reference 1138. (spoken: “one-one-three-eight”) Service agreement. Beginning review. Section One: Definitions. All defined terms appear in standard order. Formatting is consistent. Language appears clean. No irregularities in the opening section. Continuing review.
(Observation, analytical curiosity — not fear) Midway through the document, there’s a sentence that doesn’t fit. Not because it’s unclear. It just doesn’t belong in this context. The word weird appears in the middle of the paragraph. It isn’t italicized or underlined. It isn’t set off in any way. It’s just there. Informal language doesn’t belong in a professional document like this.
(Controlled but increasingly strained reasoning) Structurally, everything works. Defined terms are consistent. The sentence would likely hold up if challenged. This isn’t a legal issue. It’s a usage problem. Probably someone was being careless in the drafting. That’s weird. … I’m going to read that again.
