The first thing that sticks out to me about all three readings is truth and honesty. I learned that, in order to fully drawn in an audience, gain its respect, and encourage interest in your play/production/story, it is most important to tell the truth. It is obvious when something isn’t true, like Aaron McKinney saying Matthew came on to him. Of course everything we write is not going to have happened in factual reality, but that does not mean it cannot be true. Truths about the world like the ones in ‘Anne O’Sullivan’ and ‘Javi Mulero’ are just these sorts of truths; truths that mildly indicate an individual’s worldview, but that simultaneously ring true for so many others. Being a good writer means having the ability to create an imaginative story, character, etc. yet create this image so successfully as to have it become real in the minds of whoever reads it. This is what I learned about honesty.
Thinking about the characters I encountered in these readings, I realize that a character can become very complex and interesting with only a few lines of description or monologue. A character does not need pages of intimate history of his or her life in order for the reader to get a picture of who he or she is—sometimes people’s words speak louder than their looks or their actions.
At least for me, eloquency is far more convincing and pleasant than sharp, short bursts of muddled language that emphasize ignorance—not to sound pretentious. I guess language will differ a great deal from character to character, as evidenced in The Laramie Project, and it does help in establishing a persona. However, in a monologue, if I am to be convinced of and receptive to what a person is saying, I find it easier to follow a story, idea, thought, etc. when the speaker is able to talk to me clearly and at least somewhat intelligently.
I learned that humor is essential in many productions, no matter how short, because that small moment of relief from whatever is happening allows the audience time to recommit themselves to the story, the characters, the situation and motivates new interest in what comes next. However, humor should not be overused—it is the rarity of humorous moments that make them so special and so essential to the production; too much makes it lose its power.
Evoking any emotion, for that matter, is important to all writing. Emotions, more than events, are what an audience will relate to and be able to experience. This is key to successful writing. Like truth and honesty about the world, truth and honesty about emotions equally give an audience the chance to understand what a writer is attempting to communicate. Falsified and fabricated emotions are easy to spot, so again, the trick here is honesty.
Overall, something I find interesting about good writing is that it is about people. People like reading about and learning about other people because it helps them learn about themselves. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of stories and lives, both in the fictional and factual world. Any and all of these people have something to teach someone and good writing is the medium through which these lessons can be taught and learned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yep: it is the people or characters in a story that usually make it or break it. It's slightly daunting the amount that you emphasize honesty, but probably quite true. It is important that this same honesty and truth are apparent in fictional writing, possibly more difficult to achieve than fact based truth.
ReplyDeleteThe cross of humor and seriousness is also true. One consistent emotion in a play is draining to the audience, and it weakens that emotion over time, so a break from the dramatic for a quick laugh allows them to feel the characters pain again in the next scene.
In fact, I find honesty and truth easier to write when it's purely fictional than when it's based on fact. Laramie's words and interviews are made up, but certainly they're based on real events and real people, and that's constraining. What do you mean by honesty? And (how) is it different with monologues than with other kinds of plays?
ReplyDeleteI like the observation that characterization can come from -- and in fact works best when it does -- succinctness. It's worth even underlining instances of this when you come across them in your reading -- single lines or short speeches/moments that fully develop characters in your mind. It's hard to do, so pointing to models will help. Everything in a play has to do several things at once, so packing each line full will be very useful to you.
I'm less clear on what you mean by "eloquence." Also worth nailing down. Lots of people -- most even -- fail, alas, to be eloquent, succinct, intelligent, pretty in their speech. Are you willing to sacrifice the honesty you wanted for eloquence? Is there a way to do both? Is there a way to portray ineloquent characters eloquently? Mixing up emotions is a good start. What else?
I like the idea that honesty and truth can be achieved through fiction. The distinction between truth and reality is something I find especially helpful when I think of stories. I agree with you. It's like truth is something even broader than reality. I especially like that you latched onto emotional truth as being something that an audience will pick up on -- perhaps it is the reason we go to see plays. When we can say, "I think like that sometimes. That's so true."
ReplyDeleteI wonder about your view of the language characters use. If they use "sharp, short bursts of muddled language that emphasize ignorance," do you consider this ineffective? What if the character is unable to formulate a clear thought? What if that's their problem? If that's ineffective, does making a characters speech pattern more eloquent sacrifice your views on truth and honesty? How are those two thoughts married? It may be more "convincing and pleasant" to use intellectual language, but what if that isn't the story?
I like what you say about humor. I agree. Humor is a part of life. Just like tragedy. I don't think we can really have one without the other.