An actual writing question from me...don't be shocked.

[Lauren Hynde]

Charley and Lauren: I really could not make out what you were saying, even rereading your posts. I don't think it was appropriate to throw in Beckett, Baker, the auteur theory, all that film and semiotical jargon. Abby's question was simple, and she deserved answers like Mab.'s and Gauche's.

I was going to post in reply to you but the point of this thread is not lit. theory or criticism.

Perdita

'Dita, I posted mostly in English:

For me, the format of a story, as POV and verbal times, usually has a very strong relation of causality with its content. The way I think stories, they must be told in a certain way and can't simply shift format or POV or whatever on a whim.

I can't see what's there not to understand. Even if you don't know who is Beckett or Brecht, you know the basic building blocks of writing.

The point of this thread has been answered early on, ans without seeing the play in question, all we have left is lit. theory and criticism. Unless you want to settle for simplistic black and white rules, as often happens in these discussions.

Show, don't tell. Don't write second person stories. Don't use multiple adjectives. Don't use adverbs. Don't write stage-plays.

Load of bollocks and you know it.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Ahhh stop fuckig with my head, I'm only human.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ahhh stop fuckig with my head, I'm only human.

Go ahead and post the stage-play if that's what you wrote. Send it to me and I'll help you format it for Lit.

If you want a story instead, read the stage-play 10 times, lock it in your drawer, and write a story in one go. After you do that, you can go get the play and correct any dialogue you may have misquoted from memory, but only if you think it's necessary to remain faithful to the letter of the play.

There.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Go ahead and post the stage-play if that's what you wrote. Send it to me and I'll help you format it for Lit.

If you want a story instead, read the stage-play 10 times, lock it in your drawer, and write a story in one go. After you do that, you can go get the play and correct any dialogue you may have misquoted from memory, but only if you think it's necessary to remain faithful to the letter of the play.

There.

I love you more than coffee.....mwah.

 

[gauchecritic]

I hope we don't keep posting simultaneously here this is hard work, and I'm loving every minute. Hurrah for serious threads.

A short story with only dialogue is a play, which means that any and or/all actions implied and inferred are created entirely in the reader's head. The only difference between those two formats is stage directions, which often carry descriptions, actions and inflection.

The stories without introspection are almost entirely dependant (for character building in the mind) on the reader and the dumb spectator idea pales a little as soon as you settle the visualisation on the page on Clint Eastwood or Arnie so how different do you make them then? Interpretation again, is key.

Even an action story with no dialogue has tell-tale signs of character/history simply by the author's choice and order of words, thereby making the transformation again dependant on interpretation. The difference between Arnie running across the desert and Clint loping along is vast indeed and the screenplay (inferring casting) would necessarily be different for each actor and consequently from the story format.

Strictly as an aside, if interpretation is everything, why do I have several plays by this Bill guy on my bookcase? Dude's been dead for centuries; who the hell remembers how his actors performed his plays?

If you notice there will be many and varied discrepancies between each version and these can be given the label interpretation.

Gauche

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Virtual hi-jacking with apologies to 'struse

Believe me Gauche, I am unfortunately more than familiar with Auteur theory having studied it for way too many years, and unfortunatley I don't know who is directing I, Robot, but I am familiar with the author from whence the idea came. I am not a huge fan of Hollywood, though I can think of more autuers from the Hollywood Era than I can in America today. However, when desiring mindless drivel, I will pay the 12 bucks that it costs for a special effects thrill.

Hollywood wants us to think? No, but we think for ourselves. I am shocked that you don't find yourself an active spectator because a passive spectator is one who is mindlessly led by the text, which I equate with the soap opera fan, and unfortunately even the soap opera fan actively participates in the unfolding drama. For a different day.

We were discussing scripts and drama (which is defined as the written text of a play, theatre being the performance).

Brecht (grumble - I always hated him)

The actors have a part in the interpretation, and yes, they deliver the action to an audience, there is no argument there. If the actor is bad, a play typically fails. I'd say who wants to see a bad actor, but people flock to see Brad Pitt in films and Keanu Reeves doing Shakespeare on the stage, so that theory kind of fails.

I have watched plays where there was way too much going on, and so I agree. Believe it or not, it was an interpretation of Brecht's Drum something. (Brecht - grumble). However, part of the experience of a film or a play is the whole production. Would Ibsens A Doll's House be the same play if it were in a different setting? Would Tennessee William's Suddenly last Summer have the same meaning or experience without the savage garden? Would Genet's the Maids suffer if it were set in a lower class household? Absolutely.

I used Beckett earlier because Happy Days is the most blatent example of form and content being inseperable. In Happy days, the main character IS the set. My opinion, as I think was Lauren's, was that the form can affect the content, and content can affect form, so to change a play into the form of a novel will effect the original concept, themes etc. of the story.


We got into whether or not dialogue could stand on its own. It was my understanding that you suggested a script NEEDS an actor to interpret. I disagree. What is a play but a drama written on paper. What is a film but a drama written on paper. It can be read, it can be performed, those are the choices. The meaning of the play or of a film is not solely dependant on the actor. I can read a play and have a completely different experience of it than watching it be performed. The meaning and experience of a play is solely dependant on the script, which is predominantly dialogue. Without the script, there is nothing to interpret and nothing to perform.

Certainly I don't need to see Shakespeare performed to understand it or experience it? Otherwise, when watching MacBeth who cares about the darkness of the lighting, it doesn't mean anything. When watching Evita, why bother with the music if it doesn't mean anything, or with Ibsen's the doll house, why bother with the naturalistic setting of the home, why not put it in the street? Who cares about the lighting or the props or the stage anyway. Without these elements, well, I can read the play.

These elements make a drama come to life, and depending on how they are interpreted, they give a new experience, a different experience than reading. But in order to get this experience the play must first be read, and it is the words, the dialogue that give the clues to how to interpret. No word is arbitrary.

Point: When you walk out of the theatre you are affected by the totality of the experience - the lighting, the set, the constumes, the music, the actor.

As Abs and Lauren well know, I think better at 5:30 in the morning than 9:30 at night. So I might have to come back tommorrow to clarify. LOL Thanks for the discussion though. It's nice to have something interesting to discuss.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I hope we don't keep posting simultaneously here this is hard work, and I'm loving every minute. Hurrah for serious threads.

A short story with only dialogue is a play, which means that any and or/all actions implied and inferred are created entirely in the reader's head. The only difference between those two formats is stage directions, which often carry descriptions, actions and inflection.

Exactly! And if there are accomplished dialogue-only novels, why can't a play - not every play, just one particular play - which has even more elements that simply dialogue, in addiction to the symbolism of being a stage play, why can't a play simply be as a story? Why can't a story be told in the format of a play? Not to be performed, just to be read, because that's its nature. A story is always a story, and taking the form of a play is but a mere vessel, maybe the only adequate vessel for some stories.

I wasn't saying that was the case of Abs' play, but on the level of possibilities and lit. theory, there is no reason for this story/play not to exist.

The stories without introspection are almost entirely dependant (for character building in the mind) on the reader and the dumb spectator idea pales a little as soon as you settle the visualisation on the page on Clint Eastwood or Arnie so how different do you make them then? Interpretation again, is key.

Even an action story with no dialogue has tell-tale signs of character/history simply by the author's choice and order of words, thereby making the transformation again dependant on interpretation. The difference between Arnie running across the desert and Clint loping along is vast indeed and the screenplay (inferring casting) would necessarily be different for each actor and consequently from the story format.

You're missing the point.

The stories without introspection are entirely dependent on action and on visuals. On description. On detail. On palpable, concrete things. If the screenplay says a tall muscled man runs across the desert, you can be certain it's not refering to a short skinny man loping into the sunset. There are no two ways of interpreting this, at least no more than on any written story. The specifics of the visualization will always depend on the reader, no matter how much detail you add.

If you notice there will be many and varied discrepancies between each version and these can be given the label interpretation.

Gauche

So what you're saying is that each version of a Shakespear play corresponds to a different interpretation. I'm sorry, but that is something that goes against everything you said so far. If an actor's interpretation can be captured on a different version of a play, then there's no reason why a play can't determine all the basic elements of a performance.

 

[CharleyH]

I hope we don't keep posting simultaneously here this is hard work, and I'm loving every minute. Hurrah for serious threads.

Damn you, I missed this post. I will have to read it in the morning though, and get back. I am so NOT a night person.

 

[gauchecritic]

ok, going to bed now but:

Charley: Ah hating Brecht. Tell me, do you subscribe to the Strasbourg(sp) school of theatre too? (That's an insult by the way, as is that school of acting)

Lauren: Of course each version of Shakespear is a different interpretation, they are translated into modern language and the interpreters (whether they want to or not) put their own interpretations on each and every word and phrase. How else can they make 'English Appreciation' lessons last so long? And if the guy who copies it out can interpret it how much more interpretation can an actor put in with pauses and indrawn breath or the rolling of eyes.

He wrote "An' it please you sir" (Lear) it can be literally interpreted as "Your wish is my command" or "Stick it up your arse." Now where's the stage direction for that?

Gauche

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ha! You're going to bed. I win!

LOL

Seriously, thanks for the discussion. Maybe in a year, when that book I first mentioned with the screenplay chapter is finished and published, you'll understand what I meant.

 

[CharleyH]

A short story with only dialogue is a play, which means that any and or/all actions implied and inferred are created entirely in the reader's head.

Point in case, this above statement confirms your belief that a reader/spectator is active and not passive.

Dialogue infers and implies some action, yet explicitly gives information regarding the action. If this were not so, then an actor would have a hard time bringing the action to life, and actors, across the span of time, would have a difficult time being consistent in the interpretation of a character. While there have been many versions of Lady MacBeth, there are certain characteristics and actions that are consistent among all actors who have played the part, and these characteristics are derived from the dialogue. If these characteristics were not derived from dialogue, then Lady MacBeth would not be recognizable from production to production.

But this is not my point, so thank god it’s morning. I can think. OK, to continue: The action of a play is explicit in the dialogue, and interpreted in ‘part’ in the readers, (like the actors) imagination, but not solely. I will use the example of Jean Genet’s Les Bonnes (The Maids – as an aside, if anyone has an opportunity to watch the filmed version of the play, which does indeed take place in one room, then I suggest the film. Directed by Christopher Miles and starring Glenda Jackson, Susannah York and Vivian Merchant, 1975).

There is a lot of stage direction in The Maids as opposed to other plays, but I will ignore all stage direction and speak only to dialogue.

1) I beg Madame’s pardon, I was preparing her tea.
This one sentence of dialogue explicitly indicates the humble, subservient nature of the character. Why? The character is asking for forgiveness, refers to her as Madame, and addresses her as if the maid was not worthy to use her name. This does not need to be interpreted by the actor to understand that the characte’s action is humbled and subservient.

2) Hand me the dress. Oh! I’m so alone and friendless
The short abruptness of the demand in the first statement explicitly calls for it to be read harshly. The second sentence, more pathetic demands melodrama, self-pity. The action is explicit, a demand is made with strength of gesture and movement, with erect posture. I have never seen anyone make a demand with their head down, and eyes away from the person they are addressing. This is not my imagination. This is human nature, therefore the action it is explicit. Similarly, the second sentence demands a change in posture, gesture movement by the very nature of its melodrama.

The fall of your dress. I’m arranging your fall from grace Not even a need for stage direction here. The dialogue tells you the action.

The same happens in a film script.

"spectator idea pales a little as soon as you settle the visualisation on the page on Clint Eastwood or Arnie so how different do you make them then? Interpretation again, is key.”

Interpretation by the spectator, not by the actor. The spectator reads a film, reads all the elements of a film, not simply the actor. The mere fact that Clint Eastwood is in a film, as opposed to Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaks volumes because their persona’s are already codified to mean different things. The use of a particular actor can add a new dimension to a film. For example: Basic Instinct directed by Verhoeven. Little known is his use of the actress Dorothy Malone, famous for her role as a family wrecker in 50’s/60’s melodrama. To use any other actor as the razorblade killing woman of families would not have the strength of impact that using her had. Some actors don’t have to move or say a line to give meaning, and it is up to the spectator to read the iconography.

"Even an action story with no dialogue has tell-tale signs of character/history simply by the author's choice and order of words, thereby making the transformation again dependant on interpretation. The difference between Arnie running across the desert and Clint loping along is vast indeed and the screenplay (inferring casting) would necessarily be different for each actor and consequently from the story format.”

So, I think we are agreeing on this. But it is up to the spectator to actively understand the difference. As it is up to the spectator to interpret the use of high key as opposed to low key lighting. In order to understand a film, a spectator must interpret the whole production, not simply the acting. So to, in reading a novel, a poem, a play the reader must interpret more than actor, speaker or character to understand the whole.

Still, in a play or script, the dialogue more than simply implies action.

"Tell me, do you subscribe to the Strasbourg(sp) school of theatre too?

Strasbourg. Strasbourg? Oh, the person responsible for Jane Fonda’s spectacular performance in Barbarella! Lol, well, I am familiar with many different styles.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Now I'm going to have to re-read this thread, my mind is not comprehending much today.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

trip!!!!

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Is that a good thing?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Is that a good thing?

I tried to bump, but I slipped and tripped.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Okay, I've tried writing things out and I've decided to bag this idea and set it out by the curb.

There is however a lot of info in this thread that might be useful to others.

Thanks to all that tried to help.

~A~

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What does that mean? You're not doing anything? LOL

Bad girl.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

What does that mean? You're not doing anything? LOL

Bad girl.

Um...apparently.

 

[gauchecritic]

wait, wait, I haven't finished.

A reader cannot be passive. A spectator can and by definition must be. Cheering at a football match isn't participation, kicking the ball is participation. But that's just being didactic. I take your point.

Dialogue implies only as much action as you care to infer.

1) I beg Madame’s pardon, I was preparing her tea.

2) Hand me the dress. Oh! I’m so alone and friendless

The fall of your dress. I’m arranging your fall from grace

The word melodrama, which you attach to the first two sentences is the only thing that gives them those interpretations. Attach other, equally useable words and the 'action' can easily become the opposite. Sarcasm, Innuendo, Braggadocio and other words ending with o.

I remember being in an amateur production of a play, the name and author of which escapes me and having to be told every single place to 'pause' for laughter. It wasn't funny on reading but oddly enough the pause spaces were exactly right for performance. I still didn't think it was funny. I also remember being able to insert humour into a quite serious play by inflection although the director wasn't pleased.

When studying one of Chaucer's Cantebury tales (The Wife of Bath?) the entire class would crack up at the innuendo therein which the teacher either wouldn't admit to or simply couldn't see.
Although Boccacio apparently did in 'The Decameron' (or is that the other way round?)

So again, however much you read into a play with the script in front of you can be changed completely by the delivery or interpretation.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

First. Lauren, I am sure you meant no offense but pointing out to me that most everything you said was in English I took as rude, even if in jest. When I wrote that I did not understand what you and Charley said I meant I did not get your meaning or intent, not that I could not understand the words you used or that I was unfamiliar with any terms or names you referenced.

Here’s my two or three bits. Shakespeare wrote all of his plays for performance only. Thanks to the players who saved their ‘parts’ we can read them today (and academics can earn a living deciphering which texts are more authentic). I must presume most playwrights intend their plays to be performed. They must be read so that someone can decide whether to produce or perform them, and if they are fortunate they might be published for interested enough people to read. Otherwise, plays are not intended to be merely read. If you speak of interpreting a play through reading then you are speaking theoretically.

Any director worth anything will allow an actor to not parrot or strictly impersonate an interpretation. The same actor may give a different interpretation with each performance, and still be true to the text. Even some of Beckett’s plays, however much the form and content seem meshed, are interpreted by an actor in a way that cannot be done by a mere reader. I saw Billie Whitelaw perform “Rockabye”, and read the text later. If I read the work again, or see it performed again, it will be a different interpretation. Have you “seen” a performance of “Breath”? You don’t even get to see the actor, but as long as that actor is using their own voice, you will get a different interpretation.

I have seen countless “Swan Lakes” (the texts therein are music and choreography) and each a new interpretation, even by the same company and/or dancers.

Back to Shakespeare. What was wrong for decades after the Victorians took to his work was the novelization of his plays. Yes, they tell stories, but the stories are not the thing itself. It does not matter how many children Lady Macbeth had or didn’t have, not to a reader and not to the actress who ‘plays’ her (unless she’s ‘method’).

You will find little stage direction in Shakespeare, it’s all in the words and interpretation of them (a director and actors usually figure it out together).

What’s my point? I’ve forgotten.

Perdita

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I have a bit of a dilemma.
I found a play, I had written, and I would like to convert into a story format. Obviously I have the dialogue.

The problem is, what is the best way to write a story where there are multiple characters speaking? I don't want to lose the flow of the conversation.

The story is about 4 friends who attend a woman's symposium where they fill out questionaires on women's issues. It is meant to be humorous.

How much attention do I need for fleshing out the background environment?

So what catagory would I post in? Humor and Satire? Non-erotic, though there is a mention of sexual issues.

Any help will be much appreciated.

I have purchased a book that covers this aspect. I'll type out the section for you and hope it gives you a hand. The books name is The Writer's Idea bBook by Jack Heffron. I used his advice in my story Gatorbait and it seemed to work fine. I had 3 main characters. By shifting the perspective I am very happy with the story.

Shifting Perspective

In contemporary novels, it's common for the author to use third-person limited but shift the focus from one character to another, a shift usually signaled by a chapter or section break. We could open our story with Jim as our narrative eye, then, in the chapter two, switch to Alice. This approach allows us to enjoy the focus of a single character without creating a claustrophobic narrative, one too tightly absorbed with a single character.

You may want to limit yourself, however, to a few characters or you risk muddling your focus. Readers often want a character or two to root for and identify with. If you switch back and forth between a number of characters, this pleasure is tougher to achieve. Of course, if your story needs more shifts, make them. Some writers use quite a few third-person viewpoint characters. Rober Stone's Damascus Gate, for example, employs at least a half dozen. But he relies on plot and setting to keep the reader anchored, and he's not especially concerned with the reader's rooting for someone. He is using a broad canvas to paint a picture of the sociopolitical forces at work in the Middle East. Again, know your goals in your story to make the best choice in point of view.

I hope this helps.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I'll just keep bumping this anyway.

 

[tolyk]

Well, I tried to post my input during the technical problems we were having.. Twice I failed, so the third time is the charm But it shall be even more brief yet.

From play to story, I have always done "omni-presence third person" perspective. If you fail, at least it is a terrific writing exercise, as this is not a commonly used writing style. It is a fun exercise, and useful to try every now and then.

I'm currently working on a story in this perspective myself and am having a hellaciously fun time. (But my editor hates me )

My two cents and a half cents (don't you hate inflation?)

 

[Borscht]

I think that this brings us to that place where every discussion on The same way, I've read not only short stories, but short novels written using only dialogue with little or no attributives and no narration. I'm thinking of Nicholson Baker's VOX, for example. The words and actions alone can convey everything the story needs. . .

The thing about Vox, though, is that its basically an amalgam of two first person narratives.

Anyway, why change the play in question from a play format ?

Why not record it as a sort of 'radio broadcast' and pop it onto the audio section ?

The logistsics might be tough, but I bet you could get enough volunteers to read the parts. I'd certainly have a crack at it.

I've always wanted to be a luvvie

 

[Borscht]

I think that this brings us to that place where every discussion on The same way, I've read not only short stories, but short novels written using only dialogue with little or no attributives and no narration. I'm thinking of Nicholson Baker's VOX, for example. The words and actions alone can convey everything the story needs. . .

The thing about Vox, though, is that its basically an amalgam of two first person narratives.

Anyway, why change the play in question from a play format ?

Why not record it as a sort of 'radio broadcast' and pop it onto the audio section ?

The logistsics might be tough ( I don't know because I'm bad at techie stuff ) but I bet you could get enough volunteers to read the parts. I'd certainly have a crack at it.

I've always wanted to be a luvvie