Blog Prompt 13 Drowsy Chaperone

Last show, y'all!

You do, of course, need to listen to this script as well as read it. You can either purchase the Drowsy Chaperone soundtrack or hear the entire thing here on YouTube, though you'll have to endure various advertisements. Note that some numbers are different (particularly "Bride's Lament" and "Love Is Always Lovely in the End") and that the soundtrack re-orders some of the Man's introductions. Follow along (stumble along?) with the script.

Much like Noises Off, this show's old-timey charm and self-deprecating meta-commentary can make it difficult to analyze. The script gives the impression that the central narrator character ("the Man") is doing all the analysis that's necessary. All anyone else has to do is sit back and enjoy, right?

Well, yes--except for us, dear hearts. As theatre people, we're in charge of producing this bit of postmodern magic, which means we have to account for the Man and his commentary as part of the script. Analyzing The Drowsy Chaperone thus means we're analyzing not the show-within-a-show but the musical as presented.

My question to you: what's the difference in terms of the Hornby model of analysis we've been working with?

For this prompt, suggest how two Hornby elements (choice, sequence, progression, duration, tempo, rhythm, irony/ambiguity/complexity) and/or the unifying principle itself would differ if you were analyzing the show-within-the-show Drowsy Chaperone versus the as-is meta-show The Drowsy Chaperone. Be specific here. Do not say anything like "The musical script is different from the fictional show because it has a Man listening to it an commenting on it all the way through." That's obvious, right? Remember, choice isn't about story; it's about plot. The story here is the Man listening to/recreating the musical. Which parts of that story do the scriptwriters and lyricist choose to stage and how?

In other words, and beneath the "the Man interrupts and tells jokes," what action pattern does the musical The Drowsy Chaperone have that distinguishes it from the fictional DC musical?

See you all Monday--

JF

PS: those in Section 1, you wanted the link to the Scarfolk website (used in class as an illustration for how to create links) left up. Here's the site.

Post 13 Three Viewings

So here's the thing: this show is three monologues, yes. But it's also a single show. The monologues are set in the same world. The speakers each deal with some of the same characters. And, of course, all three monologues have something to do with a funeral.

For this post, I want you to do two things.

First, a challenge: try to identify a common point or reference (a character, an event, a location, a reference) between the monologues that you think no one else in class will notice.

Second: go further than these surface details. Identify some deeper dramaturgical or thematic points of resonance or commonality between the three monologues. Is there a theme they share? Is there a motif (aside from the funerals) that recurs in all three? Is the dramatic action of each somehow similar? Even more interesting: is there something that's both the same and different in each of the monologues?

Easy-cheesy y'all.

JF

Prompt 12 on On the Verge, or The Geography of Yearning

OK--first, I want you to remember to read this with a dictionary (online or real-world) nearby. This is a script that loves language. Eric Overmyer (n.b.: I had previously misspelled Overmyer's name as Overmeyer. Apologies!) insists that actors observe his exact word choices, speaking in clear but un-accented US English (not British English). For Wednesday, you should come to class with some word from the script whose meaning you learned from looking it up. That'll be a question on the quiz.

For this prompt: suppose that you're the dramaturg for a production of On the Verge. The director wants your ideas for a publicity poster (or perhaps a series of publicity posters) for the production. She's interested in both an image and a tag line (ideally a quote from the script). She's keen to avoid the standard poster images for this play: the three ladies themselves, umbrellas (or eggbeaters) in hand. What's another idea for images that perhaps depart from the well-trod paths of previous poster designs. Propose an image for the poster (or, if you're especially bold, a series of posters) as well as a tag line. Explain and justify your choices.

Oh--and here's an optional thinker for ya: of all the curious conversations the main characters have with various males (all played by the same person in the original production), one of the oddest is between Fanny and Mr. Coffee. He's not from a particular era in history. He's not someone anyone else sees. He says he knows Fanny and that they'll meet again. Who is Mr. Coffee?

JF

Prompt 11 on Smith Fires in the Mirror

First, a few words about Anna Deavere Smith: she's a world-famous performance artist whom you've probably also seen in bit parts in West Wing episodes and movies like The American President and Dave. Fires in the Mirror was her first really breakthrough, national-attention-getting work, though she had been active and well-known in smaller circles for some time.

Smith's signature technique involves conducting interviews with various people--nationally known figures, regular people, outside experts--involved in some event or issue. She films these interviews--but only for herself. Smith then practices repeating the words, gestures, and even nonverbal tics of her subjects until she "has" that person with as much fidelity and accuracy as she can muster. Editing and arranging her interviews into a show, Smith then performs all of the interviews as a series of monologues. The effect is something akin to a living, one-person documentary performance. For an example of Smith's latest work about health care, Let Me Down Easy, see here. (Really, it's worthwhile to watch at least a few of the segments just so you have a sense of what she does.)

Fires in the Mirror is about the 1991 Crown Heights Riots in Brooklyn between members of the Black community and members of the Lubavich sect of Orthodox Judaism that live there. You can familiarize yourself with the basics of the riots. Smith also relates these events from several different perspectives.

There's an old filmed version of her performing Fires in the Mirror (in six parts on Youtube here). The effect here, however, is much different. Rather than filming her stage show, the filmmakers stage each monologue as a separate, fully-realized scene with it's own props and costumes. You lose a bit of the theatrical impact of watching Smith transform in seconds before your eyes. Still, you might find some of these monologues helpful as you read.

Whether you watch the Youtube of her or not, though, I of course want you to read the play. The impact of Smith's performance technique--these are people's real words! It's like watching a documentary!--can sometimes cause us to forget that Fires in the Mirror is still a play. Smith is not a neutral recorder but a playwright who has selected, edited, and arranged the monologues she stages. The questions we pose about any script still work here:

• What parts of the story does she include in the plot? (choice) 
• What effect does Smith's ordering of events/interviews have? (sequence)
• What motifs are there in the play? What images or ideas get foreshadowed/reflected? (progression)
• Where and how does the tempo change? (tempo)
• Where and how does tension change in this play? When and how is tension created, raised, or released? (rhythm)
• What events, images, or ideas get the most stage time? What gets very little stage time? (duration)
• Where does appearance clearly conflict with reality? Where is reality ambiguous? Where is it complex?

For this prompt, consider the following hypothetical situation: imagine you're part of a professional theatre company (hurrah employment!). The artistic director of your company wishes to stage Fires in the Mirror. The thing is, she doesn't see the use of the first section of the play in which Smith interviews figures not directly related to the Crown Heights events itself. This director would basically like to start the play with Robert Sherman's "Lousy Language"--arguably the first monologue specifically about Crown Heights and the situation there.

Act as a dramaturg here and advocate for performing all of Smith's text. Make the argument for what these first monologues do dramaturgically. Justify their inclusion in Fires in the Mirror and discuss what would be lost by cutting them out. You yourself may not at first see why Smith includes these sections. Challenge yourself to find and defend a reason.

See you on Monday,

JF

Prompt 10 on D'Amour, Detroit

Why's the play called Detroit?

I mean, the characters never really mention Detroit or anything specifically Detroit-related. Lisa D'Amour's own description of the setting begins, "Not necessarily Detroit."

So--why Detroit?

Give us your best argument and convince us with evidence and reasoning.

Too tough? Want an alternative prompt to chew on? OK. Here's three quick tasks and a humdinger question, then, for those of you who don't want to tackle the Detroit question:

1. What are some examples of ambiguity in the play? Remember--we're using Hornby's definition of ambiguity, i.e., intentional mystery, truths or realities that the playwright suggests are there but that she keeps hidden.
2. What are some examples of dramatic irony in the play? Remember, dramatic irony only happens when we the audience/readers know what's really going on but some/all of the characters do not. Finding out in act three that a character lied about something way back in act one isn't ironic; it's just a revelation because back in act one we didn't know the character was lying at the time. If, however, we see in act one that a character is a waiter but then see her tell someone in act three that she's an airplane pilot, that's dramatic irony because we know she's lying (thus: appearing to be something different than she really is). 
3. Something else that happens in this play are moments of non-ambiguous, non-ironic truth-telling. There's no fancy dramaturgical term for this, but let's call it a reality check. I mean, there are moments in this play where characters utter showstopping Truths that shock other characters out of some illusion or misconception. What are some standout examples of reality checks in this play?

The humdinger question: which of these three are most central to Detroit: ambiguity, irony, or reality?

Again, give me your best case and persuade your readers.

JF

Prompt 9 on Water by the Spoonful

So here's the challenge: I'm asking you to read (and possibly write a paper on) the second play of a trilogy without having read either the first or the third part. Water by the Spoonful continues a story begun in Elliot, A Soldier's Fugue (which I haven't read yet). The third part of the trilogy, The Happiest Song Always Plays Last, premieres April 13 in the Goodman Theatre in Chicago. In other words, it's not even out yet.

Nevertheless, Water is meant to stand on its own.

As you'll see, though, it's a complicated play. Hudes (the playwright) establishes a number of separate worlds on stage. There are also several seemingly separate story-lines playing out at once.

During a few moments in the play, particularly in the second part, these separate realities and story-lines do more than just co-exist in the same play. They begin to interact. They share the space, crisscrossing each other and even (maybe) interacting with each other in some odd, magic-of-theatre way.

For this prompt, I want you to select one scene--or really a moment from a scene--where you see realities interacting. Briefly summarize what's going on in this scene. Then give me a script-based explanation for why Hudes has these particular realities intersecting at this particular moment in the plot in this particular way. What's going on there? And remember, I'm asking for a script-based explanation--no fair explaining things away by gesturing toward the audience ("This gives the audience something to think about/look at/compare and contrast"). Focus on how this intersectional choice operates in terms of the play's unifying principle or central motifs.

Just a reminder about schedules:

• There's no class on Monday, April 8. Turn in your Analysis III final draft by 5:00 PM.
• We're reading the Water by the Spoonful for Wednesday. You can either purchase your own copy (I recommend doing this) or use the PDF on Moodle.
• We're reading Detroit (in your reader) for Friday
• On Saturday, April 13, I'll be looking at your blog posts for the second Blog Check Point. 

As always, contact me if you have questions or concerns.

JF

Prompt 8 on Buried Child

Fun play again, huh? Well, I mean "fun" not so much in a "ha-ha" sense as a "WTF?" sense, right?

Story time: Buried Child was one of the first plays Dr. Fletcher ever taught to students. Indeed, way back in the early 00's, back when Dr. Fletcher was not yet "Dr." Fletcher, I was a Section Instructor for several semesters of Intro to Theatre class at the University of Minnesota. Now, at the U of MN, Intro to Theatre was a course for both majors and non-majors. All theatre majors had to start their coursework with Intro. It was also a "writing-intensive" course, meaning that one of the major assignments was an analytic essay (with first draft, feedback, and revisions) on a play.

Most often, the choice of plays for students to write about consisted of Joe Turner's Come and Gone (a great play by August Wilson) and Buried Child. Oddly enough, the students read Buried Child in conjunction with the textbook's section on theatrical realism.

This conjunction--realism and Buried Child--didn't really work. Students kept trying to read and write about the play as a piece of theatrical realism, and they kept running up against little bits of the play that just didn't fit.

Why do you think so?

I mean, in many ways, Buried Child is fairly realistic (again, we're talking "theatrical realism," aka "illusionism" here--not "real" as in "honest/true"). There's a fourth-wall convention. The dialogue is more or less slice-of-life (i.e., it's not in blank verse, rhymed couplets, or song). The setting seems fairly what-you-see-is-what-you-get. No characters have their "inner selves" literally hovering behind them, hissing instructions or commands into their ears.

So: realism, right? Shepard presents a plot via an illusion-of-everyday-life accumulation of surface details.

Your prompt, then: suggest some element or elements in the play that seem to run counter to the kind of presentational conventions of illusionistic realism. What makes the world of planet Buried Child so fundamentally different from the worlds of planet Trifles, planet Glass of Water, or planet Noises Off? Is what we see what we get in Buried Child? If not, where/how/to what end? (Hint: if you're confused, start with trying to find instances of irony, ambiguity, or complexity in the script. Is this a play of black-and-white, truth-and-deception realities, like a well-made play? Or is it something else?)

JF

Prompt 7 on Noises Off

Fun play, huh?

Unfortunately, that fun factor is part of what makes this play challenging for a class like this. Over and beyond the play's length and complexity (a play within a play!), the sheer force of this script's entertainment value makes it difficult for us to look beyond the main gimmick and the fast-paced jokes to see its dramaturgical structure.

Many people mount this play--and other farces like it--with no other plan than simply to have everything go quickly and smoothly. They traffic direct in order to "just do the script as written"--and that's it. To be sure, no production of Noises Off can dare go without an extra-long rehearsal period and/or a super-experienced cast (to say nothing of the requisite army of prop/set people). I mean, imagine what happens if even one prop gets misplaced or broken!

But--and you'll have to trust me on this, dear ones--even a tight and funny script like this needs something more than a cast capable of mouthing Frayn's lines and going through the script's motions energetically. I've seen such "we'll just do the play as written" productions of farces before. They're deadly. Sure, there's a laugh now and then. But there's also gaping, agonizing stretches of laugh-less, directionless, going-through-the-paces floundering. It's like a bad horror movie where the only good scenes are the monster parts or a bad action movie where the only good parts are the fight/chase scenes.

Even a play like this--especially a play like this--needs some dramaturgical analysis. All things being equal (i.e., a competent cast/crew, sufficient rehearsal time), the difference between a great production of Noises Off and a weary slog through Noises Off is whether the production team has done their homework to find out how and why this script ticks. Just to get your mental juices flowing, think on these questions for a bit:

• Where does the tempo fluctuate? It's easy to see the high-energy, level-10 moments in the script. But where are the level-1 moments? Are there points in the play that are intentionally low-tempo or even standstill? 
• In terms of rhythm, what's at stake in this script? What generates tension? Are the high-tension moments always the same as the high-tempo moments?
• Thinking about duration, consider what gets a surprising amount of stage time here. Bypass the easy answers of "the script!" or "the play within a play!" What kind of actions, scenes, conversations, or moments aside from the play the characters are rehearsing get stage time?
• In terms of choice, what does Frayn show us? What does he keep hidden? Do we see more of the story as the script goes on or less?
• Note where Frayn goes beyond the standard farce/well-made play reliance on dramatic irony (though there's lots of that here) and dabbles in outright ambiguity. When don't we know what's going on? How does ambiguity (deliberate mystery) play with or play against irony (clear contrast between appearance and reality)?

For this post (finally, Dr. Fletcher!), though, I want you to think about progression. Two tasks:

• First, relate to me a motif that you see in the play. Just to make it challenging, make this motif something more specific than the standard "miscommunications" or "miscues" that you'd find in any farce. Ideally, choose a motif that you think others might likely miss on a first read-through. Explain and justify this motif (give me a "for instance").
• Second, choose and justify for me a "tag line" for this play--a line from the script that encapsulates what you see as the driving force or unifying principle in this script. 

Of course, if you wanted to ruminate on some of the other questions I ask above as well, be my guest.

Best,

JF

Prompt 6 on Glass of Water

Whew! I'm back from the conference St. Louis, where doing things other than helping to run the St. Louis conference proved impossible. Thus, we're delaying reading/discussing Glass of Water. Since this posting prompt is going up only today, I'll be flexible with the due dates for your response prompts. Anything before this Saturday is fine. I'd encourage you, however, to post prior to Wednesday's class while the play is fresh in your mind.

Here's a simple-yet-complex question for this play: who is the protagonist? Whose struggles are most central to the plot? Whose conflicts and triumphs receive the most stage time? Whom does Scribe want us to root for the most? How do you know?

Or--maybe--is the who-is-the-protagonist question not really useful for this script? If that's the case, why? How do you know?


State your case. Defend your case. Persuade your readers.

JF

Prompt 5 on Hornby

Greetings, from Georgia, where Dr. Fletcher's cold seems worse and his smartphone doesn't seem to work. Odd, that.

So--hopefully you've had a chance to think and re-think (and perhaps even re-read) about the Hornby we started to discuss last time.

For your posting for Hornby, I'd like you to think about motif--a repeated line, image, or pattern of action in a play text--specifically in relation to the element of scripts that Hornby calls Progression. Recall that progression for Hornby involves lines, images, patterns that foreshadow future plot events, that recall past plot events, or mirror plot events elsewhere in the script.

I have two questions for your prompt:

First--for either How I Learned to Drive or The Conduct of Life, identify some motif in the script. Find something in the text that happens again and again: a line, a word, an image, a sound, an action, a pattern--something. Describe what that something is and explain how it repeats. Some questions to consider (you don't need to address each one of these exactly): Does the motif you identify work to foreshadow? Reflect? Mirror? Is the repetition a perfect copy or is there some revision or development to the motif as it recurs? How might that repeated something relate to themes or issues or other patterns in the script?

Second--identify and describe a motif in some dramatic production (theatre, TV, movie, web, etc.) that we don't read/study in this class. Write a little bit about how the author, director, designers, or even actors use this motif in the completed production. Consider: is motif in a fully realized production different than motif in a script? If so, how?

I'll give you all of the Mardi Gras holiday to post on this topic (i.e., a week from now). Remember, though, to use your no-class-on-Friday-the-8th wisely. The time you'd otherwise be in Dr. Fletcher's class would be an excellent occasion to create your special show-and-tell post prior to the first Blog Checkpoint (coming up soon! Check your syllabus on Moodle!).

As always, contact Dr. Fletcher if you have questions or concerns.

Best,

JF

Not a Posting Prompt--just a Guide for reading Hornby

OK, folks--it's the last non-play reading of the semester: a selection from Richard Hornby's Script into Performance. Like a lot of academic writing, it's not meant for casual encounters. You aren't supposed to read it in the same way you'd read a novel or a blog post. You may find you need to take notes. You may need to re-read parts of the text to get them. You may even want to mark passages that just seem nonsensical to you. Don't worry if there are sections you don't get. Skip those and move on. You'll get more than you think.

As with the Fuchs--put your own "what do I, personally, think of this writer?" on pause. It's most important to me, initially at least, that you get a solid grasp on Hornby's process of analysis. You can decide for yourself if you like it/him or not later.

In what follows, then, I'm going to give you some questions that can hopefully guide you as you read the Hornby chapters. You do not need to answer these questions in a post or paper or anything (though you are always welcome to post about it if you'd like). You should, however, keep track of the answers to them as you read. The reading quiz on Hornby we'll take on Wednesday deals with these issues.

Here's what to keep in mind while reading the text.

• In the first chapter I'm having you read, Richard Hornby (the author) takes Aristotle's Poetics as his starting point. Specifically, he writes about Aristotle's six elements of tragedy. You remember those, right?
• Hornby says these six elements are great, but he says Aristotle's method is incomplete. How so?
• Hornby then offers six dramatic elements of his own. These six are essential for you to know. Mark them well, take notes on them, get a grasp on what he means by each of them. They're the core of the approach to script analysis we're using through the rest of the semester. 
• Actually, I would suggest that you think of Hornby's six elements as a question you ask about play scripts. For example, his element sequence essentially asks the question, "What effect does the playwright's ordering of events in the plot have?" For yourself, I recommend you come up with a question 
• In what way are Hornby's six elements different than Aristotle's?

In the next Hornby chapter, he goes into his process for analyzing plays using his six elements. (Again, we're still in the guide-for-reading; you don't need to write out the answers to these on a blog or anything.)

• Hornby starts by talking about his process as a heuristic. What does he mean?
• Hornby argues that criticism (analysis) is a creative process. How is it creative?
• What are the steps in his "meta-method" of analysis?
• Suppose you encounter a detail or element of the play script that doesn't seem to fit. What does Hornby say you should do with such an element?
• What does Hornby mean by a "unifying principle"? 
• At what point should you (the analyst) come up with a unifying principle for a text?
• What should you do after you come up with a unifying principle for a text?

 OK. That's the guide.

I'll create a Prompt for a posting on Hornby for you to do on Friday on your own.

For now, just come to class with the Hornby text and with any notes you take on this text.

Best,

JF

Prompt 4 on Vogel

Here's a prediction: more people in class will take a liking to this play, at least at first, than to Conduct of Life.

As I mentioned in class, How I Learned to Drive is more of a general-audiences (general adult audiences) crowd-pleaser than just about anything Fornes has written. That's not to say, though, that Vogel's play is just good old-fashioned naturalism. You'll note pretty quickly that Vogel establishes a number of dramaturgical conventions--a Greek chorus, for example--that make her play especially, well, theatrical.

I have two tasks for you in this post. 

First, and pretty simply: why the whole Greek chorus thing? I mean, what effect or effects flow from the choice to have a small chorus (which isn't all that Greek, FYI) portray every character but Lil' Bit and Peck? Think again of what we talked about in class: the medium is the message. The question isn't only about what Vogel protrays; it's how she chooses to portray it.What effect does the Greek chorus choice have on the story she presents?

Second: relate something else in the play--a convention Vogel adopts (something besides the chorus), a moment she stages (or doesn't stage), a dramaturgical choice she makes--that at least at first doesn't make much sense to you. Describe the "something" and make a guess or two about what function it serves. Or, if you're really stuck about what this choice means, pose it to your fellow classmates and ask for their help. See if they can help you figure out what this something is in the play for.

Best,

JF

Prompt 3 on Fornes

And now for something completely different, amirite?

Alice Gerstenberg lays out characters' every inner thought and desire in Overtones. Susan Glaspell fills her stage with surface details. In their own ways, these two plays each paint a complete picture of their world. One is a complete psychological picture; one is a complete physical picture.

Maria Irene Fornes, however, is famous for denying audiences such complete psychological and physical portraits. In fact, her signature style involves whittling down stories, characters, and images into intense, rich moments.

An early review of a production of Conduct of Life notes this tendency:

"The play conjures a lot of tension, mostly by keeping the scenes tight and disciplined and unsettlingly short. The dialogue and staging seem almost to have been cropped too close at the top or bottom, like those paintings by Philip Pearlstein [nsfw!] where the nude's head or leg has been cropped off the edge. Sometimes the cropping pares away everything but the musing of a single voice, and these monologues are the most effective aspect of all." (Paul Berman. Review of The Conduct of Life and Coming of Age in Soho. The Nation April 6, 1985: 412-413).

Instead of stuffing a stage or characters with detail, Fornes cuts details away. Remember, she could have provided full back-stories and answered all character/setting/plot questions. She chooses not to.



For this post: suppose that you had only this play as an example of a Maria Irene Fornes play. You might conclude, judging from this play, that her dramaturgical style involves pared-down, sometimes even abrupt scenes.

What other dramaturgical choices in Conduct of Life stand out to you? Choose one and discuss it. Give us a quick explanation of what you mean and a quick example of where we can see that choice in action. Finally, venture a guess about what effect this choice has on the story, the characters, and/or the themes in the play. Remember, I'm looking mainly for dramaturgical choices--not "what story is she telling" but "how does she choose to stage that story"?

EXTRA SPECIAL BONUS QUESTION ("bonus" as in "additional," not as in "extra points"): Why's the play called The Conduct of Life? Any guesses?

Do your best to post by Thursday evening

JF

Prompt 2 on Trifles

Greetings, all--

I know most of you haven't yet gotten around to posting on Overtones yet; that's fine since the posts aren't due until Tuesday night.

Nevertheless, since it's a little under a week out from when Trifles is due (i.e., Friday, 1/25), I wanted to get the prompt for that play up as well.

So: for this posting, imagine that someone in the department was proposing a production of Trifles for the Lab season. No problem there, right? The thing is, the proposal specifies that the production be ultra minimalist in design. That is, the production would not create a naturalistic stage full of props and having the actors dress in historically appropriate costumes. Instead, he production will use only blank, black blocks and simple black chairs for furniture. Props will be abstract, neutrally colored versions (e.g., a blank white sheet for Mrs. Wright's quilt, a simple white box for the sewing box, etc.). The actors would dress only in simple black clothes. The ideal design here isn't "sloppy" or "cheap" but just "blank" and "abstract."

Says the director: "I want to focus on the words and emotions in this production. I want the audience and the actors to focus on the people, not on things."

Now, to be clear: the production wouldn't be altering the dialogue or plot at all.

My questions for you to write about: What do you think of this proposal? What would such a production gain? What would it lose? Try to answer mainly from the perspective of the script. That is, can you imagine an ultra stripped-down production of Trifles (i.e., a theatricalized rather than naturalistic production) that nevertheless doesn't lose something significant?

Make your post for Trifles by the evening of Thursday 1/24. Hopefully by then I'll be able to start putting you all into blog reading circles, and you can respond to each other's ideas.

As always, contact me if you have questions or concerns.

Be well,

JF

Prompt 1: Overtones

In Overtones, Alice Gerstenberg specifies that Harriet never actually sees Hattie (though she hears her) and that Margaret never actually sees Maggie (though, again she hears her). Things are slightly more complicated, however, in terms of if/when/where/how Hattie and Maggie see or hear each other.

On a larger level, I'm asking about the "rules" or conventions for this play's theatrical world. That is, what determines if, when, where, and by whom a character can be seen/heard? How do you know what these conventions are? How would an audience (who doesn't get to read Gerstenberg's stage directions) know this? Are these rules consistent throughout the play? Or are there moments in the play that bend or break these rules? If so, where? How do you know? What effect do these choices (consistency, non-consistency, etc.) have?

Post your response in about 300 words by the evening of Tuesday, January 22. Be ready for a quiz on Overtones in class on Wednesday, January 23.

Beyond this post: think, also, about this play through the lens of Fuch's "Visit to a Small Planet." See what comes from thinking about the various attributes of this play's world. Remember, it's as important to note what Gerstenberg leaves unspecified as it is to note what she specifies.

As always, contact me (and/or Macy and Brook) if you have questions or concerns.

Best,

JF

Welcome!

Greetings, THTR 2130 People--

This is the main course blog. Here's where I (and/or Brook and Macy) will be posting prompts for the plays we read this semester. You should consult this site regularly.

By Friday, January 25, you should each do the following:

• Register with blogger.com and create a blog site dedicated to this course (THTR 2130). (note: the first time you go to blogger.com, you'll be asked to sign in using Gmail and/or create your blogger account)
• E-mail your URL (the web address that appears when you "view blog" on your own blog) to Dr. Fletcher, Brook, and Macy (see either the syllabus or the Moodle site for our e-mails).
•  "Follow" the main course blog at thtr2130spring2013.blogspot.com

 Blogger is fairly friendly; you shouldn't have too much trouble setting up your own website. Contact us if you have questions or concerns, and watch this space for your first prompt!

Best,

JF