I understand where in this chapter the change in time, from 1966 to 1990, occurs. I'm assuming, if this were being acted on stage, there would be a set change, change in clothing, etc., to denote the passage of 24 years; am I correct? If not, how do you see that transition taking place in the real time of a performance? Just wondering, because, generally, if I'm reading a play I also read the stage directions.
I like how you are building or developing the characters. You hint at various things about them through their conversations, sustaining interest without giving anything away, yet, and not allowing the reader/watcher to assume too much knowledge of where the play might be heading. The brevity of the repartee and the wittiness of some of the dialogue serve the characters well.
Thanks, Maureen. For reading purposes and as indication to directors, I've tried to let the play's introductory parenthetical suffice -- that the play is a memory play, with minimal set design, in which David walks out of one scene and/or time into another, with some characters accordingly leaving as others enter and he joins them. Each transition is written to signal the shift additionally through the content of the dialogue. It's my expectation that the actors would subtly suggest by voice and bearing any notable change in age. The only time I directly address that issue is in the first scene, amidst David's opening monologue, when I indicate that he addresses Charles in a young voice. I know that good set designers can create minimal and even mobile and transformable scenic backdrops and props to aide quick transitions. Among models for this kind of memory play and scene transition for me is Death of a Salesman.
Regarding what the audience knows, you've definitely noted something I work at. I avoid deadly exposition in dialogue with all my might and seek to reveal information naturally and dramatically.
It's great to be able to discuss these craft elements. Thank you!
Mary and I think you should try to get the play read/staged at Signature Theatre in Arlington. It has a blackbox and a great set of actors (at least at the time I left), and gives serious thought to emerging playwrights. I used to go there all the time.
Thanks for all of the above. I'm always fascinated by the craft aspects, and you've answered my question about transitions well.
I do enjoy the liveliness and brevity of your characters' conversations. They don't come across as forced or artificial and satisfy the goals you mention. Fine, fine work!
You and Mary have been in contact? Why does that make me happy? :) I will definitely look into it!
You will find a number of more lengthy and substantial exchanges coming up; among them, David and Charles really have it out at the end of Act 1. Right now, in many respects, I'm still setting the stage: the conflicts and the stakes only gradually come into full bloom.
Why yes, Mary and I have exchanged some emails and found we have a number of things in common, and not just where we've lived. What a lovely person she is!
"Twenty years ago all you young people wanted to do was delve into the past, unearth all the complexities, dig up all the nasty little secrets. Shed the pure and simple light of day on other people's difficult choices. Now that it's your own life, you're not so eager." I'm really enjoying the exchanges between David and Charles. It reminds me a little of parts of "Les Mains Sales".
You are well-versed in mid-century theater, indeed, my friend, to know that obscurity. Sartre, as commonly, was interested in questions of bad faith and authenticity, as I am here, if, i hope to the viewer-reader, less intricately and programmatically.
I understand where in this chapter the change in time, from 1966 to 1990, occurs. I'm assuming, if this were being acted on stage, there would be a set change, change in clothing, etc., to denote the passage of 24 years; am I correct? If not, how do you see that transition taking place in the real time of a performance? Just wondering, because, generally, if I'm reading a play I also read the stage directions.
I like how you are building or developing the characters. You hint at various things about them through their conversations, sustaining interest without giving anything away, yet, and not allowing the reader/watcher to assume too much knowledge of where the play might be heading. The brevity of the repartee and the wittiness of some of the dialogue serve the characters well.
Thanks, Maureen. For reading purposes and as indication to directors, I've tried to let the play's introductory parenthetical suffice -- that the play is a memory play, with minimal set design, in which David walks out of one scene and/or time into another, with some characters accordingly leaving as others enter and he joins them. Each transition is written to signal the shift additionally through the content of the dialogue. It's my expectation that the actors would subtly suggest by voice and bearing any notable change in age. The only time I directly address that issue is in the first scene, amidst David's opening monologue, when I indicate that he addresses Charles in a young voice. I know that good set designers can create minimal and even mobile and transformable scenic backdrops and props to aide quick transitions. Among models for this kind of memory play and scene transition for me is Death of a Salesman.
Regarding what the audience knows, you've definitely noted something I work at. I avoid deadly exposition in dialogue with all my might and seek to reveal information naturally and dramatically.
It's great to be able to discuss these craft elements. Thank you!
Mary and I think you should try to get the play read/staged at Signature Theatre in Arlington. It has a blackbox and a great set of actors (at least at the time I left), and gives serious thought to emerging playwrights. I used to go there all the time.
Thanks for all of the above. I'm always fascinated by the craft aspects, and you've answered my question about transitions well.
I do enjoy the liveliness and brevity of your characters' conversations. They don't come across as forced or artificial and satisfy the goals you mention. Fine, fine work!
You and Mary have been in contact? Why does that make me happy? :) I will definitely look into it!
You will find a number of more lengthy and substantial exchanges coming up; among them, David and Charles really have it out at the end of Act 1. Right now, in many respects, I'm still setting the stage: the conflicts and the stakes only gradually come into full bloom.
Thank you for the kind words.
Why yes, Mary and I have exchanged some emails and found we have a number of things in common, and not just where we've lived. What a lovely person she is!
Looking forward to more of your fine play.
"Twenty years ago all you young people wanted to do was delve into the past, unearth all the complexities, dig up all the nasty little secrets. Shed the pure and simple light of day on other people's difficult choices. Now that it's your own life, you're not so eager." I'm really enjoying the exchanges between David and Charles. It reminds me a little of parts of "Les Mains Sales".
You are well-versed in mid-century theater, indeed, my friend, to know that obscurity. Sartre, as commonly, was interested in questions of bad faith and authenticity, as I am here, if, i hope to the viewer-reader, less intricately and programmatically.
The fantastic dialogue continues. The revelations timed perfectly.
And I am intrigued. What’s in Salt Lake City? Why the reach out now?
You're intrigued? My heart is singing!