I'm new to the world of blogging and playwriting, but after reading the monologues assigned for today's class, I gathered a few tips for my own writing.
Firstly, I saw that even with a monologue there must be a beginning, middle, and end. This is not a major surprise as it is a general concept of storytelling, but I had always assumed that a monologue was usually even more direct, targeted only at the audience with a particular subject in mind.
Furthermore, the author of The New Orleans Monologues, C. Rosalind Bell, wrote the script like a train of thought. The words were written in a way that it would spoken, with slang and different dialects instead of polished phrasing. It flowed naturally, with characters occasionally going off on a tangent. I found this to make the monologues that much more meaningful, because it stayed true to the people and the situation. I admit, as a storyteller I am very intimidated by slang and dialect because it is a literary gamble. If not used correctly the story will fail. However, I believe that Bell did a fantastic job.
In the New Orleans Monologues the characters would be mid-argument and make a comment to another character on stage, or better yet, reflect a comment or question from a character onto the audience. I found it interesting because instead of just watching the characters interact, they incorporated their own arguments, questions, or concerns with the audience.
I always liked the idea of having a character begin a scene with a question, but on page 4 I realized just how useful they could be. Peggy begins the scene by asking, “This is off the record, right?” What I found interesting about this question was that it not only addressed her concerns in the play, but it also gave the audience a role, which I never would have thought of. Another way to bring us in. Another way to make their problem our problem too.
On page 8 the character Elaine does something similar. She actually takes a cue from the audience and says, “I’m talking too much? Oh, okay. Just checking…Like I was saying…” Cues are something that I have never worked with, but simply enough, they seem like a reasonable way to ask, “You still with me?” They grab potential minds that are slipping away. Very cool.
I saw a lot of summary involved throughout the monologues. In fiction, we usually steer clear of all things summary because the author is liable to lose his readers interests, or, lose the graphic tension they may create. However, for the monologues, I think they worked well as memories, or, one could argue, journal entries. While reading them I was reminded of the type of situation where I would come home from a terribly crappy day, throw my bag on the couch, and start rambling to my roommates about it.
In Vagina Monologues found that many of the sentences in “Hair” were very short and direct- showing the character’s anticipation in sharing. In “The Flood” the narrator began differently-with a metaphor that countless people are familiar with. Later she got very graphic with her body functions, which from the plays I've seen and remember, are usually not said aloud, but more conveyed through body language. I found it interesting that with the monologues- the narrators were able to convey more about their problems, just like many do with a journal.
The main thing that I found in ALL of the monologues we read for today was that there was a lot of backtracking. For instance, on page 26 of The Vagina Monologues, the narrator states, “It wasn’t so dramatic. I mean…well, never mind. I can’t talk to you about this.” On stage I can see writing a backtrack amongst characters, but as a monologue it rules the entirety of the story. Another way to make the audience feel like your problem is their problem is to show their anxiety. Overall, I think monologues are a great tool to reach out to the audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you make a lot of really good points. I like hearing the perspective that you bring to reading monologues as an "English" person rather than a theatre person. To a certain extent, I think that being involved in theatre taints the way that I read plays and monologues, being more inclined to look at them from a performance or actors perspective rather than in terms of convention and stylistic tools. I totally agree with what you were saying about how starting a monologue with a question can be a brilliant way to hook the audience as well as to check in and make sure that they are still coming along with you and the story. That way if you are snoozing in your seat, the gut reaction is to come out of it feeling a bit guilty because suddenly it seems like the character is speaking to you directly (a feeling akin to when a teacher pulls you out of a drowsy stupor by calling on you when you didn't quite hear the question.) :) I hadn't been able to quite peg down that idea or comment for myself, so I thank you for the insight and the new tool in my toolbox.
ReplyDeleteMe too Susan, I am grateful for your English major insight in our theater heavy classroom. Your beginning, middle, end point is also very useful and smart. Is this true of the individual monologues or the play as a whole or both? It's this narrative at the center of all of these stories that keeps them interesting. You've observed well how exactly these monologues manage to capture the way people actually talk -- in dialects, with tangents, to different people at the same time. You're right that it's hard and risky and also absolutely necessary in this case. Like Ella, I like your point about starting with a question. You're right that bringing the audience in (the audience which didn't even know it had a question let alone asked it) is vital in this kind of play especially.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that usually I quite disagreed with the notion of starting a monologue with a question that puts the audience on the spot and into a role however I feel you make a very good point. Starting a monologue with a question to the audience does give them a role, therefor creating a bond with the audience that did not necessarily exist before. I would argue that giving the audience a specific role - such as being a listener that would require having something on or off a record or worried about a character talking to much - could take away a more personal reaction to a piece. For if I as the audience am playing a role than I wish to react as my role, more than as myself. However, like Ella mentioned, there is a tainting that occurs with me, much like Ella, where I worry first about the performability of a play before the writing itself. Granted, they go hand and hand but for me the first thing I look at is how I would wish to direct it, secondly at how it is written. I really appreciate the fresh spin you put on reading a play and the differences between playwrighting and fiction writing as I had never considered the line between the amount of information desirable in each form. However I would also have to say that there is such a thing as too much summery in drama but New Orleans does a very good job keeping that line very clear.
ReplyDeleteSusan,
ReplyDeleteI like your point about expressing train of thought. There is a lot of exploration of human psychology in monologue writing as well as monologue acting. I find your description of the concept of summary interesting, and I wonder if memory can be considered as such. I guess in a way, yes, because a character might not want to tell everything. But at the same time, memory is powerful and there is no way to completey summerize the images in one head, yet there really isn't a way to portray them fully either. Still, it might be interesting to take this notion of summary, and see if you can write a monologue play without using summary.