THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS!
Miss twirls is on probation as of class inspection time, so she's decided to step it up a notch with the teaching. We're officially moving past poetry and into unit two: DRAMATIC LIT! As is only appropriate, we'll be studying this in conjunction with the new play being put on by the drama class.

So, to start off...what exactly is dramatic literature? Some would say that the term is a contradiction unto itself, as 'literature' implies something written and 'drama' implies something performed. Most of the problems, and much of the interest, in the study of dramatic literature stem from this contradiction. For the purposes of our class, however, dramatic lit will involve the appreciation of a play purely for the quality of writing.

Before we get into the literary elements of dramatic lit, we'll focus on the more...well, how to put this...interesting ones. Technical things tend to be boring.

Now, one of the necessary elements of a good play is realism. Don't be confused--of course, there is such a thing as a fantasy play--but even those must capture humanity as realistically as possible. Without this, dialog seems forced and awkward. But what else makes for good drama?

Here's an excerpt from a play by Kyle Schmidt, known as Fernando and the Killer Queen:

Quote:

BORIS We’re not all leaving. I’m not. We’re safe. The Cook is stupid. The Queen has a plan. The Queen will save us. The Queen will protect. We’ll keep the government. She’s probably in the bathroom now building a bomb. She’s just waiting to detonate it. Mark these words, Fernando, there are fires in our Queen just waiting to blast. FERNANDO Why did General Rickitts die? BORIS He lost his blood. FERNANDO Why? What’s the reason? BORIS The Queen wanted a change. Apparently. FERNANDO Since I arrived she’s not come out of the bathroom. The whole time. I haven’t seen her. BORIS She’s busy. FERNANDO Armed militia are coming. We should escape. BORIS I’d scream. FERNANDO So. BORIS Queen would mutilate you. Like Rickitts. FERNANDO When the Cook left. Why didn’t you scream? BORIS I grabbed at him. FERNANDO So. You didn’t scream. BORIS I did. FERNANDO No. BORIS My voice is hoarse. FERNANDO Then why didn’t the Queen run out and flay him. If the Queen is half the monster I’ve heard, why did he get to escape? Did no one tell her there’s a revolution outside? BORIS She knows. FERNANDO How? BORIS She killed the General. He must have been part of the plot to unseat the government. The Queen is in control.

Now, on to the assignment...it's more of a discussion than anything.
Just answer the following questions:
Would you consider this play to be realistic?
What's the most realistic aspect of the play?
What is it you like most about it?
What would make you like it better?
How do you think plays in general differ from other types of fiction?
Would this play be better, worse, or the same if it wasn't written as a play?
What do you think makes a play 'good'?
This is an excerpt from the middle of a play. Would you agree that a beginning, middle, and end are necessary to a good play? Why or why not?

That's a lot, eh? Maybe just focus on two or three.
I

_________________

you can run, but it'll find you every time.
you won't convince me.

Do I post it here? Well if not, you can edit or remove it later Twirly!

1) Would you consider this play to be realistic?

Despite what you may think, yes, I do believe this play to be realistic. Iin some form or fashion this probaably did happen. Whether with a demanding queen or with a demanding king. She killed off the rebellions leader, therefore renderring the rebellion leaderless and weak. She's using defence tacktics which are still used to this day- maybe not with that much brutality and lack of remorse, but close enough to.

2) What do you think makes a play 'good'?

I believe a good play most possess more than one genre. If a play is just a romance, it becomes tedious and predictable for the viewers. There must be a climax through which something big happens, but does not nescessarily have to have an end. And of course, a good play requires a good writer that possess a good nack for not over doing the foreshadowing when not necessary. Like a normal book, a good play cannot have too many characters otherwise the audience will get muddled up and forget all of their names, and the whole play will turn to a shambles.

3) This is an excerpt from the middle of a play. Would you agree that a beginning, middle, and end are necessary to a good play? Why or why not?

^^I do not agree, sorry to say so, but a play does not have to have a begginning, middle or an end. The play can start half way through and shift backwards and forwards in time, sifting through the years, btu still make sense to the audience - if it is written well that is. Take, An Inspector Calls, for example, this is a mystery, horror genre and has no real ending.

*DO NOT READ ON IF YOU HAVE NOT READ IT*

The play ends on a cliffhanger, and the reader is left not knowing who or what Inspector Goole really was, or really knwoing if Eva Smith really did kill herself, or rather, if the Birling Family and Mr. Geral Croft, woould go to jail for their acts of crime against one poor girl. I believe a plot line is necessary for a good play, but having no end or no beggining, or god forbid, no middle, does not really matter if the play itself runs smoothly and is understandable to the degree that the writer wants it to be.

ahaha I hope my assingment was good enough twirly!

<3

Ooh, those are all lovely and detailed and make me smile.
Let us discuss.

1) I really enjoyed this answer, because it's not one I've gotten so far...most of the people I know who have read this play find it staggeringly unrealistic. However, you make a fair point. Revolution does occur, despite the fact that it is not always facilitated by a monarch. Boris, as the queen's servant, trusts her absolutely...but Fernando, her nephew, doubts her control over the situation. Both opinions are likely to arise in such a scenario, and I'm certain such a scenario has arisen at some point in history. The queen allows unnecessary violence within her kingdom, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Basically, the excerpt is a good way of showing human nature.

2) Quite insightful, love, and quite accurate as well. I also adore your use of the word shambles. You make a good point here, I think. In my opinion, a good play must have a cohesive theme (be it tragedy, comedy, history, etc.) without sticking to a single genre or even a single plotline. A good playwright can take a few characters and tie them all together around a single issue, while at the same time creating smaller subplots that keep the audience interested.

3) Interestingly enough, I completely agree. Your answer is great in that it points out one of the classic differences between a story and a play...in order for a story to even exist, it must be divisible into beginning, middle, and end. However, a play can function on its own merits when missing one or even two of these elements. However, when you speak of shifting through time: is that not, in a sense, still containing the three parts? A cohesive timeline can be formed even if events aren't shown chronologically.

Anybody else have something to add? It's especially fun when people start to disagree with each other.