Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 200 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by midnight on the night PRIOR to our discussion of the required reading.
Stasis Theory on the Chapter 10: Character
ReplyDeletePrimary Claim: General Qualities + Emotions + Action + Speech/Behavior = Character (pg.176)
Secondary Claim: "Characters -central and secondary alike- must be allowed to write themselves." (pg.190)
What I have learned from reading this chapter: This chapter deconstructs what constitutes a character in plays and methods on how the audience can perceive them. What shocked me the most from reading this chapter was how Spencer describes a character as just "dialogue" or "words". While I initially balked at this assessment my perspective changed once I finished reading the chapter.
I found that there is a progression which constitutes a character. The most telling was using real people as a template for characters in plays as mentioned on page 180. While I have not written plays before I have done my fair share of short stories with a variety of characters that are based on people that I know in real life. This, in conjunction of creating justification for characters' motives and actions, serve as a means to create a character which the audience will be drawn to even if they hate them.
Last but not least is the inclusion of revision after the basic template of a character has been written. This is exemplified on pg 197 and one of the concepts which I am wholly in agreement with.
Overall this was a in depth chapter that was easy to read and provided a concise approach to characters in a play.
Eutimio Longoria
I enjoyed the way Stuart Spencer focused on character as being the central point of most plays. I think the most informative thing I read was the “Four Steps to Character” (Pg 174-178). It provides a simple way of considering how to create a character who has specific qualities, feelings, and the actions the may make because of those traits. He breaks down to a four simple parts: general qualities, emotions, action, and speech/behavior. These parts are all connected to each other. A character may feel a certain way about something whether it is angry, sad or otherwise. These emotions will lead the character to act upon them. Like Spencer expressed “If I want to strike you on the face, it’s because first I was angry.” (Pg. 174) If character actually does something like punching the character as an example then that is the enactment of the behavior. It does not necessarily need to be an actual action but can also be something the character says as a response or even both. The important thing that leads to all this are the general qualities of the character that in essence are a precursor to the feelings/emotions of the character. A generally grumpy character might react or feel pessimistic for some certain reason or that same pessimism might reveal some vulnerabilities in the character that the “grumpiness” might be masking. This way of breaking down what a character consists of is able to simplify how you can add depth to a character if you’re having issues trying to figure out who they are.
ReplyDelete-Mark Peña
After reading Stuart Spencer’s “The playwrights guidebook” I learned a considerable amount about how creating interesting characters can be challenging, yet rewarding in the end.
ReplyDeleteSpencer explains about the process in creating a good character through a series of 4 important factors, General qualities, emotions, Action, and Speech/Behavior. But just knowing this information is just half of the solution, there are several things to consider when you set out to write your main character for your play. For instance, you can’t just write a multi-dimensional character out of thin air. Neither does it take a few attributes, and a silly walk to establish one. These characters are fictional things, words on a paper, or a simple idea scribbled on a napkin during a coffee-run. So it’s going to take research, a proper script, and patience when bringing one to life. Another thing to keep in mind is that characters should operate on their own. Basically meaning that to much attention from your part will more or likely cause your well designed character to turn into a passive one which makes them somewhat uninteresting, and unrealistic.
In truth writing characters is not an easy task, its challenging, and at most occasions frustrating. In my opinion creating a character certainly isn’t the easiest part in writing a play, but after reading this, I feel as though I have a better understanding as how to create a more engaging main character in the future.
-Kathleen Salinas
“What we call a character is merely words on a page […]” (Spencer, 172). Which is true when we come to think about it. When writing a Playwright or anything at all we write about we must choose a character and when we do that we in then choose a and create our set or scene. So, therefore a character is so crucial to any story. Especially for those whom find it a little more difficult to find out every aspect of a person and an imaginary person at that. We are essentially creating a life and bringing it t life with just words. And with that we hope that it makes sense and however we write our story the character comes across as being as realistic as possible. Spencer lays out charts for us writers to use in our character sheets such as General Qualities + Emotions + Action + Speech/Behavior=Character. Even more so when writing a playwright which we later have to bring to life ourselves with looks, and costumes so when we envision a character it is because it is realistic and can be played out an performed by anyone. Spencer sets forth excellent examples in creating any character.
ReplyDelete-Christina Velasquez
Having taken a class similar to this one, and having read Stuart Spencer’s Playwright Guidebook, I realize the importance of creating characters that have depth. Far too often audiences fail to engage with characters who exist solely on the surface through mundane and often recycled situations. While Spencer will argue that a biography is not always the best way to go about molding a character, I’d have to be inclined to disagree.
ReplyDeleteHe describes his subject Tanisha as being dead in the water with her characters, saying that she never really felt any kind of connection with her characters. I feel the solution to such problems would be resolved through short, thorough biographies. Through these an author can later determine whether or not it’s within a character’s best interest to do what they are about to do. It will suddenly make sense when they embark on an adventure, or go down a path because they’re previous disposition alludes to such characteristics. And while a play particularly one that is short, cannot offer such insights, an author’s conviction will more often than not convince the audience that what they’re watching unfold must be within the character’s bounds.
Lucas Zamora
In Spencer’s, “The Playwright’s Guidebook,” he pointed out that “characters are people… They’re unpredictable.” It really blew my mind to learn that I’’ll never really learn how to write a play because that is why I signed up for this class, but thankfully I was not left hopeless. Instead, Spencer explains how characters are not defined by traits or physical features or simply good description, but rather general qualities, emotions, action, plus speech/behavior that compose a character. It was very relatable to think of it in comparison to real life. We do not just walk around living without purpose. Everyone has emotions, reasons, and purpose behind their actions and language. Lastly, I have always enjoyed watching movies with a really good villain or even plays with evil characters who I hate so much but yet without them, I probably wouldn’t like the play. So it was very interesting to think about writing an evil character into one of plays but remembering that they are human, and as Spencer says, “No one, even the most cruel of us, thinks himself as wicked.” That statement is true to both plays and real life. Reflecting back on people who have wronged me or whom I have wronged and focusing on their intentions brings everything into perspective.
ReplyDelete~ Joy Perez
There are several things that I took note of in the reading:
ReplyDelete"Much of what we love about theater is an illusion."
I think this notion also extends beyond just theater, addressing all forms of art. Animation and movies are just still images to give the illusion of movement, drawings and paintings can convey 3D space but are really just 2D surfaces, poetry and books may use words to mean other words as with metaphors; the point being that while we recognize the "falseness" of the art we consume, that is it isn't real, we readily put ourselves into the mindset that we'll play along as if it is. The Suspension of Disbelief.
"But drama is rarely about general truths. It's about the specifics, right now."
This reminded me of the popular saying, "Show, don't tell." General truths are vague and thus can speak to a lot of people but they don't mean anything unless put into action. Such as if you said "Bill was a good person," it won't really mean anything to someone. Instead, if you say, saw Bill donating to charity or helping an old lady cross the street, the idea of Bill being a good person will finally start to take root. While it's a different topic, I think this also can be seen highlighting that you can write interesting ways to show how a person is through their actions rather than their words.
“The dramatist's duty is to reveal the truth as he sees it. The truth is often harsh and unpleasant.”
I think this an important point Spencer makes. Often, the point of a story is overcoming something, changing in someway, a shift from where things started to where they ended up. Because of the nature of storytelling, characters must “suffer” to an extent. Of course this comes with stories about very dark topics: murder, prejudice, rape, etc. One mustn't shy away from those topics however, as Spencer states one mustn't shy away from “evil” characters. Through writing, and presenting these ideas in stories, we gain understanding.
-Rafael Avila
This semester, I am enrolled in a Political Science course which breaks down the different theories that are in the field of study. The first lesson we had was on perspective. The instructor put it into the view that we all see the world in a different manner. Not one pair of eyes will see an event or anything along the lines as exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteThis is a similar theme that we see in the chapter and in the method of developing our characters.
But how? Well, Spencer gives a great example of what gives a character their distinction with Oedipus Rex. With the given formula on pages 176 and 178, we get to see the different elements that can help us utilize the screen time to further develop and shape our clay figure of a character. This is similar to writing a short story or novel. As a writer, we have a vivid sense of who our protagonist is and their affiliates, but we have to use every single word to portray that individual, so that the audience can grasp the cast that we are putting out for them. Luckily for playwriting, there is the usage of a visual illustration by choosing an actor and then placing them in clothing that represents a character, but the foundation is still in the writing. Similar to a play, there are limitations to writing a short story such as word count. Thus, it is vital to use every line of dialogue and interaction to further branch out an individual, so they can stand on their own to the audience.
This then transitions to another interesting aspect of the chapter which talks about passive central characters. As writers, we stand close to our main characters/protagonists and take a trip into the scenes with them as we are writing. This type of writing then creates the passive central character since we know how they will act to a certain element or person, but they don’t take any action whatsoever. In a sense, they are just soaking up everything around them and digesting it. In my opinion, this can be a flaw since we are giving more “life” to the world outside, rather than what our main character is thinking or what they are thinking of doing.
As stated by Spencer, “You have to take a good hard, objective look at your play to determine whether the words and gestures of your central character actually express her action” (187). This is an issue with my main characters. I feel that I’m too focused on having my audience show sympathy towards them, that when they do see that they are struggling, they don’t necessarily know anything about them. As I am writing this, there is another project that I have been sparsely working on, and I’m too focused on creating characters and the scenery, that I am limiting my central character’s personality. The reason being is he sees something/someone of interest, but doesn’t act or react. All I know about my protagonist is that he shows a disapproval to the different entities that are evident.
In conclusion, as playwriters we are limited since we only have so much room to work with, but it’s important to give freedom to the characters we craft. As Spencer said, “You set the boundaries. But within them, let your characters play. They don’t call it a play for nothing, after all” (192).
Patricio Hernandez (P.J.)
I realize that perhaps the driving theme of the assigned pages in Spencer’s Guidebook are the 4 components that contribute to the reality of and vitality of your character. However, what I drew from it, very much my own method of thought, was the idea that while you can deconstruct a character into various pieces and these pieces may, from a singular prospective work, (producing some framework in the readers mind) none of them is “alive” on its own. For your character to be and simply be without need of your interjection is your goal. This carries over into what Spencer states about having a passive character; we so often are taught to put ourselves into someone else’s shoes if we intend to write on them but I would argue, and propose that what Spencer suggests, is being the objective observer of your story. Be invested in your character, of course, you don’t want them to become throw away names but allow the words on the script to breathe and furthermore allow the actor to breathe their own life into them as well. Your character isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a rigidly defined set of characteristics or generalizations; they are the symbiotic relationship between script, playwright, and actor – a living organism ready to leap off the page and onto the stage.
ReplyDelete- Joaquin Castillo Jr
Characters
ReplyDeleteSpencer first takes us through fleshing out a character so that they appear more human. He breaks this down into four steps and explains each then puts it back together. Because a character is merely dialogue we have to understand why they say the things they do or what they would say at all. Some people forget the elements that make up characters so he provides a nifty equation to assist them. He then goes on to use an interesting example of how to use it on your own which was quite entertaining despite being so strange but self explanatory. He then moves on to talk about sympathy for a character. Specifically a dramatic sympathetic character vs a likeable one. He focuses on not making a nice character just so the audience will like them and I agree with that. He also takes about making sure your "evil" characters have reasons; I call them cartoonishly evil characters. Evil for the sake of being evil is never good for anyone. Passive characters are also a no. (*cough* YA *cough*) He says you need to let your babies (characters) grow on their own and yes I completely agree even if they burn down your plot, you or they (the character) will build a new one. Also to find out if your character is passive figure out if everything happens to them or they happen to their environment. A first reader helps though, a lot. Same goes for central characters in general. Let that baby grow and rule your play. Knowing how your character speaks goes back to the 4 steps and knowing who your character is. But dialogue isn't the same as everyday language especially in a play, it's more extra. But yes make sure that most of the dialogue is actually necessary and adds value to each scene and moves the plot along. Personally I think all physical behavior should be in the stage direction. Putting it in dialogue works for Shakespeare but the example he used was cringe worthy and no. I refuse to believe that during rehearsal (several he says) the director, actors, stage manger, assistant stage managers, designers, and others following along missed a stage direction and weren't able to come up with something to substitute it and if he hadn't been there they wouldn't have been able to continue without him pointing it out. So stage direction is the way to go if you absolutely need them to do a certain thing. Most of the time directors and actors come up with stage business and behaviors themselves. And of course a quirk is not a character.
Jasmin Grimaldo
After reading pages 170-203 I now have a better grasp of creating a character. The reading selection discusses how to bring your character to life. Such as, writing a description of them with background information. Normally I would prefer to make a character after creating some sort of plot, not the character first. This reading reminded me of the in class assignment we did where we all had to draw the face of our character. This activity actually got me to know my character even more. The example of Joe wanting a glass of water opened many doors for the creativity of how Joe can get that glass. Joe can either be disabled and can't walk to get his water, or he's out of water and remains thirsty. Maybe the water is contaminated and he refuses to drink it. All this possibilities give more personality to your character. Not only text can bring a character to life, but the actor and actions the character does bring them to life. Spencer also talks about how you can ask people to find your central character and their purpose in the play. I thought this was a great idea to test the quality of your writing and character. If the person can pin point the main character and their goals, then job well done.
ReplyDeleteDanny Olivarez
Isaac J McCoy
ReplyDeleteFinally got my book.
I have a detrimental problem with Spencer's opinion of characters within play-writing. I do not think that plays are liberating with characters as abstracts rather than solidified people. Or at least, this is true enough for me as the play's writer. I cannot think in the abstract connotative mindset, I must have a physically mental character to work with for my characters or my mind is not able to evolve my characters. As an actor, yes, abstract characters, I think, are best to work with and such freedom given by such is required for many to operate functionally well. However; as a writer, and as many writers would probably agree, an actual person is the best plan for bouncing ideas and scenarios off of. Without a solid object, a ball, or in this case an idea, will not rebound back at the thrower (writer). If I want more ideas for my play, I need actual people to run through flame tests to see if they burn up or if they can stand against unknowns within my plays and stories. Unlike Spencer, I do not differentiate between plays and books, both are stories only used by different mediums.
I really did enjoy reading about what Spencer thinks about creating characters. One of my favorite things that he said was, “... This might seem limiting to you, but let me suggest that it's actually liberating. All you have are words, it's true. But you have every word at your disposal, and it is solely up to you how to use them. To my mind, that's freedom.” (pgs. 172-173). He is absolutely correct. If you think about it, we will never truly really know our characters or how to show our audience exactly who they are, but because YOU created that character, YOU know them best, and YOU get to choose the exact words used by the character. You also get to choose exactly how that character will be represented. Because you are in total control of what the character does, you are able to get your audience’s view of who the character is as close as possible to who you truly intended your character to be. This gives the play a more authentic feel. Using the correct diction can take your play to a whole other level. If the goal is to get the audience to understand our character’s mind and how it works, then it is completely up to you to help them do that.
ReplyDelete-Starleen Rendon
Oddly enough, when I began this course, I thought of plays/prose as more about the plot and actions that occur; I would ask, “what is it about/what happens in it?” rather than “who is it about?”, even though my favorite part of any media (movies, books, shows, etc.) are the characters. I suppose that when I thought of writing any prose, the plot was most important, especially for plays because they are made up of actions that happen on stage. Forming characters was hard to me, too, before I read this section. I couldn’t imagine how I could create an idea for a whole person. However, after reading this section on characters, I found that writing characters might be more simple than I originally thought. The formula implemented makes enough sense for playwriting purposes, but unless you’re modeling a character after someone you already know, it is still difficult to write that character. I’m afraid I’m writing characters that are too familiar to me or that are me in too many ways and that I won’t create anything new. I don’t think the reading expanded on that enough, but I suppose that is where research might come in.
ReplyDelete-Mayanin Rosa