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.
Spencer talks about dialogue and how it pertains to the play as a whole. Even so there is more to dialogue than just words. It comes down to the character, their motivation and why they are saying the things they are. This is represented in "Anything for You" where Gail comes in, angry and aggravated and this sets the tone of her character throughout the majority of the play. When Lynette confesses to her Gail, in her angered state, rebukes her initially, then slowly begins to admit that she did kiss her but only with a "peck". This gives Lynette justification to continue her desire towards her best friend. Eventually Gail, realizing that she had been caught in her white lies (it was more than just a 'peck' and she was stone cold sober) admits that she has feelings for Lynette. This is important because Gail, repeatedly, stated that she had no feelings for Lynette even though the opposite is true. As such it is important to note that words are not everything. What also matters is the context which they are said and how they can be used to help further develop a character.
ReplyDeleteEutimio Longoria
Dialogue is, generally, the cornerstone of any good play. What characters cannot express through physical action, because of forced restraint, or sometimes even what a production budget will allow, dialogue serves to get the point across in a more civilized manor, even when words can sometimes come with harsh undertones or unsavory intentions. I certainly wish we could practice dialogue more when it comes to protesting our discrepancies out on the streets.
ReplyDeleteSpeech/behavior is a vital part of the equation when it comes to formulating a believable character, and having someone who can connect with audiences will serve as an anchor so to speak, keeping the audience grounded in what they’re watching, and sometimes make them feel as if they’re part of the action, as if by some invisible tether, they too have some control in the actions unfolding before them.
It truly is a magic that only good dialogue can conjure. And when the audience intentionally gets included, as with soliloquies and such, it just hammers home so much more emotion on the part of everyone involved.
The ten minute production, “Anything for You” is a direct representation of how well written dialogue can put you in the middle of a situation. The play itself was void of any real action, and judging by the productions I looked up, there really wasn’t much to the set either. The play is not about the material or tangible in the slightest. A blind man could have appreciated the play.
The one thing I didn’t like was that it did not have a concrete ending. I would have loved a tad more decisiveness on account of the author, but again, that’s just part of the realism. Life is filled with uncertainties. The only inescapable ones are death and taxes.
Lucas Zamora
After reading both “Anything for you” and Spencer’s take on dialogue , I realized fairly quickly that writing dialogue isn’t always just fun and games. You can’t expect to write something out of thin air, and present it to an audience. For example “Anything for you” really has a way of communicating the characters actions and emotions, without it feeling forced, or stale. It really captures the characters crisis and issues that make them separate individuals. So, how is this done exactly? Well, obviously with time, but also with careful consideration of the characters general personality. Another good thing to keep in mind is that dialogue is not necessarily a single separate component of writing in your play. Your play is entirely composed of dialogue. You can’t just have action alone to help showcase who these characters are, and how they present themselves to an audience. That would just have the characters seem far more unrealistic then intended.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading spencer’s opinions on dialogue, I think I will try to express more of the characters inner most feelings and interests through their dialogue. And I will also consider working on my use of stage directions, and character actions.
Kathleen m. Salinas
194-198 of Spencer’s text was included in a previous writing, however, having the opportunity to then go back and focus on these 5 pages was very beneficial. Especially after writing our own monologues. It made me realize, when read in the context of Dr. Moreira’s feedbacks, that my character lacked some of that subtler intonation of purpose. This develops your character “goal” and his actions reveal themselves to this end, not only are you attempting to reach the end of your play but your character is working towards an end. As such, the playwright should likewise be aware that simply wanting your character to have an emotion is not an excuse for dialogue that explicitly places this emotion at the forefront. Now, on to the class’s first introduction to dialogue within the readings. I would say that Anything for You gave us a clear picture of what we should be aiming to do when creating our own samples of dialogue. That is, first the speech between the two characters should be natural (avoid stiffness), second there is an exchange (both characters contribute nearly equally), and third there is a progression to this exchange (entrance, conflict, action, resolution).
ReplyDeleteJoaquin Castillo Jr
Upon reading Spencer's section on language and watching “Anything For You”, I became even more intrigued with language usage. Spencer says,”... It's what a lot of people call “writer’s voice.” That's a good phrase; so is “finding your voice.” But note the phrasing. You don't create a voice, you discover it. And you discover it by getting down to work and writing as honestly as you can.” And this I found to be quite true. Writing and finding what words to use is a “ as-you-go” process. You really just start and see where you end up. I enjoyed watching “Anything For You” because of the use of language and because I felt as though the writer used the “as-you-go” process. The play itself drew my attention because of the situation, the woman wanted (Needed) to have an affair and asked her best friend to sleep with her. Normally I feel that because of the situation involving two women sleeping together, a writer would have trouble on choosing what to say and how to say it, but the dialogue in Anything For You was so well written and seemed perfectly effortless which added to the humor of it all. I really did enjoy it and laughed through it.
ReplyDelete-Starleen Rendon
In Spencer’s section entitled “Language,” he expresses that you can not be good at dialogue and bad at playwriting. He goes on to say that “emotions lead to action.” I find that statement true. Our characters should not merely be walking or speaking without motive. And in the dialogue, “Anything for You,” we can see how the characters are not just spitting out words but speaking choosing their words. I really enjoyed the video, because the conversation drew me in. The language flowed and it felt like I was literally eavesdropping! And when the characters moved or shifted positions when sitting; it all had purpose which tied back into “emotions lead to action.”
ReplyDelete-Joy Perez
The reason I feel that script writing is my calling is because it’s mostly dialogue. That’s also why I decided to try playwriting; because it is also mostly dialogue. I don’t have to worry about describing the scene or even the characters that much. That’s not my job. My job is to create a believable and sympathetic character within a good story. I love dialogue. My approach has always been to fully create and get to know the character before they interact with others. They tell me what they want. What they like. Who they don’t like. They’re favorite music or lack of. If the dialogue is good enough then a lot of stage direction isn’t needed. That’s the actors and directors job to create stage business inspired by the dialogue. Anything For You has good enough dialogue that the writer didn’t need a lot of stage direction. She included basic movement and mostly pauses. I read it twice and watched two different stage performances (the first was horrible burnt out and I couldn’t stand it for too long). None of the stage business that any of the actors do is mentioned in the stage direction, they make it up, that’s their job. They even ignore some pauses and place them elsewhere as they felt or as instructed by the director. The dialogue itself is great and tells a lot about the characters aside from what they are saying. Lynette although in an outwardly happy marriage is sexually frustrated. Her husband is too nice and they probably aren’t having great sex or the kind that she wants (evident when she says she needs someone “to sear me to the bones” or tells Gail to “Make love to me until I beg you to stop”), hence the need to have an affair. Gail is obviously a repressed lesbian (although she might be bisexual although this being written in the early 90s that was thought of as real) being married to a man and in love with her bestfriend (my favorite cliche). The language on Lynette's part is homophobic saying that a girl isn't considered cheating and school girls crushes aren’t gay which probably hurts Gail’s feeling, even if just subconsciously. Gail knews her feelings would never be reciprocated and this reaffirms that. So now they will have to continue with the same secret and pretend this conversation never happened for the sake of their continued friendship.
ReplyDeleteJasmin Grimaldo
I just want to say that right off the bat I knew exactly who Gail was. I know what I would gift her if her birthday was tomorrow and what I would say if she was having a mid life crisis and am incredibly intrigue with how exactly the writer was able to capture her essence from the very beginning. These are the types of plays I analyze and utilize to learn and grow as a writer. I mean, God it was so intense and climaxed so perfectly. Part of me wants to act in it, the other part wants to have the luxury to call it my own. The observation noted by Spencer is fitting to say the least and I am left rather nervous fearing that I do not have this "rhythm and sound." I am beyond grateful that Spencer has expressed such an importance on drafts and as I read I found myself agreeing with every word. I see myself going through the motions that he describes in order to create something raw and powerful. Until this moment, I had yet to come across advice on when or why to cut and will definitely use his to only do it when "you can replace [with lines] that better reflect the character." Overall, raw is powerful because it is only then that it is in its most honest state.
ReplyDelete-Maria Romero
"We often forget how powerful language really is" (Spencer, 196). Playwriting and all that which it entails is words and dialogue. So we as the play writers must find the right language to use to bring forth our characters voice to life. Although, some interpretations of our character when read and not seen acted out can be confused as Spencer explains in the five different possibilities. I believe that the audience/readers will not know what the voice in terms of emotions will be and can be unless acted out. That goes without saying that the play will not be any good just interpreted differently. "Anything for You" by Cathy Celesia does not , in my own opinion gives us any strong language. I found it to be very eh. Never got the point of it and the title does not answer the readers and audiences question as to did Gail accept to sleep with Lynette? It ends, it was not clear in language nor complexity. Even on the video provided for us to watch which they do act out the play . The actresses do not seem to be very into the dialogue. It could possibly have been better in the matter of being interesting. Yet, again the dialogue was dry nothing as Spencer spoke of.
ReplyDelete-Christina Velasquez
Spencer states, as the overall point is Dialogue is the driving force for a play. "Dialogue, however, is the one, solitary means by which you have to express everything you have to say: theme, character, story, plot."
ReplyDelete“Anything for You” really captures this as besides a few actions taken by Gail, all of the important plot and character details come from what both of the characters are saying. Lynette's internal crisis to experiment sexually outside of her marriage, and Gail's internal crisis of being in love with her, all revealed from their conversation.
That being said, I think the important Spencer talks about is writing “truthfully” and “honestly.” “And your voice is that of your characters. Let them speak what they will and how they will, regardless of what your opinion happens to be.”
When writing characters an important factor I find is to think outside of yourself, consider another person's perspective even if you disagree with them. The world is made up of a lot of people, each with their own distinct way of life and I think recognizing that will help the development of writing characters. Plays have conflict and drama, which can be born out of disagreements between people, groups of people, and so on. Gail's initial disagreement with Lynette shows things about both characters; their relationship for one thing as it can be seen Lynette is the more wild one and Gail is the voice of reason.
-Rafael Avila
Spencer talks about dialogue and how it all comes together to create a big bang. Just writing something and making it sound good will not have the same impact or be good at all. When I started writing back when I was thirteen, I used to think that if I wrote something and I used big words and I sounded smart my writing would be good but obviously, fast-forward ten years later I now know better. I look back at my old writing and think, “What the fuck was I trying to say?” I still have a lot to learn especially because this is my first “real” attempt at writing a play. Now, moving on, the play, “Anything for you” was intense! Oh my god, I didn’t expect that! So she loved her? What if she was only joking around to get her to understand how crazy she sounded? All I know that when I began reading it I didn’t think it would end like that. I wanted more though, I wanted to know what they would end up doing, be it anything they choose but I was curious! To bad sometimes things end this way and yet it leaves it up to the reader to interpret the material and it leaves us wondering. I guess that the beauty of it.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Rodriguez
From what I learned from Spencer’s reading is that dialogue is the stem of which a tree grows from. They’re many branches that are connected with dialogue; the big chunk of wood that holds the sprouted tree branches is the character. Everything that has to do with dialogue begins from the characters motivation, feelings, and mentality- every reason that provokes what comes from and out of the character. Lynette and Gail are best friends, through the video we see hear and see the complicated situation they’re both in. Lynette is “happily married” to her husband. Throughout the scene we witness Gail confess her love to Lynette. They once had an intimate encounter that occurred some time in the past, although Lynette thought it was just a “school girl crush” as she mentions. Dialogue comes along with physical movements. When Gail confesses to Lynette, Lynette quickly stands up and awkwardly walks in opposite direction with her glass of champagne. This stage movement tells the audience how uncomfortably shocked Lynette felt when she heard what came out of Gail’s mouth; and then again Lynette didn’t have to say anything in its moment. Even though Gail had previously claimed her feelings were not serious since she was wasted when their intimate moment occurred, however her frustration and emotion provoked her to fully confess what her feelings for Lynette really are. Through these scenes we see how their words are incensed with feeling and behavior. Body movements are an excellent source to creating more powerful dialogue, however I though about how voice fits into this whole topic. Personally, I believe people see voice as an action, when in reality voice is a physical part of us humans. Voice is something we control, its part of the way we say certain words. Imagine semi-arguing with someone (as shown in the video) and being annoyed not by what they are saying, but by the way their voice sounds. The dialogue in this video is powerful because of how passionate they’re using their voice. I feel like Lynette can say something pretty lame but it has a good chance in sounding cool by the way she uses her voice for dialogue. I think this is a strong attribute that dialogue holds. Other than that I though Spencer’s take on it was very interesting as well.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Castaneda
I want to know what happens between Lynette and Gail! I thought their conversation was solely going to be about Gail protesting the idea of Lynette having an affair, not revealing how they've shared a kiss before and Gail secretly loving Lynette all this time- that really took me by surprise. I understand having love for a friend, but being in love with a friend is a whole different story. I think these expressed complex ideas and emotions in "Anything For You" tie in to what Spencer mentions on page 196. How "You may very well not be consciously aware of your word choice as you write, but you are making choices nevertheless. The degree to which you or your subconscious makes them cohesively and clearly, while still admitting the complexity of the human psyche, will be the same degree to which they are perceived by the audience as lifelike." Gail's denial for having feelings for Lynette then admitting them when called a liar seem fairly lifelike to me. She repressed her true feelings for so long and when finally given the opportunity to share them, she does. Her words do have an impact on their friendship and may very well change the course of it, but as Spencer says "You want that impact to be as strong, clear, complex...as possible. Out of that... lifelike complexity...your voice will begin to emerge. And your voice is really that of your characters."
ReplyDeleteKarla Olvera
I really enjoyed Spencer’s thoughts on what makes for good dialogue. I had actually read this section after our last reading because I feel personally that my dialogue really lacks from time to time. It makes a lot of sense that good dialogue in essence is something that one finds. A voice that one finds in themselves that helps to make dialogue more believable and helps to create this flow in scenes that otherwise might not work. You have to be thinking about the character, where they stand in the scene emotionally and how they are choosing to express themselves. The various examples of Joe and the glass of water were really helpful. Perhaps your character is upset but hiding it or maybe the character has no idea they feel this way and the dialogue they speak is slowly unraveling this. It was a really cool concept. Now for the play “Anything for You’ by Cathy Celesia. It was a really good read. This play has very little stage direction so there is a lot of emphasis on the dialogue and Celesia did a really good job. There was one point on page 18 where it is literally just one line but I believe you can sense the shift. “LYNETTE: Why are you so against this? You have me, I have my fling-everybody wins. GAIL: Except Richard and George.” Gail so plainly states that the only ones at loss are their husbands, at that point she is in essence no longer denying the possibility of them sleeping together but considering the consequences. It sets up the major climactic point later.
ReplyDelete-Mark A Peña
Similar to Spencer, I am somewhat surprised that dialogue doesn’t have its own extended portion of the book. The reason for this statement is because as he says, dialogue is the weaving together of the play’s entirety. Whether it is the theme, character, story or plot, the words that are recited have to carry all of these aspects. It isn’t like writing a short story or novel in which you can use a 3rd person narrative to give exposition to the scenario. However, in this case, we have the actors to help set the stage. He then discusses the matter that you don’t create the voice, you discover it. What I assume he means is that we can’t force a certain type of dialogue onto the characters of the play, we have to honestly write depending on the circumstances. He even says that it’s fine to have a certain rhythm in your dialogue, but it has to be authentic. The rhythm and poetic attributes of dialogue don’t necessarily carry the narrative of a story or play, I learned this from my creative writing course last semester. I mean yes, the language that I was giving to my central character was “lyrical” but yet it didn’t carry his narrative all that well. I’m hoping this course will tap into my writing ability in which I can utilize my love for wordplay to carry an entire story, play and narrative. Furthermore, in regards to playwriting, we have leverage to setting the mood and scene with the backdrops and props, but the voice of our characters are the ones that lift the show.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the excerpt from “Anything For You”, you can immediately tell why the professor chose this scene of dialogue for this reading. One, even if it’s just words on a page, based on the word choices that Cathy Celesia gives to Gail and Lynette, we can read within our heads the emotions that are driving the action forward. For example, it starts off seemingly like an innocent dinner but then the stage directions help signify that there is slight embarrassment when Gail lowers her voice down and says, “This is inappropriate”. In addition, from a couple of pages we know that both women are married, they are friends with romantic intentions towards one another, Gail works in the music industry of some sort, and the setting is sometime after 1991. Here, we get character development, an action and dilemma, and setting.
Patricio Hernandez (P.J.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if dialogue has become something different in a play, but it is in fact the play itself, Spencer says. It gets kind of confusing, and so it helps to think about it as language. There is a kind of in-between in writing, you have to let it flow, but you also have to think about word choice. Spencer states that no matter which words we choose, they will always have an impact, but we always want the strongest impact. It is language, when we speak we hardly really think before having a casual conversation, we talk so easily, but when we write we make dialogue something different, something that has to be poetic, which isn’t always necessarily true. It just needs to be real enough to be interesting and contributing to something greater in a play. Moving toward something.
ReplyDeleteAs far as “Anything for you” goes, I thought it was great! I did not expect such a conversation between characters. The scene started so well and normal. I got the sense that it was a quiet and relaxing scene, until the dialogue began to escalate. First with the need sex badly part, but then even more from the need sex from another female part! Put all this together with the fact that the characters are best friends, and then that one of them is actually in love with the other? Dang, that’s some good dialogue.
Mykle Angelo Herrera
It’s becoming more and more apparent as I read through the Spencer text that plays are not just about one thing or that one component is more important than the others though that’s how it’s made out to be before Spencer explains a concept. I thought writing plays was mostly about the actions of a plot, then I thought it was all about the complexity of characters, and now: dialogue. To be fair, dialogue being the most important part of plays makes the most sense as a play can be without almost any action, like in Anything For You, where the two women are just sitting at a table, but be so entertaining and satisfying. I fell in love with this play because they dialogue did so much for me: it described the characters and their lives, the context of their conversation was laid out, their emotions rang through the dialogue, and it propelled the play forward through exposition, building suspense, conflict of motivation, and humor. Like Spencer said, everything comes down to the words you choose, and that is something I can get behind as someone who prefers writing poetry. This reading and this specific play made me more aware of how carefully I have to choose words to evoke certain emotions and to specifically portray my characters, and furthermore, how context gives even more power to words.
ReplyDelete-Mayanin Rosa
Isaac J McCoy
ReplyDeleteI like the extremes; one woman does not respect anyone but herself, the other does not respect herself. I question if feelings are right just because we have them, as this play suggests. Odd that no one seemed to question that in the discussion. Such is our society I suppose, we never stop to questions "just because we can does not mean we should". For example; I have in the past, not currently so do not freak out, had murderous feelings towards individuals. Should I act upon these feelings simply because I have them? I, for one, say no. Some of you may or may not be thankful I believe that (it's a joke folks, settle down). I like how one of the characters calls out one of the audience members, joining together viewer and presenter.
I disagree with Spencer that on "discovering" one's voice is what to do instead of creating one's voice. As a writer, an perhaps this is my fictional or poetical bias, I find that creating a voice evolves us as writers and allows us to maintain our desires for how the play proceeds. Let me put it this way; if you want your play to have a specific message or point then create your voice, if you want your play to have a mind of its own then go ahead an find it. Of course; this is only my opinion, you do not have to agree with it.