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.
"Conflict is that which prevents a character from getting what he or she wants." (Spencer pg.60) This is the best way to describe conflict whether it is written for a memoir, play, movie or even an essay. There is more to conflict than violence and anger. People assume that conflict has to involve two people shouting at the top of their lungs at one another. Arguments arise from a disagreement about something (semantics) but does not necessarily mean that it's preventing someone from doing something. An argument CAN also have conflict but conflict isn't always an argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is highlighted in "The Man Who Couldn't Dance." Gail and her former lover are having a discussion regarding their past lives. It's tense and there are some insults thrown but the scene is not reminiscent of the conflict people
typically think about. Something like Megatron fighting Optimus Prime and destroying an entire city.
The central conflict is that Gail wanted lover (don't know his name) but at the time she felt strongest toward him he leaves to St. John. This is a classic conflict. She wants him. He doesn't and wants to go around the world instead. Conflict created. From here stems an heated discussion that is very well done. The lover doesn't seem to know what he really wants and that is the problem. Gail states that even though she isn't as passionate with Fred as she is with lover she married him because it was HER choice and she knew exactly what she wanted. She reiterates this several times throughout the play. Overall both the play and the assigned reading went hand in hand with one another.
Eutimio Longoria
ReplyDeleteIn Spencer’s chapter, he mentions, “Conflict is a structural device, like action. It is (or should be) operating all the time, whether the audience is aware of it or not. Sometimes it’s apparent to them: characters get louder and angrier. Sometimes it’s not so apparent but is nevertheless a crucial factor in drawing us into the scene.” I was reminded of this while watching and reading “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance”. We have the characters, Gail and Eric, who once dated, in a room with a baby that’s sound asleep (and not Eric’s daughter). At first I was confused by the scene because I watched it before I read it, but one thing that was certain was the feeling of intensity and the feeling that the characters had between them. They weren’t saying what they needed each other to say at first, and that kept me hooked, to see whether or not one of them would explode. At first, the conflict was about Pictionary, the Gail says she knew Eric never liked her husband, Fred. The intensity is magnified and escalated rather quickly and we find out their reasons for the failed relationship. Through it all, even when it started off a bit boring, you could tell there was something inside of Gale and Eric that was waiting to erupt.
-Starleen Rendon
Spencer makes a very good point about how the average person views conflict. We are more commonly saturated with Hollywood blockbusters where “conflict” is characterized by raised voices, blatantly aggressive actions, and/or a protagonist and antagonist pitted against each other in a physical battle. Now, sure you can have your characters in a play in a physical fight but what is the conflict? Why should the audience remain seated and invested in the physicality of the play? “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance” displays Spencer’s view, we don’t have two characters at each other’s throats. Instead, we are presented with Eric and Gail each with their own goal for the discussion they are having; Eric wants Gail to admit how she feels about her new husband Fred and Gail seems to be attempting to pull Eric out of his odd ways and accept his humanity. Sure, there is some anger and insults strewn about the dialogue but it isn’t the crux of their discussion we don’t require it to realize that there is, and has been, a conflict between these two characters. That’s how we should approach our own writings, rather than copping out and throwing the layman’s version of conflict in the audience face, we should trust that our audience can draw their own conclusions (as Dr. Moreira briefly stated).
ReplyDeleteJoaquin Castillo Jr
In Spencer’s book on conflict within a play, he notes that each play is better when it has a conflict and sometimes that conflict is not always fixed nor answered as we saw before in “Anything for you”, whereas in “The man who couldn’t dance” was also a conflict of interest. There are two types of people which we discussed in class that thoroughly enjoy the conflict and want and answer to the problem where the other group of people find it suffice to not have that conflict resolved. There is no problem with this notion we all take plays and their plots differently. Just as some don’t have an exposition to show where they got to where they are. We are thrown into the water and expecting nature to take its course. We are smart enough to decipher the dialogue and figure out what might have happened before hand and what not. Again I found the play in “Take Ten” to be boring once again, but then again I fall into the first category where I have to know the person from the very beginning.
ReplyDelete-Christina Velasquez
I loved The Man Who Couldn’t Dance!!!! But before I get into that let me talk a bit about Spencer’s lessons on conflict. I believe that conflict is essential for any play, or story to work. There needs to be a drive that further “agitates” a piece of writing. Spencer says that many times people struggle with what conflict is or what it can be. She has even mentioned that some don’t identify the conflict of a story. Conflict, however, varies. Spencer explains so stating that there are several types of conflict that can be introduced in a play or piece of writing. There is external conflict, indirect external conflict, internal conflict, and so on. It is important to know these that way we as writers can choose what type of conflict best fits our story, our play.
ReplyDeleteSo now the ten minute play…..I loved it!!! I mean I freaking loved it!!!! It was funny, witty, emotionally intelligent!!! And so very sad!!! It’s such a romantic scene, I felt completely enamored with the characters, their past, their situation!!! Oh man so good. So freaking good!!! I don’t know how the writer did it, but the dialogue between the characters was the best I’ve read, its good on paper, and its good out loud. Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mykle Angelo Herrera
In the first portion, I particularly enjoyed how Spencer let his character roam with their feelings and acted it out with anger. This notion shows that although our characters are made from our creative minds, they still have their own will. In addition, I felt that it was important to explain to the reader that conflict does not necessarily have to be “flashy” and blatantly expressed. It can be subdued within the interactions of a play’s characters. As I’m reading through the external conflict section, Spencer mentions that it is somewhat difficult to give conflict that is derived from an inanimate object. I wonder if the setting itself can deliver a conflict to the characters? In addition, I think Spencer’s indirect conflict using Joe and Mike shows that there can be conflict but with no negative feelings between them. This is intriguing to me since I feel like I need a conflict to move my play forward, but the characters that are possibly going to be in my dialogue don’t necessarily have any ill will towards one another. Furthermore, when Spencer annotates about Elia and Molly Kazan, he explains her plays didn’t seem to work since even though her characters had the pursuit of an action, it was lacking a complication. This is essential to not only playwriting and other forms of literature, since I feel that the characters are more authentic and organic if there is something not permitting them from achieving their goals. It’s just like real life, we have ambitions and goals that we pursue, but there’s always something that creates an obstacle for us.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the play, although I am not the biggest fan of a lover’s quarrel, I felt the writing in this play was exceptional, but I am not the biggest fan of using the f bomb to express dissatisfaction with something or someone. I always felt like it’s an easy way out, but that is just my opinion. Jason Katims does show a bit of comedic wit with the dialogue. One instance is with Eric when he states “I don’t know him. I know his boat.” Something very minor, but it shows that whenever he is around Fred, the boat creates a barrier between them. In addition, I thought it was kind of interesting when Gail says Eric belongs with Elizabeth, but because he isn’t mature. Furthermore, on the first read for enjoyment, this play makes you think that things could always be different. Then as time marches, we regret that we either didn’t speak up or show our true feelings to one another.
Patricio Hernandez (P.J.)
Before even finishing this ten minute production I had to stop and record what I think is to me the most concrete, the most relatable line of dialogue in this play, “I’m sorry I said what I thought. I broke the unwritten rule between us since we broke up. I’m supposed to smile…” (Eric). This line feels so vindictive, and so on point with what I feel is wrong with society (per say). As we were discussing in class, plays were preformed/written in an effort to shed light on something be it political or otherwise. This line of dialogue brings to light that we shouldn’t always hide behind masks. A great takeaway from a somewhat mundane reading.
ReplyDeleteThe takeaway from Spencer’s reading is that sometimes we have no control over what our characters are going to do. Yes, it sounds absurd on the surface, since after all we wrote them into existence. But just as Dr. Wayland created David to serve him, so too did David have his own consciousness and he did not conform to the outlines drawn out for him in the film Prometheus. A character will at times seek to venture beyond the confines of what you intended for them. As a result you as an author might find yourself with a few door from which to go through, these being of course, multiple drafts of a play/writing.
Lucas Zamora
In most cases conflict is considered to be fighting, or arguing between two characters, but in reality a true conflict is something, or someone that stops a character from getting what they want. Like in the case of “The man who couldn’t dance”, Eric is still in love with Gail (thats apparent later within their dialogue), but the thing that prevents them from being together is ironically the child that Gail has invited Eric to see. Eric wants to be with Gail ,but because he can’t “dance” (which maybe a bigger allude to something else) he never stayed with her, and because of this he can never be with her because she is married and has Elizabeth now. And yet, Eric knowing that this child keeps them apart, he takes the time not only to love this obstacle, but to cry over the realization on how she could have been his daughter.
ReplyDeleteOverall, as Spencer put’s it “Conflict is that which prevents a characters from getting what he or she wants.”(Spencer) and in “The man who couldn’t dance” we get a good example of this idea of conflict and how it should be presented in an actual play.
Kathleen m. Salinas
I didn't enjoy the play that much this time around. It's incredibly better on stage than on paper and that's a problem already. The emotions that the playwright wrote in stage direction didn't match up with the dialogue very well. Their dialogue was at times a little too exposition filled to me. It took a lot of effort to finish it. Interestingly, this time I preferred Spencer. Mostly when we got to he to the internal conflict part. I've seen both external and internal conflict handled well and in a engaging way in books, movies and tv shows. I've also seen examples of poorly done conflict, like Spencer mentions, that is just two characters arguing all the time I don't think that I've ever confused an argument for conflict itself only the climax of the conflict. The best conflicts are the ones that get held down and buried then explode (in fiction not real life) in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteJasmin Grimaldo
The Spencer section explains what direct and indirect conflicts are. For a conflict, Alex wants a car. But he can’t get the car since he doesn’t know how to drive. In an external conflict, Alex wants to drive but he can’t, since he possesses no money. Direct external conflict consists when Alex and Judy both want the same car, but at the dealership there’s only one left. During an indirect external conflict, Alex wants a car while Judy wants his saved up money. Alex needs to avoid giving the money to his wife who keeps nagging him for it. She prevents Alex from getting a car, and Alex is considering a divorce. The play “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance”, Gail and Eric are having a, indirect external conflict. Gail wants to play pictionary while Eric doesn’t want to. Eric would rather play with Gail’s baby, Elizabeth. For a direct external conflict, Eric and Gail both want to hug each other. But Gail won’t let go if they hug. I liked the play at first I thought Gail was a dude. The conflict between both characters heats up at the end, when the characters start dancing. Eric’s selfish act of not dancing with Gail gets resolved by the end. I also like how the play ends with a blackout, I’m sure Gail and Eric are not just hugging after the lights go out. The beginning did start of kinda slow. The whole dancing plot point was kinda lame, it had more impact when Eric revealed he danced with Gail during her wedding.
ReplyDeleteDanny Olivarez
Spencer states "the layman's definition of conflict - fighting, confronting, yelling. And while it's certainly one way conflict can work, and a good one, it's not the essence of what conflict actually is." The play certainly featured each of these actions, but I felt the characters didn't capture the essence. What was the conflict- Eric and Gail can't be together because she chose to marry and start a life with another man after they had broken up and now, Eric and Gail wish they hadn't broken up to begin with? I understand that the point of the story was to convey how even after everything that has happened in their lives, theses two characters still have love for each other, but I feel like it could have been portrayed differently- maybe in a setting where it doesn't come across as unbelievable. Why would a married woman invite an ex to her house to meet her child then talk about a life they could have possibly had together? Plus, most of the play is them arguing with one other and adding random confessions of their love for each other in between. The entire conversation between them seems odd, especially when Gail brings up how she and Eric danced at her wedding. Who invites an ex to their wedding, who agrees to go to an ex's wedding? It just seems so unbelievable. Maybe that's why I didn't end up liking this play.
ReplyDeleteKarla Olvera
Gail finds herself in a conflict where she encounters mixed feelings. She is a married woman and has no regret in choosing her husband as her life partner, but she is infatuated with a lover that has many aspirations to travel the world and live their life without compromise. The lover seems to not feel the passion that Gail feels, but at the same time I feel like this character correctly acknowledges the fact that Gail is a married person, and that there is more than just a "fling" in life, and thats why they aspire to flee and learn more about life by traveling. I cannot blame this character. Gail seems to get on my nerves a lot, if you ask me. What does a married woman expect out of their lover? That they can just take an intimacy relation ship like that seriously and put aside their life to be a second choice? This is a great conflict that Gail needs to resolve on her own, after all she is the married person who is choosing the infidelity life.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, this story connects perfectly with Spencer's chapter in regards to conflict, especially how Spencer distinguishes conflict and breaks it down into categories. They're conflicts that every human on this earth encounters throughout their lives. My mother always told me growing up "One thing is to look for problems and bring about unnecesary conflicts in our lives; and it is another thing to have to learn and go through the natural trials/problems that life comes along with. Like the loss of a loved one, or simply a disease. Now what connects these different aspects of "conflict" is that there is always a need of solution. At times, it appears to be easy to just put aside and ignore problems, but in reality it makes things harder, everything naturally falls in its place and situations facilitate themselves when we as people choose to fix the problem and find solutions to the conflict. This is why I didn't like last weeks video... Both characters seemed to have confronted their problems but at the end of the video, they solved nothing. Conflict is interesting especially when people like Spencer confront the topic through their own philosophical way.
-Andrea Castaneda
Isaac J McCoy
ReplyDeleteMost confusing play I have ever seen. From what I could tell, both male characters represent two sides of a relationship which Gail had to choose between. I am not sure as to why she could not have both. Fred represents family and the platonic aspect of a relationship between two people, whereas Eric represents the emotional connection and physical inner intimacy between two people. Also, no joke, I kept waiting for Fred to walk in and see Eric dancing with his wife.
As for Spencer, I actually understood what he was saying and agreed (for once). Conflict, in my mind, is definitely more than sword fights and arguing over trivial or concrete matters; conflict can be a battle of wits between a masked man and a Sicilian or it can be a man deciding to go home to die or continue fleeing and live. Conflict doesn't have to be in the full face of the audience, it can be just as subtle and quiet as it can be loud and obnoxious.
I appreciate that Spencer clarified that conflict isn't just literal battles or yelling. That all conflict is something preventing the character from getting what they want, regardless of what is physically taking place.
ReplyDelete“Conflict is that thing (or person) which prevents a character from getting what he or she wants.”
As well as emphasizing the importance of it. After all a story cannot exist without conflict, otherwise there would be no point in telling it.
This can be seen in The Man Who Couldn't Dance, as there are many conflicts between the characters. Gail's conflict is that she wants Eric to behave like “normal,” as well as her inner conflict with her unsure feelings about her current relationship.
“That is what people do. They get married. They have kids. They remember their ideals fondly. They try to stick to them in their own way. They donate to public television. They get by. “
“It pisses me off. It really pisses me off. That thing you said about me regretting my choices. At least I made a choice. ”
Eric's conflict is that despite his behavior, he wishes for the simple life that Gail has. In seeing her daughter, he admits the faults in his behavior with a metaphor about not being “able to dance.”
“This cycle. I mean, it was this thing that happened in my life. The love of my life got married to another man. It didn’t seem permanent but the fact that Elizabeth… The fact that this angel.. This unbelievable gift isn’t mine. And will never be mine. This is killing me.”
What I like about this is the fact that throughout the conversation you can feel the tension from their words, not just the tension of the current situation but also their history. The dialogue is able to create a believable universe where you can understand both character's point of views and thus understand why they clash.
Rafael Avila
I liked how Spencer says that conflict is not necessarily them fighting and shouting but it can also be something that insist so apparent in the scene but that evidently it draws the scene together. Like his example with a story his student Ken wrote. How he insisted there was no conflict. People tend to think a conflict is shouting and yelling but its not. It can be an internal one, a conflict within the own character. Spencer talks about the different types of conflict and in, “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance” the conflict is an external one because Eric had so many things he never said to Gail which causes the tension to rise when Gail shows him her daughter, Elizabeth. He regrets what he did to Gail and she dislikes him for it, two conflicts with a same interest. It’s on lost love and moving on, accepting what is happening. It’s also a conflict on how they both didn’t get what they wanted. He still loves her and hates the fact that Elizabeth isn’t his baby and how he never had anything to offer her. Also how Gail wished he’d never gotten on that boat and left her, how she still wishes to be with him but cant because she’s made her choices in life.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Rodriguez
I enjoyed both of the assigned readings, especially “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance” by Jason Katims. So as expected Spencer provides a nice breakdown of conflict within plays and the forms they may take. In the simplest form it is a character wanting something and some other force or person preventing them from getting it. There is external direct conflict and indirect conflict, and then there is internal conflict. Each one revolves around characters wanting something and conflict arising from their desires clashing with another character or even themselves. The play “The Man Who Couldn’t Dance” was a really beautiful one. I think when considering conflict it is clear that between Eric and Gail they desire each other in some way. I think the conflict is clear from the beginning when Eric is looking at her child and remarks that she is ugly. It is a cold comment to make even though in context it was a joke, but when you realize they are exes there is some subtext in that remark. As the play goes on, more conflict arises such as when Gail becomes critical of Eric’s date and this is when you realize Gail perhaps has the same inner conflict that Eric seems to be hiding. The progression of the play is great and the end of it leaves this bittersweet feeling that hints the characters have some sort of future together.
ReplyDeleteMark A Peña
Here it goes..."I love Eric!" He's my soul mate. My one true love. Ans I got the vibe from the beginning that Gail is clearly not over Eric. She's defensive and passive. All and all, a very strange combination. Gail insults the poor unknowing "music student" and makes cringe worthy comments. I enjoyed how although minimal his interactions are with Gail he was able to invoke so much from her. And don't even get me started on the whole "Nazi pie" thing they had going. She's trying so hard to press his buttons and there's no way he could have invited himself over to her home so why is he there?! She's such a brat. She invokes sympathy and as dry as Eric's humor is, it's refreshing to have him treat her and communicate with her the way he does. But damn Eric, really, you left this mess of a woman to fend for herself? Eric being 37 really surprised me. I expected him to be young. I was also pleased to read Gail dismiss the idea of Marie and her orgy with the British invasion. Spencer dictates that elegance comes from the subtly and lord knows I love me a good extended metaphor. I will certainly use his advice and ensure my characters never want the same thing. Looking back I understand that this may have played a huge factor into why I could not develop a story the way in which I would have like to. His take on how "Opposing needs creates the conflict" is absolutely brilliant. I am equally fascinated by Spencer's words as I am with Eric's. I am beginning to understand what the difference between a good and a great play is. Conflict, here I come!
ReplyDeleteMaria Romero
Spencer makes a solid point for any playwright to learn: "Conflict is not emotion anymore than action is emotion" (p. 59). This is useful to know in order to avoid substituting conflict that actually intensifies a story with unneeded arguments, loud dialogue, crazy emotions, etc. The subtlety of a conflict can often elevate its effect, which was shown very well in the beginning of "The Man Who Couldn't Dance". The slow introduction to the real issue present between the characters made it realistic as well as emotionally "rewarding" or provoking to read that they end up in an embrace in the final lines. This has become my favorite play we have read because of the subject and dialogue between the characters and the emotional conflict built up between them. Everything the two character said was extremely specific and personal enough to flesh out their world and past to a reader who is suddenly put into this scene. I felt the pent up frustration of Gail and Eric's fear/shame in telling her the truth about himself, not only that, but the way Eric used dancing as a starting point to analyze his problem was poetic in itself. It was both very sad and sweet.
ReplyDeleteMaya Rosa