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 basically covers about subtext, and motivation in chapter 3 ,and how to utilize it appropriately, or in the very least to understand it better. He also uses the same “Joe has a glass of water” bit as a demonstration, (which I have to admit is getting old). Though I already know about subtext, I have to admit that I never really payed attention in my play as to whether or not my characters had anymore surprises in store, compared to their basic wants and needs, so at least I learned to take that into considerations after reading this chapter.
ReplyDeleteIn Gas by Jose Rivera we begin to slowly realize the anxiety the main character Cheo is going through after his brother stops sending letters. And though I personally don’t enjoy full length monologues in plays, I did enjoy this one, especially the end with the visual cue of the blood coming out of the gas pump, which hints at the real cost of oil. He also has no idea what to do with his life stacking against him, his mother is practically suicidal, his brother is most likely dead, and he’s stuck with nothing left but the very “gas” his brother(and many others) gave his life for. Altogether it just made for a great play, not my favorite in total, but at least I can say it’s my favorite monologue we have read so far.
-Kathleen m. Salinas
I enjoyed the form in which the author describes each moment the characters brother is going through even only through letters. The sequence seems to be a little off, some things mentioned should not be or do not have to be in the story. Example, brother marrying the racist woman. Throws the reader off. Only one which would have to be at the end is where the blood pumps through the gas pump. Deep connections with family can be a very good idea to use in any play or story written. In Spencer’s Chapter of “Motivation and Subtext” which does apply to this play even more than perfect. We must find the motivation on our own live and even in things that are happening around us to write that perfect story and in that the reader will want to continue on and read on. They will understand the subtext which is the meaning behind that ‘gas pump’.
ReplyDelete-Christina Velasquez
Gas by José Rivera was packed full of emotion, and overall, I did think it was a decent read. However, bringing into the context of the Spencer readings we have had, I was having some trouble finding the action here and furthermore the motivation behind it. Did the character Cheo simply want vent about the war, was his action to criticize it and imply a want for change, or was his action to mourn the brother he lost (either physically or emotionally)? Sure, you can say that by the end of the play the action was seeking some sort of sign that his brother is all right, and he does receive this sign in what I consider my favorite part of the play, however it is at the very end and much of the play seems to simply be a retelling of the brother’s slow decent due to the war through his letters. Yes, it was impactful in a sense and relatable I’m sure to many but as for myself, I was lacking investment. This reading for me then was one of the rare instances where I found myself liking Spencer more, and is actually the concept I used to judge my understanding of the play Gas, what is this character’s action, what is the motivation behind the action, was it clear, was it accomplished, and so on.
ReplyDelete- Joaquin Castillo Jr
Conveying Spencer's ideas from the reading alongside Rivera's Gas, it was very difficult for me to really see the a connection. Where was the action when it came to Cheo's feelings. I surely saw motivation through the mourning of his brother, and his judgment in regards to war. However, I see a lot of indifference on his behalf. Even though his feelings may seem to stand straight, I do not see or read how he acts upon us. This causes his action to be limited and lay over a motive instead of a real action; it disappointed me. However, I do fully understand his motives in explaining his brother's experience through the letters, however I am very confused as to where he stands in regards to war. I see a lot of conflict within this characters family, but where is his say in it, when do we actually see him take part in these conflicts. I personally am more fond of the subject "action" when characters address a conflict with a solution or with an attitude that shows a rage of emotions as to how they feel about all the conflicts surrounding them. After reading this, I am left with the idea that life brings inevitable situations, but I would've like to hear more clarity on behalf of the main character so I have an idea as to where he stands in all these problems.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Castaneda
Spencer's topic on the reading is interesting because it conveys an issue that I had in my previous play. One of my peers told me that there was too much exposition and that their needed to be more of a hidden motive behind my characters' actions. For that reason this chapter was important as it goes over subtext and how writing in a play can be used to justify a character's action without having to spell it out. I think of this as toeing a rope line, so to speak, as too little exposition can confuse the audience while too much can make your writing/play dry and uninteresting.
ReplyDeleteThis issue of subtext is conveyed in Rivera's "Gas", a play about Cheo and the letters he received from his brother during a time of war. The letters stop eventually and Cheo is faced with a crisis as his family is falling apart. However we are not afforded Cheo's true motives behind his actions. As spectators of the play we are now given context and we now base our own conclusions of what is going on in the play. "Gas" does this well as it presents controversial issues which many of us have strong opinions about but whether we choose to impart those opinions on Cheo's character is left solely up to us as the spectator of the play.
-Eutimio Longoria-
“Chapter 3: Motivation and Subtext” talks about having a conflict and having a subtext, it also talks about the motivation of one’s character and their sub textual desires. How I understood this chapter was for example, a character that misbehaves and rebels only to gain his mothers attention. All his actions boil down to that, his need for his mother’s attention. This is how I understood it. How things on the outside may seem to be one way and yet we come to realize that it’s nothing of the sort but maybe the opposite of what we thought. As I used my example earlier, one would think he’s a problematic kid and yet it’s not that. Of course my example is generic and predictable but it’s only an example. Now the play, “Gas” by Jose Rivera is about an older brother named Cheo who struggles with his grief or his guilt or maybe even both due to the change in his brother’s attitude and demeanor, the change from evolving from a clumsy kid to suicidal man. His regret on not being honest with his feelings and now that his brother could be dead (or is) has hit him hard. I really enjoyed this play, I tend to read the plays in my head and this one I read aloud and it was just so powerful. It got to me; I started getting heated and angry, almost like Cheo, as if I was he.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Rodriguez
DeleteI felt uncomfortable reading this play, the imagery used are so vivid and abrasive it was hard to get through it. I do understand why Jose Rivera wrote the play in this fashion, it is set in the time of the Persian Gulf War and war is cruel and violent, it just made my stomach hurt reading it. The way the play is structured says something about it as well - the four pages of block text, no breaks, no pauses, just a streamline of text. Then we get a beat followed by a smaller block of text that involves yelling. Another beat appears followed by four lines in which Cheo hopes for his little brother to come back just as he was before, as if nothing about him as change, as if the war had never reached him. It all means something; I can't quite put my finger on it. Then the ending of the play is just horrifying, not to mention symbolic and clearly plays into action. As Spencer states, "if action is what characters want, then motivation is their reason for wanting it"- Cheo clearly wants gas for his car and his motivation for wanting gas is so he can go to work and pay rent, to not be homeless while his brother is in the middle of a war, fighting for this oil for him to use. At the end, Cheo realizes how not only will the blood of those who stand in the way of retrieving this oil will be spilled, but the blood of those who are willing to fight for it will be spilled as well, including his little brother.
ReplyDeleteKarla Olvera
From what I can gather from the chapter, Spencer defines subtext as undermining a deeper meaning for a character’s action. So, he describes that although the action can be something simple as getting a glass of water, the motivation behind it, and the subtext creates multiple variations of why a character would do what they do. In addition, when he refers to subtext, he states, “Subtext creates a sense in the audience that they are detectives and must get to the bottom of the matter” (52). In my opinion, this is what makes writing unique. It is our job to plant little clues here and there for our audience to decipher what is going on in the heads of our cast. He then goes into detail on the different levels of interpretation that are evident with subtext. For example, on the surface we see the action, but then there are layers that add to it. In addition, when he discusses why characters act certain ways, it hit close to home when he said that we can keep writing in hopes that the characters reveal themselves to you. I’ve known Jaiden and Stretch for a while now, and I’m still getting to know them. It takes time and patience, and of course, a lot of writing to fully understand your cast.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the play, I thought the name of the play was interesting. I mean, yes, on a surface level we see Cheo at the gas station, however, I think this is where the subtext starts to come into play. It seems the more he talks about his brother, the more fuel is burned since he is wondering if he is alright. In addition, the writing was a bit poetic. For example, Cheo mentions that his brother couldn’t write, but then as time marched on, he started to write more beautifully like an angel out of the desert. To me, it seemed like the monologue was filled with anger at the start, as if he was full with gasoline. Then, around the last two pages, Cheo starts to wonder why his brother stopped writing and how his mother was suicidal. Then finally, it seems he runs out since there is a usage of an ellipsis to signify a pause in thought and in speech. As a result, it seems the tank starts to empty near the end.
Patricio Hernandez (P.J.)
I am glad for the return of Joe and his never-ending struggle to obtain a glass of water. One thing this section of Spencer did do was add to my anxiety of having no leads for potential actors. He highlights the importance of actors carrying out actions in ways that will create subtext and introduces the reader to the many possible levels. However, I am a bit annoyed with the way this section was written. I felt as if I was watching an infomercial and Spencer kept yelling at me “But wait! There’s more!” I could sum up what I learned from this bit of text with “There is no sure answer”. The play was this week was worse than the last. All cussing in the world couldn’t have made it better. I couldn’t connect the trickle of blood to any other part of the play and didn’t have the patience to read it again. I don’t care much for wars so that may have also been it. I also couldn’t get past how last class someone pointed out that having someone stand for the entirety of a play was “awkward”. I am dreading having to watch this in class. Would not read again.
ReplyDelete-Maria Romero
In the Spencer reading, it talks about motivation in a play. What drives a character to do something in a play. You should not be too obvious with the motivations of characters, since then the audience will see them and the plot as too predictable. A character can have multiple motivations, such as the glass of water example and being thirsty. Spencer talks about how a character can have multiple motivations which hide the one true motivation. A character may want a hershey’s chocolate bar, because they're hungry. They may also want the candy because they want to give it as a gift for someone. The character know this someone loves chocolate. But this someone may have diabetes, and the character wants this someone to be one step closer to their death. Once this someone is dead, the character can now have that someone's job position they’ve been wanting. In the play “Gas”, it has Cheo who’s pumping gas. Right before he pumps gas, he has a monologue talking about his little brother. This little brother is at the war in Iraq. As a reader, I assume Cheo wants his brother to write and come back because he misses him. Later we find out it’s because Cheo and his mother don't want the little brother dead. Maybe Cheo really want his little brother dead. After all those times his brother said he loved him. Maybe Cheo despised all that. It is left for the reader to put those pieces together. At the end of the play we see a bloody ominous sign, Cheo begins to pump gas, and blood comes out instead. I enjoyed the play, mainly because I liked the ending. I did not see it coming. I did not know someone can talk so much to themselves or the audience before pumping gas. I would think they would have the monologue while pumping the gas.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Olivarez
Isaac J McCoy (WARNING: Dark analogy in second paragraph)
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Spencer said concerning the what and want of a play, I've been thinking about this through every workshop so far this semester. A lot of comments on people's plays are that the readers want to know both the action or the motivation fully, it seems that no one is ever satisfied with what the writers are presenting them. For most of us, the best excuse, if the critics are right, is that our plays either reveal everything or nothing at all. The want of some characters may be clear in the author's mind, but some may be totally unknown. Not just because we have not thought why our characters do what they do and why they're doing it, because we ourselves have no reason particular for them to do it. I realize that this situation varies from classmate to classmate. Some may have a general idea about their characters already, others may be still discovering new things about their characters, or like Jasmin and I, you may have already figured out exactly what you want your play to be, what your characters are going to do, and why they are going to do it. Like Spencer wrote, "There is no sure answer, only the one you are most comfortable with at the time." You're not going to have a full psychological evaluation of your character/s for every play you write; but guess what, that's ok.
Play: Gas
The block paragraphs gassed my mind like a 1944 concentration camp. I could not get into the play by reading it, I got distracted too easily from the bricks of words thrown up at my brain. I tried to find a suitable presentation on Youtube to watch instead or to watch and read along to, but every link I clicked on ended up being severely altered to what I was trying to read. Some of the plays changed the words completely to fit the times and some rewrote the play entirely with only the core message intact. While I may not understand this play at all, I'm happy to know it's not just me.
Again, Spencer dices up similar words to start his lesson. He explains the difference between action and motivation, and the subtle difference does matter in writing pretty much anything. I think this is good information to know, but Spencer goes on to say there is not too much we can actively, purposefully do to create motivation through subtext, which frustrating to hear as a writer. However, this lesson circles back around to needing to know our characters, how our class began, to get their motivations right, so that is something we can never stop working on.
ReplyDeleteFor a lot of plays we’ve discussed in class, we often try to diagnose a character or say their actions are improbable when we should have been discussing their motivation, as it would have helped us understand the play and contrive more meaning from it.
I read Gas twice. I liked it okay the first time, but I liked it more the second time. The first time through, I took the play at face value as a take on how Americans end up shifting their views (wishing violence on others for the safety of their citizens) when faced with fear and loss, as well as how personal war can become. Cheo is aggressive, uses profanity and derogatory language, all towards the enemy military when he knows his brother is likely facing death, punctuated with blood spilling out of the gas pump (which I thought was heavy handed and took away from the genuine, emotional parts that mentioned their mother’s depression). The second time I read through it, I picked up on the toxic influence of masculinity on young men. Cheo always picked on his brother for his lack of physical ability and his overt display of emotion, pushing him towards masculinity in a way, and ultimately towards a decision that costs him his life. Cheo’s brother conforms and joins the scouts, then the military, but then Cheo laments the brother he used to know though he caused this. I also viewed the whole play as a critique to the US government, which is always a good reason to write anything, so overall, I enjoyed it.
Mayanin Rosa
Cont.
DeleteAlso, racial issues are explored. The part where cheo's brother marries a racist is one of my favorite parts because it not only highlights how we as minorities accept hate and degradation disguised as love or tolerance to feel worthy (a Mexican marrying a white woman would be seen as an accomplishment, white women are textbook models of beauty so being with her even if she hates him, elevates his worth in a way), but it also says a lot about him; he takes abuse from people he loves. His brother is guilty of mistreating him and yet he is mad at the white woman.
Maya
Motivation is tricky. Although many times in a scene a character doesn’t blatantly show motivation. It is not really something you can see, but something you see in the character itself. What makes a play realistic, or rather a character, is having multiple motivations. This drives the character and forces particular actions to occur. Motivations can be simple too, they don’t have to be elaborate. Motivations can contain other motivations and create a chain. This is very interesting because a lot of times motivation makes the character, a character with motivation is a better than a character without one. Subtext is also just as important, to me personally, I believe it is more important. It also keeps things smart, so to speak. You never want to assume your reader is dumb and just say things as clear as day. You want the audience to participate and listen to the deeper story, to whatever theme or underlying meaning that a play might have. Overall, they seem a bit like two different topics, but I can kind of see why they are grouped together. Gas was pretty good. It made me feel a mix of emotions. Good stuff, Cheo is a pretty strong character, that although we see only a little, we can infer quite a bit from him.
ReplyDeleteMykle Angelo
I like that Spencer highlights the importance of subtext, that on some level the audience wants to be challenged and to think about the play. People dislike knowing everything already, after all, a common criticism in media are things like "I saw that coming a mile away" or "That was so predictable." A play, like any other writing, is about the presentation of ideas. But one cannot simply state what said ideas are straight out. The audience becomes bored if they are told what to think or feel in a specific moment.
ReplyDeleteIt's important that subtext exists because plays live on drama and drama comes from characters clashing whether overtly or not. Such as the example of Joe and the glass of water. Joe wants the glass of water but perhaps his actions and words in obtaining it can indicate his true intentions.
Gas I found to be a bit heavy handed but understandably so. The subject matter warrants such, as it expresses the amount of frustration and anger of what war does to people not just on the battlefield but to their families as well. I'm not where I can see the subtext, because Cheo seems to be straightforward about his feelings. One can infer from what he says I suppose.
-Rafael Avila
Spencer speaks about character motivation’s role in a play. He states that “If action is what characters want, the motivation is their reason for wanting it.” I found this theory to be prominent in “Gas”. We have a character saying things that would probably make someone in the audience uncomfortable. He's scared to lose his brother, the person he loves the most in this world, in the war. So he hopes they bomb the country they are at war with. The perfect motivation. I feel as though “Gas” was a very suiting play to watch to understand what Spencer meant by character “motivation”. Spencer also says, “In some ways your character’s motivation will influence, more than any other single factor, the kind of play you write.” In “Gas”, the character’s motivation is his brother. This made the play about longing and hope. You feel for him and almost hope that he does get his brother back.
ReplyDelete-Starleen Rendon