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.
After having read Spencer’s chapter on Action, I actually understand his formula for character now. Previously I did not understand why he separated actions from speech/behavior; they seemed to be the same thing to me. Now, I realize that when he says “action” he means what the character wants, which doesn’t exactly make sense to me but I can at least understand his argument. He mentions that he had a student once who had a problem with the word action, who preferred to use objective or goal or need, and I think I might end up doing that as well. After this chapter, I think his ideas connect better with Hatcher’s emphasis on knowing what your character wants, and through both I’ve learned that the speech and behavior of a character is simply how you reveal all the inner workings of a character (their general qualities, emotions, and actions, to use Spencer’s formula).
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that both Hatcher and Spencer explored and supported the idea that drama, and art in general, imitates life. Spencer says that “it imitates not the external world, but an inner one” (Spencer 38). Hatcher claims that “plots are a working out of life patterns” (Hatcher 34), focusing specifically on a plot’s similarity to sex and the process of aging. While they both look at how drama imitates life, I think Hatcher’s argument show that it can imitate in more than just an internal way.
Lacey Naumann
I never thought of action as some thing other than a physical action that a character acted out. Hatcher put it simply when he said “Activities are the dramatic equivalent of busy-work. They may look like actions and they may sound like actions, but if they don’t cause a reaction, then they’re not actions.” Theres a potential scene i thought about for my play this semester and it was fight between a mother and a daughter. When i first wrote it, i was thinking “this is great!” Very dramatic, very heartfelt, but then i thought about what the action was, and there really was none, now i can still come up with one, but before reading these chapters i was ready to leave it as it, and continue thinking it was just so amazing.
ReplyDeleteIn Hatcher’s writing i enjoyed the paragraph where he explained how all of King Lear’s circumstances made the play what it was. He said “take one of these circumstances away, and Lear might have forgiven Cordelia.” As storytellers of course we know every scene or conversation is important but to think about even the smallest of circumstances can effect the outcome of a story, or destroy it completely is phenomenal to think about.
Spencer reminds us that “action is what the character wants” which through me off a little but judging by the writings by both writers but then he says “It is the wanting itself” which i think is a better explanation for what an action is. What a character will do for what they want, is the action.
I enjoyed both reading and it has me thinking about action, especially the action for my play, in a whole new way.
Aisha Teegarden
After these readings, I can definitely conclude that "action" is unintentionally misleading. Spencer does a great job of clarifying how it more closely means a character's goals or more plainly their desires, and how any literal action that a character takes must bring them closer to this desire and cause a reaction as a result, i.e., move the plot forward, which brings to mind what an "action" does. This is further exemplified by Hatcher on page 35 when he writes, "We know what the function of a main plot is. It is an arrangement of actions designed to tell the story of the play." I also found it interesting how Hatcher brought up circumstances and their ability to add plausibility to a character's choices that can bring them closer to their action. I wished we could have been showed examples in the book of how to achieve these circumstances in nonverbal or more relevant ways that can help us with our ten minute plays. With King Lear, the circumstances Hatcher showed had the benefit of a full length play to present them to the audience, and I feel like we could benefit more from an example in a shorter play.-Jesse Rocha
ReplyDeleteSpencer defines action as basically equivalent to a character’s desire. It’s important to understand how desire functions in a play. When a character gets or doesn’t get what they want, it “moves” the plot. This is how desire is turned into “action.” “Action” is really a change in what a character desires. This is how audiences understand plots. I find certain movies (like Marvel movies) kind of boring because there is a conflation between fight scenes and big spectacular cgi set pieces, and interesting plots. These scenes are basically filler before the actual important scene where the superhero (or whoever) is about to get what the want, but they get stopped by the big bad. We all know the hero will beat up all the smaller bad guys, the important fight is the big bad who actually prevents the hero from getting what they want. This is the difference between action (as fight scenes, car chases, shootouts, etc.) and dramatic action (the final moment where we see whether the protagonist gets what they desire).
ReplyDeleteHatcher doesn’t go as far as saying desire itself is equivalent to action, but he makes the same distinction between “busy-work” and dramatic action. Activity on the stage must relate, somehow, to what the character wants. That is the only way people will really care about what is happening.
- Rodin Grajo
I like what Spencer says on page 37, he talks about how Aristotle observations on what drama imitates and why it is startling. “When he says that drama is the imitation of an action, he doesn’t mean a physical action. He means an internal, psychological need.” When I watch a play, or even a movie, action with like weapons and bombs and all the extra stuff isn’t what I’m necessarily looking for. I’m looking more for internal action, so when Spencer says that Aristotle observes drama looking for an internal and psychological need, I’m all ears because I want to learn how to make my characters and plot interesting enough where most of the action is internalized. Both Hatcher and Spencer talk about Aristotle and how “good drama needs a solid spine to hold it together.” I like how Hatcher goes into more detail about how the plot is an arrangement of actions designed to tell the story of a play. Now I’m starting to see what Dr. Moreira said about elements of a play flowing together. Reading both books, I can see how everything is starting to intertwine with each other. However I do have some questions on the “spectacles” as an element in a play. I really can’t wait to get to that section because I want to find out more about what that is and what it can be.
ReplyDeleteDELETE
DeleteI like what Spencer says on page 37, he talks about how Aristotle observations on what drama imitates and why it is startling. “When he says that drama is the imitation of an action, he doesn’t mean a physical action. He means an internal, psychological need.” When I watch a play, or even a movie, action with like weapons and bombs and all the extra stuff isn’t what I’m necessarily looking for. I’m looking more for internal action, so when Spencer says that Aristotle observes drama looking for an internal and psychological need, I’m all ears because I want to learn how to make my characters and plot interesting enough where most of the action is internalized. Both Hatcher and Spencer talk about Aristotle and how “good drama needs a solid spine to hold it together.” I like how Hatcher goes into more detail about how the plot is an arrangement of actions designed to tell the story of a play. Now I’m starting to see what Dr. Moreira said about elements of a play flowing together. Reading both books, I can see how everything is starting to intertwine with each other. However I do have some questions on the “spectacles” as an element in a play. I really can’t wait to get to that section because I want to find out more about what that is and what it can be.
ReplyDeleteIlene Guevara
These have been our second readings assigned from these books, and I am actually quite enjoying both authors’ advice. Spencer’s chapter over action was really interesting and super clear. He started the chapter by giving us Aristotle’s definition of drama “the imitation of an action.” (page 36) But he doesn’t mean it literally, “he means an internal psychological need.” (page 37) Spencer writes tat action is what a character wants, as simple as that. Once again, we are being enhanced the idea about how important are the characters’ wants in a play. I already know how important this is, and Spencer is just telling us in this chapter. I really like the examples he uses because even though I may not have read some of those plays, he still manages o illustrate the idea. He also descried different plays in which he attended tat were lacking action. One of them was full of physical action but made the pay dull. The other play had a lot of emotion, but people di not like it either. And Spencer just keeps repeating that an action is what a character wants. I did not do the exercise from the book about two characters wanting a book, but it reminded me of how you used to say in past classes that the most important thing was that the characters needed to want something from each other, and I think the exercise at the end is related to your idea. That is the first thing that I am going to consider before writing my play.
ReplyDeletePaulina Longoria
Spencer and Hatcher both talk about action in this week’s readings. They both provide attempts to explain or break down how “action” is more than simply what the character physically does. There’s not an easy way to discuss the complexity in building a convincing character. This is especially true when amateur writers, such as myself, are trying to tell a story without laying it all out on the table word for word. I will always accidentally leave out the strongest desire the character has. There is more to a character than what they do because there is a heavy tie to their speech and behavior. There are emotions and intent that are behind their actions, and that is what makes the story more meaningful. I find it interesting the way Hatcher mentions on page 34 the parallel between action and sex. He says, “a dramatist who does not see the similarities between sex and drama will probably not make the connection between a lot of life experiences to art.” I saw a link between what Hatcher says to Spencer saying how, “Action is what a character wants. It is the wanting itself.” The tie between what the two authors tell lies within the desire of the characters that give them more than just what they physically do.
ReplyDelete-Gaby Urbano
It’s interesting how Spencer discusses Action in his chapter. I didn’t understand very well what he meant by that, but know I realize that he means what the character desires. To add what he discussed, I think that a playwright should really know the character that he/she is creating. And by that I mean know the character head to toes, and leave the audience to discover for themselves any other characteristic that the playwright did not explicitly state. I feel that every play should be like that. I don’t understand why an audience would like to go see a play that tells them everything there is to know. I think every individual enjoys a sense of discovery. On the other hand, I liked how Hatcher claimed that a play imitates the idea of life itself, but in a much deeper sense. Like I discussed on my previous posts, a play cannot contain mere dialogue. It must be crafted around a deep meaning and/or theme or motif. Anyone can go to a crowded place and overhear a conversation. If a playwright were to write a simple dialogue with no meaning behind it, probably no one would want to go see it performed.
ReplyDeleteIvanna Zamudio Trevino