This post is a continuation of the status of the play that I began to work on earlier in the semester. As it turns out, writing a good play is a lot of very hard work. I had stated earlier on that I was collaborating with a fellow classmate Martin M. As we each continued our individual research blogs for the class, we consistently strove to pick up on things that we wanted to use in the play. Since my emphasis was the teaching methods of the Renaissance, I decided that I would examine the strategies used by Shakespeare in writing his plays so that I could mimic those strategies, not simply their end results (his plays).
It took about a month of studying the methods from his time period before I could begin to practice them, and it took about another half a month to post those practice examples. I really wanted to incorporate Shakespeare's practices into my process of play writing.
I was also heavily influenced by the works of Tom Stoppard in the formulation of the play. I liked how he successfully adapted segments of Shakespeare’s works in his own plays, and especially focused on his play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.” I liked the double entendre that he regularly employed in the text because of how it incited the mind of the audience to actively engage in the viewing of the play, as opposed to purely aesthetic consumption.
For instance, at one point in the play the audience is shown two college students preparing to try out for a part in the Shakespeare play that will be performed at the college. One of the students is an English major, and the other is his friend, a science major who came along so he could pick up on girls. The English major is a little distracted since he just went through a breakup in the previous act, and so the science major is attempting to get his attention by any means necessary. Their conversation fades in and out of lines for the play that they are practicing, and at one point in particular they abandon practice altogether and begin a conversation that flows in completely opposite directions even though the two think that each is conversing with the other about his subject. This section is as follows:
1: I liked it. I think when you roll your eyes back you stare into the eyes of the Jackal. Final judgment.
2: Judgment can hang itself by its own principles. What right has a Jackal to judge me? We’re not even the same species.
1: Do you know who invented the noose?
2: God of course, He seems to be a fan of fowl.
1: I heard it might have been Jack Ketch.
2: Well, you can call him what you like, the thing exists all the same.
1: what do you suppose he was thinking?
2: how do I teach you to reach the clouds?
1: but that implies a liberation of something deep inside. a spiritual flight.
2: The last Time i was up there the stewardess spilled coffee on my laptop, and the baby in the back kept crying all four hours. I hardly think that’s spiritual.
1: I don’t think I’ve ever thought of it that way.
2: well you ought to; you’re missing half the genus if you don’t: birds aren’t the only things that fly.
1: I’d hardly call it flying more like a moment’s suspension. And then a drop, hard and imprecise. The freedom comes after the fact.
2: like the fruit, of course, I tell you the whole thing rolls into one. Every fallen fruit turns to rot. It spoils the land and makes a mock of the dirt.
1: But the worms like it just the same-to them it’s a feast.
2: they don’t taste.
1: what does that matter?
2: can’t feast if you can’t taste.
1: because you can’t enjoy it?
2: because it has no savor.
1: it’s a chemical reaction, even if unprocessed, the reaction is still occurring.
2: but who is to judge that?
1: well science proves it. They put a sensor in your tongue, and send electrodes to your brain, they generate the taste.
2: could they do that with anything? Wax or worse?
1: I don’t see why not. It’s all a matter of knowing the rules.
2: Then man’s finally done it-the perfect Deus Ex-a world that doesn’t spoil.
1: doesn’t seem to.
2: yes... Smoke and mirrors.
2: Judgment can hang itself by its own principles. What right has a Jackal to judge me? We’re not even the same species.
1: Do you know who invented the noose?
2: God of course, He seems to be a fan of fowl.
1: I heard it might have been Jack Ketch.
2: Well, you can call him what you like, the thing exists all the same.
1: what do you suppose he was thinking?
2: how do I teach you to reach the clouds?
1: but that implies a liberation of something deep inside. a spiritual flight.
2: The last Time i was up there the stewardess spilled coffee on my laptop, and the baby in the back kept crying all four hours. I hardly think that’s spiritual.
1: I don’t think I’ve ever thought of it that way.
2: well you ought to; you’re missing half the genus if you don’t: birds aren’t the only things that fly.
1: I’d hardly call it flying more like a moment’s suspension. And then a drop, hard and imprecise. The freedom comes after the fact.
2: like the fruit, of course, I tell you the whole thing rolls into one. Every fallen fruit turns to rot. It spoils the land and makes a mock of the dirt.
1: But the worms like it just the same-to them it’s a feast.
2: they don’t taste.
1: what does that matter?
2: can’t feast if you can’t taste.
1: because you can’t enjoy it?
2: because it has no savor.
1: it’s a chemical reaction, even if unprocessed, the reaction is still occurring.
2: but who is to judge that?
1: well science proves it. They put a sensor in your tongue, and send electrodes to your brain, they generate the taste.
2: could they do that with anything? Wax or worse?
1: I don’t see why not. It’s all a matter of knowing the rules.
2: Then man’s finally done it-the perfect Deus Ex-a world that doesn’t spoil.
1: doesn’t seem to.
2: yes... Smoke and mirrors.
You can see the lack of authentic communication between the two. The one talks about the creator of the noose, but the other thinks that he has said goose and so the two carry on this quasi-conversation. I really like the parallel that this type of dialogue establishes. It found it intriguing and it is drawn from my observations of the Renaissance teaching focus of examining the tools of argument, and the double entendre that I found so frequently in Stoppard’s works.
As much fun as it was to create various scenes of the play, on top of all the other assignments that were produced by the rigor of maintaining my research blog, I could not find enough time to complete the play before the end of the semester. This time constraint led me and Martin to agree that the play will have to wait to be completed till after the course. I love the ideas that we have for it, and really think that it will be fantastic once it is complete.
For a while we considered cutting the play in half and really drawing back in order to finish on time, but we both agreed that doing so would be unsatisfactory (we even began to do it before we reached that conclusion). We wouldn’t even really be presenting our play; we would end up presenting some poor fragment of our efforts. That did not seem like a good idea. So unfortunately, my readers will have to wait longer than the length of the term if they wish to see the end result. I think that making my blog outlast the semester will actually demonstrate a very valuable tool that an academic blog provides to the student. It helps to develop a sense of congruity about my learning: that the things I learn are not limited to the length of a semester, but can and should be grown outside the confines of a classroom so that the end product is more clear and applicable.
I have really enjoyed learning how to blog academically, and look forward to utilizing the process that I have learned through this experience in my future studies. I will let you know when the play is done. Best of luck, and thanks for keeping up with me thus far.
