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.
One of the things Spencer had said that intrigued me yet freaked me out was how the character is an illusion (173) being they are just words on a page. I never really thought of my characters like that because they just feel so real to me that I forget they’re something I created sometimes. I have to disagree with Spencer at one point (172-173) on how actors become your character but are not your character. For me, I initially thought of it as the best way for the character to come out and embrace that freedom they feel of the character. We do hold the power of the words, actions, dialogue, etc… it is a very powerful thing to me as it does help shape the characters these actors are taking over. I also felt as though the discussion of passive central characters (186) was kind of pointless. It could’ve gone along with the discussion on the central character (192) as a whole. It felt really dragged on for me and I couldn’t find a point for it.
ReplyDeleteFor Hatcher, I feel the structure flowed very well from starting to speak about characters and how they’re compelling to the audience by connections. Then on to the actions of the character and the audience deciphering them. Finally, moving on to characters and their conflict and how it’s displayed. I felt more in tune with compelling characters connecting with the audience because this is something I want to portray with my writing/actors who portray my characters.
-Faith Ortiz
When reading both Spencer and Hatcher, I got two distinct ways in coming up with a character in any play but by having the same methods. Spencer says that a character is an illusion by having a person read off a paper and giving the audience the illusion of seeing the character go through emotions (172, 173). When I write anything with a character I base it on myself. I feel that I have a lot of life experience to create a character based on me. When I develop any other character I base them off my friends and their characteristics or simply a life experience. spencer writes that a characters action is portrayed through speech and behavior (175). When I do any writing I've noticed I use a lot of dialogue; I feel I have more to say than to show. Now with playwriting I have to take note of my audience and make sure they have an interest in my character. Like how Spencer states in page 192, "audience are not interested in what the playwright has to say. They are interested in what the character has to say". I wouldn't want to bored the audience. In Hatcher h3e describes a character as some an audience can reflect on based on the character's emotions. A character has to compel the audience, to so u need a character that the audience would like to spend time with. His ways of character is by writing about heroes, villains etc. which brings it back to how Spence described them as an illusion. Hatcher characters have more of a goal and obstacles that brings them to their conflict. It feels as if Hatchers characters are based more on what a person want to be other than what a person feels. I did learned a lot and now I have a more clear vision as to how to portray my character in the play ill be writing.
ReplyDelete-Valeria Garcia
After reading Spencer’s take on characters in plays, I thought about how characters in plays are somewhat different than characters in fiction works. I was a bit confused when Spencer mentioned that characters are just words in paper. He describes characters as being illusions that people perceive as real because they can see them. I liked the way Spencer broke down Character into 4 different steps (General Qualities, Emotions, Action, and Speech/behavior). All these put together make up a character in plays. Spencer mentions how we shouldn’t be so controlling of a main character and make him/her perfect in our way, but rather let the characters be “free”.
ReplyDeleteI think it is surprising how relevant Aristotle’s theory of drama still is. His six elements brake down a play into its simplest form. The only difference is the order of importance. Aristotle believed that the plot/action was more important than the characters. At first, I thought how could plot go over character. Hatcher goes to say how “When an audience recalls a play, what stays in the mind more than anything else is what happened”. I never thought of it that way. I feel like right now my mind is still thinking 2 dimensionally when it comes to plays.
-Juan Gloria
Reading Spencers take I had a whole new respect for the development of characters. On page 173 I found it interesting reading about Tanisha and how confused she was getting by knowing her character too much. I had never heard of that happening and sounded sort of weird to me, but after reading more I learned how confusing it actually can be. I also found it very interesting on page 172 how it says that there are no characters just words. I had never seen it from that perspective. Something that also caught my interest was on page 184 where it says how all characters must have a voice, even the ones that are "evil." And even though they are evil, their actions need to be justified in order to reflect that evilness in them. I always knew how important characters are in most writings but reading about the different qualities and possibilities a character can and must possess is very intriguing that also sounds scary but exciting.
ReplyDeleteIn Hatchers book, it was interesting to see how playwriting has changed over time. On page 22 it states how the title of a character is pointless and how the actions is what matters. Thats something I never thought of but makes sense. In my head if the character was for example a king, I would have thought that to be enough. On page 23 it mentions how the key relationship is identification, but I don't understand what that means. Does it mean that the characters must be easy to identify? Page 25 says how in drama the characters must want concrete goals, not abstract. I never noticed how the abstract goal is behind the concrete goal. I always thought that emotion was the driving force and the goal for the character which is not wrong, but its also not the main goal which I found interesting.
After reading both selections, and as someone who knowns little to nothing regarding playwriting, I feel like I am understanding how characters are the most important and why. I now am able to see plays in a more in-depth perspective and not just as something to entertain people with, it goes much deeper, especially to the playwright.
-Rebecca Muniz
There are great things to learn from both Spencer and Hatcher. I find it interesting how Spencer describes characters as being illusions, words on paper, that need their own freedom to grow along with the actors and actresses that will portray them. We, the writers and playwrights, should not be so controlling of them. Looking at it now, characters in novels compared to those in plays are very different. I’ve learned through my advanced fiction class to write about what you know, which I have used in creating characters and thought of doing in my play as well, but in a novel, you have to control the character while in a play, you need to give them their own space to be free. Actors and actresses will bring the character to life in their own way through the directors directions and what Spencer puts as their general qualities, emotions, actions, and speech/behavior. I feel the further I read about what to focus on when it comes to characters, the easier it would be to create them for my play. There is still a lot to learn, but Spencer and Hatcher put it into perspective on what I have to look into when writing my play.
ReplyDelete-Kimberly Villanueva
In Spencer's chapter on creating character it is revealed that a character should be a personification of the audience magnified. in one paragraph on page 173 he says, "creating a character is more complex and multifaceted then the structural tools". Structure is an abstraction in comparison to characters who are people who display very concrete ideals and personalities leading to action. It is at times a very changing dynamic making the play engaging and interesting. His formula for creating a character is simple and straight forward. He speaks about central character or characters as important, but not always necessary. He also speaks of language as more than just dialogue. Language speaks about everything. The type of language also can define a character's attitude. In Hatcher we also have a discussion on character development from the protagonist to an antagonist. The play has to have meaning. In other words if the character's actions do not make sense then the play will lose it's importance to the audience. Hatcher was also critical of say the word 'just'. Never say that your play is just about this or that or the actions of the characters are just about some simple item.
ReplyDeleteSpiro Zagouris
I found it intriguing how both Spencer and Hatcher focus on character development and plot. Obviously a main part of a character is there actions and thoughts. They need to be appealing for the audience and the writer needs to try their best to know his or her character. Spencer however takes the role of character into a deeper understanding of it. To know a character is not just to know about their current desires or fears to know how they act or react to the situations that they are pushed into, but why. Why does your character react like this? What was it from your characters past that is making him/ her be the person the audience will see? What is his/ her story? Because of this I believe that the most important part of a play or story is not the plot but the characters in it. I am still uncertain of how to make my play, but by reading this I can now plan to first try and figure out my characters who they are what makes them tick, and why then build my plot around them.
ReplyDelete~ Naidelyn Ramos
Throughout Spencer’s chapter “Character” he describes “character development” and how its constructed from a playwright’s point of view.” For instance, he says “Creating a character is like creating that set”(172) meaning that when you are writing this character of yours, you’ll have to imagine the setting and actor who will play it. Compared to a wannabe novelist like myself who just writes characters and envision how they look like. Spencer would later say how “Emotion cause action to happen” (175) and personally I have never thought about that. Thinking back of all the characters I have created; their actions were causes by emotion but I never thought about it like that. I also never base a character on a real life person. I always try to create something new in my mind. Something, or someone, I haven’t seen. But when changing my mindset from Novelist to Playwright I find it easier if I create characters based on someone who is real. The reason for that being is that it makes it easier for me to visualize the character on set, acting their roles. This also helps me when thinking of a central character. I also think if I find someone who “looks” like a main character, it will then be easier for me to write around them.
ReplyDelete-Abel Arredondo
While reading Spencer, I really enjoyed how in depth he goes to explain on how to develop a character. He writes, “What we call a character is merely words on a page…” (172), and this stuck out to me, because I’m sure I would’ve been on the situation where I wanted to write my characters perfectly with no changes added. I agree that merely thinking of your characters as characters and not real people is beneficial because it also gives the actors freedom to add their own flare to that specific character. Another eye-opening thing Spencer goes over is that the audience doesn’t care what the playwright has to say but the characters. By thinking about it his way it makes sense, because it’ll add more life to the play if the playwright lets the characters radiate his or her emotions.
ReplyDeleteAs Spencer goes on into what makes a good character, Hatcher adds on to it by explaining the processes that make them become relatable, likeable, and able to be remembered. A point that Hatcher makes, which got me thinking, was that actions speak louder than the title of the character and what they say. Just because a character can be a priest and vows to always do good doesn’t mean that the plot could make him do something considered evil. After reading through the readings, I found myself more engaged in what Hatcher had to say on character development because he made me question a lot of what I believed could make a memorable character.
-Ruben Quintero