Writing theatre textbook: take 2
Pelzer 1
book and I hope to cover everything. I plan on covering a history of
theatre, stagecraft & lighting, acting, directing and glossary of terms...
what else do I need? What would you expect/want in an inro text that will
teach you what (basically) you need to know before you need to know it?
Thanks!
rud...@mv3195.edison.cc.oh.us
1) Please include no full-length plays. Synopses, OK, but I can
send students to library for the complete work if assigned.
2) The biggest downfall of most intro. texts, to me, is the ditsy
way they deal with dramatic form/plot structure. Terms are used willy-nilly,
often the question is not raised at all.
Let me address this in more detail, since it is a major concern--
Most authors seem to organize play analysis according to Aristotle
(thought diction character plot music spectacle) and that's fine with me
provided we emphasize that Aristotle was writing in his own culture, where
music was an element whereas in other times it probably should be considered
a sub-element of spectacle. Commonly, all of the elements are explicated well
except for plot.
Wilson used "point of attack" to differentiate climactic plots (those
that begin near to the end of the story and use lots of reminiscence scenes to
fill in the details of the "past" history of characters and situation--for
example, any play that obeys the Academie rule of unity of time) from
episodic plots (which begin near the actual beginning of the story and skip
lots of time between scenes--like most Shakespeare). I find it a very useful
typology but Wilson did not go further.
Other authors (Hatlen comes to mind) do a better job of breaking down
the formal structure of all plots [i.e., exposition, crisis, development
{foreshadowing, leitmotif, reversals, etc}, climax, denouement]. The
problem here is that (a) few authors even try to do this (b) those that
do use the terms fuzzily. For example, "crisis", by Hatlen, is called
"point of attack" (so the same term means utterly different things in Wilson
and Hatlen).
I realize that humanities and social sciences have a rich tradition
of scholars who say "damn the dictionary, I, like Humpty Dumpty, will use
my own lexicon of terms and make it as inconsistent with anyone else as I
want to." But I firmly believe that an intro. text author must choose clear
terminology that conflicts as little as possible with common usage and with
other author's systems.
Summary--I hope you'll do a terrific job of providing students with
the ability to analyze the formal structure of the play.
3) aesthetics--Wilson does a fair job of introducing philosophers like
Von Goethe. It would be nice to have a few more contemporary aestheticians,
like John Dewey, in the mix.
4) I'm not sure if you intended that as a comprehensive list of topics,
but you've omitted producers, critics, and audiences. Also, I assume (because
it is so standard) that you'll be doing sections discussing conventions of
tragedy, comedy, historical drama, tragicomedy, and many sub-genres and -isms?
If you get a chance, e-mail me your complete name and publisher so I can be
sure to get a review copy--
Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick "rud...@mv3195.edison.cc.oh.us"
Edison Community College, Piqua OH 45356-9253 (513) 778-8600
"'tis the mind that makes the body rich" (Petrucchio)
rud...@mv3195.edison.cc.oh.us
the group--my apologies for the error.,
TR
NathanThomas
writes:
Greetings,
I may say that teaching Intro has been the most difficult course I've had
as an instructor. How much to cover? In what depth? I respect the work
you're undertaking.
There are any number of things anyone might suggest in their particular
area, but instead, I'd suggest that you aim the language to a college
audience. Many of the intro books seem a little infantile. Many young
undergraduates are inexperienced in seeing live theatre, but they've seen
electronic performance their whole lives. And they're not kids.
My $.02 -- and worth every penny ;-) ,
Nathan
Kattler
writes: What would you expect/want in an inro text that will
teach you what (basically) you need to know before you need to know it?
You might want a section on the audience. Seems kind of important for a
basic theatre textbook.
Kim Matlon
As a recent graduate, I would say that the most important things to be done
are:
1. Don't treat the reader as though they are first graders (unless of course
they are...)
2. This is a book about the theater... treat it as such... Try to stay away
from the "textbook" feel, even though it is a textbook. Attempt to make it
as interesting a read as possible. These are the arts, afterall.
I hope this helps... And I would also love to get a copy of it when you're
done... Always looking for something to use in what I will be teaching....
(Adding in my $.02 -- now you have $.04 to work with)...
Kim...
Henry C. Bial
: As I was trying to say I am writing a general Ed/intro to theatre text
: Thanks!
To me, it seems like the big problem with most intro to theatre books is
that they (1) consider the history of playscripts to be synonymous with
the history of theater, (2) tend to have an "evolutionary" viewpoint --
that is, Modernism begat Absurdism begat Existentialism begat Robert
Wilson, or something like that, with a definite prejudice about how much
better Stanislavski realism is to, say, the Age of Garrick -- and (3)
they treat non-western theater as a grab bag of styles essentially
unrelated to the American stage, and they especially ignore the influence
of these styles on the western avant-garde.
So there, I want to see a text that avoids all these pitfalls -- that's
not too impossible, is it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Henry Bial )( "Good" and "Bad" I defined those terms )
( TSOA - NYU )( quite clear no doubt somehow )
( hcb...@is.nyu.edu )( But I was so much older then )
---------------------------)( I'm younger than that now )
(------------------------------------------)
Ross D. Willits
>> As I was trying to say I am writing a general Ed/intro to theatre text
>> book and I hope to cover everything. I plan on covering a history of
>> theatre, stagecraft & lighting, acting, directing and glossary of
>terms...
My own $.02:
"Everything" seems to be a lot to cover, especially if you intend to
include theatre practices from other cultures in that everything. I would
suggest that you narrowly define what the "everything" you want to
include, includes. My own personal preference would be to see large
sections on Asian theatre traditions, as they are among the least
represented theatres in most introductory texts I have seen.
Aside from that, some kind of list, or other inclusion of great works of
dramatic literature beyond the usual suspects would be great. For
instance, in a chapter about the 20's and 30's in the US, include
discussions of not only Eugene O'Neill and Clifford Odets, but also
Langston Hughes, Theodore Ward and Hallie Flanagan.
It sounds like an ambitious project. I wish you all the best.
Ross
Adam Troy Zahler
Hi,
Great undertaking. You've gotten some good advice here, but I
think there are some questions to be considered.
What kind of student are you aiming at? Is this to be
for the serious theatre student or the econ major looking to
fulfill a humanities requirement? Or do you want to provide
theprofessor with the ability to turn students on to the
theatre as either audience or artist.
To my way of thinking the greatest disservice an intro
book and course can do is present the theatre in an unexciting
way. We need to remember that theatre is active. If you can
gear your book to the teacher who is ready and willing to
excite her students into action...creating scenes or one act
plays, for instance...tapping and funnelling their creativity,
you will be doing a great service to theprofessors and to the
theatre overall.
I hate to think of how many people have been turned off to the
theatre because it was presented as an "academic" exercise,
rather than a dynamic and exciting art form.
Gook luck. Hope my $.015 is more help than hinderance.
Adam Zahler
at...@faraday.clas.virginia.edu