Thinking Out Loud -- 3rd Try

So, when I look at the first post in this series, I realize that everything I said about structure can be construed to justify some of the silly, quirky but heartless plays that do get produced in Downtown, off-off-Broadway New York these days (and of course find their way on to stages around the country because they were produced in New York). I didn't mean to justify that stuff because something does seem to be missing from it. Too much focus on busting up paradigms. Reactionary is always confirmation of the conventional in a way.

Then, when I look at what I posted from William Faulkner, it occurs to me that his words could be used to justify the singularly-focused family drama, the narcissistic focus on the individual's struggle with him or herself. I of course was thinking of the type of story that Faulkner tells and not seeing the words in their most obvious meaning. I mean -- Faulkner does just tell the family story, doesn't he? But he makes it in to the biggest story on earth somehow. And structure is fluid with him.

However, the thought occurs to me that the problem with trying to define what is wrong with theater or what theater needs comes down to a question of the definition of words. I've read and heard relatively successful playwrights urging their fellow playwrights to be more daring, or more brave, or more something. Who doesn't think they're being these things when they are writing? The problem is definition. I remember a condescending playwright acquaintance passing me an old Mac Wellman essay in an obvious attempt to shake me up. I remember reading it and thinking -- "Yeah, of course, I agree, and I'm the playwright who does this stuff. Not you!" We both interpreted the words to justify our own aesthetic. We all think we're worldbeaters and visionaries, don't we? Why bother with such an underpaid, disrespected craft if you don't?

So, why even bother trying to define it when the pitfalls are so huge? I'm either naive, or ignorant, or arrogant, or condescending, or silly, when I get in to this stuff, aren't I?

Yet, I feel like I need to know. I need to know what it is I'm doing that other people can't or won't. I need to be able to articulate some kind of essence so I can walk away with some dignity when I see another play I don't like getting an expensive production somewhere.

When i was teaching, I used to tell my students that all good stories begin with the following elements -- Good stories, by the way, regardless of the medium -- Characters in conflict acting in a certain context. Characters. Conflict. Action. Context.

I taught my playwright students that you could work this stuff in a linear order though, of course, nothing in the creative process is linear. Nonetheless --

I think we have to begin with character because we have to be writing about people. All of the sound and fury, all of the noise, all of the purpose, must be because we care about people. If you're not writing about people, then why write? What else is there? Mathematics? Philosophy? Maybe. Sure. Except the medium wouldn't be art then. Art must be about people because its for people. It's not for the gods. They don't need us. And its not for inanimate objects. And its not for some platonic ideal because, well, I just don't believe in platonic ideals and even if I did, I still think college philosophy or religion courses are a better medium for philosophy and religion.

So -- characters. Even if you're inspired by an idea, if you don't bring it down to the level of character in some fashion then what?

This is what I think is fundamentally wrong with a certain number of otherwise intelligent, well-crafted theater. The creators care more about philosophy or structure or thesis statements or something then they do about people. It's the first, missed step.

The simplest way to define character is by knowing what they want and what they fear. Once you know either of these two things, conflict comes easily. Simply deny them what they want.

Personally, I'm most interested in a story when the simply fact that all characters are acting in good faith to get what they want and avoid what they fear impedes the ability of other characters to get what they want or avoid what they fear. This strikes me as life. We're all going along and the bouncing of all our characters together cause unavoidably and blame-neutral conflict.

Once you have conflict, your characters should do some action in order to accomplish their goals. We enjoy action. It's part of our makeup. I don't know why. As soon as you have these three things, you have something watchable for at least some period of time.

Finally, when you add context, you give the story resonance, significance, meaning. To me this is the second missed step by other otherwise well-crafted plays (often different kinds of plays). They lack a larger context in which their characters are placed.

For example, I want an orange. Juliet wants an orange. We both make a break for the orange. You'll actually watch for a while. Now, add to this little drama that its the last orange on earth because global climate change has killed all the other crops, or whoever gets the orange gets to be king, or some other larger societal context, and you've maybe got yourself a real story.

I'm not saying you should make the story entirely about context. I'm saying the story should be about characters but those people will be acting within a certain civilization and the storyteller should make sure this is a part of the story.

Of course, if you're writing plays, then the medium requires other considerations. Language. Dialogue. If you're writing, fiction, I don't know but I guess the additional considerations are slightly different. Regardless of the medium, form should follow function. So, once you know these four elements of your story, you should use the medium you write in and its capabilities to find the appropriate structure. (See Faulkner again.)

In theater, there are so many more tools at our disposable than we seem to use. So many things can be done. But they have to all begin with characters in conflict acting within a certain context.

I could go on and on about structure but right now I'm just trying to hit the basics.

Finally, I don't know about other writers but I think a lot about "effect." Effect on the audience. What do I want them to feel, experience, wonder. I rarely want them to think one particular thing in large part because I think its a waste of the medium. if I want them to think one particular thing, then I think its effective to just say the thing instead of writing a play. People do understand clearly stated thesis statements without the drama. Especially if your theme is as concise as so many plays ultimate points seem to be these days.

I want to have an effect on the audience that they feel in their gut, in their heart, and in their head -- but, I'm afraid, if what is in their head is too clear, then they'll ignore their gut and their heart and align everything with the thought in their head. Honestly, I want to confuse in an entertaining way rather than confirm in a comforting, emotional kind of way.

Forgive me. Some subjects, I need to pretend I have an audience in order to think clearly in my own head. Like when I'm trying to teach myself something, I need to pretend that I need to teach it to someone else. . . I'm sure I'll take a fourth crack at these ideas soon anyway.