10-27-06 #8
Paula Vogel’s writing style is very unique and thought provoking. I really enjoy the way she writes because she entices you with her strange and matchless stories about very touchy issues. She discusses things that many people are afraid to talk about at the time; in How I Learned to Drive she discusses incest and child molestation, and in The Baltimore Waltz, she discusses AIDS, which at the time was a very touchy subject. Both stories make the audience reading the story very uncomfortable, and in the case of How I Learned to Drive, even more uncomfortable while watching it. The ability she has to make her work uncomfortable, but still entertaining and humorous and bearable to watch is outstanding. I never imagined being able to laugh at the humor in incest or AIDS before. She has a wonderful way with stories that she can make even the touchiest subjects entertaining to watch.
Both plays have achieved addressing very touchy subjects in a way that no one typically thinks of them. In How I Learned to Drive, many people do not think of a child molester as a kind, loving person who actually cares about the child. In The Baltimore Waltz the subject of AIDS is addressed, in the 80’s it was not a subject someone talks about it, but she addresses in it a way that makes people more comfortable with it by making it humorous. She does a very good job of discussing these topics in a way that people do not usually think of them, but still gets her point across. Vogel really makes you think and look at these prevalent issues from a way you never imagined before. Vogel does a very good job with her writing to address different subjects in a way that makes people understand from a different view, while still making the show entertaining. I really enjoy her writing style and would like to look more into her work.
Meditation #8
During our class discussion on Monday, we talked about our sympathetic feelings toward Peck, a character in "How I Learned To Drive," and how they changed from just reading the script and seeing it performed. Also, how the audience’s perception of Uncle Peck changes throughout the course of the play. While reading the script, I didn’t feel any sympathy for Peck at all; he seemed like a creepy, disturbed middle-aged man with serious mental issues. But when I saw the actor’s portrayal of Peck in the show, as a tentative man who did not seem to understand how twisted his perception of expressing love was, my feelings toward him changed dramatically. For example, in the hotel scene, I could actually see his whole fantasy world crumbling down around him because of Lil Bit’s rejection of his love. This event consequently caused his real world to crumble as well, causing his death. I felt really sad for him, not that she should have accepted his offer but just that he had founded so much on this hope and it couldn’t ever happen.
Peck had serious psychological problems for believing that this particular expression of love was normal in today’s society. Although, I am not entirely sure that he so much believed it to be accepted as hoped because he lied about seeing Lil Bit alone sometimes. But then again they told the family about the photo shoot, not the specifics but still, then there was the extended car drive, both of which were viewed as normal activities between an uncle and a niece.
My feelings changed drastically during the scene with the teenage greek chorus playing the role of Lil Bit’s voice in the car. I am not sure if it was the grotesqueness of actually seeing Peck touch her, and knowing that she was so young, but I was angry at myself for feeling sorry for him in the previous scene. I could not believe that I had felt anything but disgust for this molester.
The quote by Paula Vogel, “It takes a village to molest a child” really hit home during this show, especially in the scenes with the interaction with the rest of the family members. Like Lil Bit’s mom telling her that if anything happened it would be her responsibility, she knew how he looked at Lil Bit and she allowed her to go with him anyway. I felt like I was a part of that village she was talking about because I was witnessing it and not able to do anything to help her. Maybe the family was ignorant to the specifics of the relationship between Peck and Lil Bit, but even Aunt Mary told us that she would be glad when Lil Bit went to college so that she could have her husband back. She knew, just like the mother, and did nothing about it, nothing to help her; this is why that quote hits home so well throughout the course of "How I Learned To Drive".
Meditation #8 -- Katie Marchant
After reading two of Paula Vogel’s works I have come to realize that she has a very defined writing style that I feel that I could recognize very easily. Her works are written in a very particular combination of dialogue and characters speaking directly to the audience. Another way a reader can recognize a Paula Vogel work is by the introductory scene titles she implements. By using these different stylistic methods she creates a work that is very interesting to read and almost hard to comprehend. But when you see the play performed on stage these stylistic elements make the show much more interesting.
Vogel’s subject matter in both of the works we read is very dark yet at the same time the plays had some very comical moments. It seems weird to say that a work like
How I Learned To Drive, whose subject matter includes incest and molestation, is comical but it is. Just reading the play I was very disturbed and did not find it funny at all but when I saw it produced it was much easier to pick up on the subtle humor.
The Baltimore Waltz seems to be more directly funny and although the subject matter is dark (not quite as dark as
How I Learned To Drive) the humor is easier to pick up while reading. It would be very interesting to see a production of this show to see if I pick up on other things like I did in
How I Learned To Drive.
Liz in How I Learned to Drive
The most disconcerting moment for me of the whole play was after the hotel scene, where it show the first time little bit got molested. The technical aspects of this scene sre perfect, I felt uncomfortable as all hell. I felt like that voice would be in my head forever, when the light shined and lil bit was getting felt up, liz as part of the greek chorus became her voice, in this instance became innocence as it was about to be lost. It hit home. No matter what sympathy you may have for uncle peck, no matter how much you think lil bit was asking for it and not enforcing her decision for "the line", it hit home. This man is a monster for what he did, this is not to say he is completely to blame for his actions, however he is still a monster.
The scene with her voice on lil bit scared the crap out of me. As liz pantomined all the actions that lil bit did, I could feel that everything that was happening physically to lil bit, was happening to her very soul. And Liz was that soul, I admire liz for being able to pull it off so well, her very mannerisms begat the innocence and shock that is going through lil bits mind. We see liz in that role only once, her other roles are great,no question, but we never see liz as the innocence of lil bit after that or during the play because, somewhat like a mix of memento and quentin tarantino we see glimpses of the past, and we connect the dots to find that her innocence is gone, forever lost, taken away by the sympathetic monster.
I cant come up with an original title. So, blog #8
The show How I learned to Drive by Paula Vogel is a very twisted play in which a girl is sexually molested by her uncle for 7 years. Working with this show was a very new experience for me because I have never had to give the subject of incest a deep thought like I had to for the show.
Incest and child abuse are major problems we have in society, but because of the media, no one ever thinks twice about both sides of the story. The news makes the stories so black and white that the citizens of the affected area just believe what they hear: that the predator is either a strange man who only goes after young children, or that the predator is the “nicest person.” But no one can really believe these stories. As written in the show, the so called “predator” is a man who everyone trusts, a man who is very respected by all, a man who helps anywhere possible. Uncle Peck is a trustworthy man; the last person expected to do such an act. The part that people look past, however, is the fact that Peck also has his emotional problems. Peck is shown as a human in this play, not as a sexual predator. It is shown that he is a person who has needs, and wants, and troubles, just like everyone else. He just has a strange way of relieving his stresses. It is given as a clue in the end of the show that perhaps someone had done to him what he had done to Lil’ Bit. When she says: “Who did it to you, Uncle Peck? How old were you? Were you 11?” it gives the audience the idea that perhaps this whole incidence is just a part of a huge cycle that has been going on for years. It is also a clue within the family that sex is just a huge part of their lives with Grandma getting married at 14, and Lucy getting pregnant at a young age.
On the other hand, it is not fair to state that Lil’ Bit is the sole victim in this situation. She is also, in a sense, a predator towards Uncle Peck. She has control through many of the scenes as she states that she is “drawing the line” and that he is “not to cross it” after she has drawn the final line. And she plays with his mind. Saying that she wants him to teach her to drive, and she wants to do the photo shoot, and she never actually stops anything that he is doing by telling anyone what is going on. She also continues the cycle of child abuse when in the scene on the bus with the young man, she describes the “second act” of their meeting, implying what happened after they get off the bus. In this scene, she finally sees that she is doing what was done to her. The cycle again continues.
Uncle Peck - More than just a Criminal
Many offenders are known to have committed such crimes while still leading a normal life with a family and spouse. The BTK murderer, Dennis Rader, is one example of this. He had a wife, children, a house, a job, and even volunteered at the family’s church. No one knew he was the brutal murderer of Wichita, Kansas. I have always thought that this was interesting. How is it possible that such inhumane people are able to lead double lives; teaching Sunday school by day and committing heinous crimes by night? I always assumed these criminals were too sick or demented to participate in normal aspects of society, and I never thought I could feel sorry for such a person. However, I experienced this exact thing in the play How I Learned to Drive, with respect to the character Uncle Peck. I think one thing that makes this play so unique is its ability to let the audience see the human side of his character.
In the play, Lil Bit struggles with the effects of being molested as a child by her uncle. The audience is made aware of this from the beginning of the play through various monologues. I immediately assumed that the uncle’s character would be displayed as a creepy, distorted human with essentially evil tendencies and obsessions. However, this was not the case. I did not condone Uncle Peck’s actions in any way, yet at the same time I felt sorry for the ongoing cycle he seemed to be trapped in. Lil Bit makes a comment towards the end of the play asking herself who sexually abused her uncle as a child. In this remark, Lil Bit herself expresses a feeling of compassion for his situation. I also sympathized for his character in the hotel scene, when he proposed to his niece or when he comforted her when she was upset by the rest of her family. He seemed to really love and care for Lil Bit as his obsession proved to be beyond the physical level. This does not justify what he did to Lil Bit as a child, but instead it depicts his ability to love. This made me I wonder if Uncle Peck was aware of the emotional damage he was causing his niece, because if he truly loved her, he would not want to hurt her. After all, he did express to Lil Bit multiple times that anything that happened between them would be consensual.
These examples are two of the many instances in the play that made me see another side to Uncle Peck – a side with more depth and natural characteristics than the personality of a stereotypical criminal. I do not think that Uncle Peck was justified in any way with what he did. I think there were many things he could have done to stop the molestation cycle. However, I think the play How I Learned to Drive was successful at accurately depicting how criminals are still human.
#7 10-20-06
“How I Learned to Drive” is a play based entirely on an adaptation of a pedophile from a view that no one ever thinks about. When most people think of pedophiles, they think of sick, disgusting men who sit and wait for their prey to arrive so that they can do all things unimaginable to get what they need. Creepers, I’ll say. But the play addresses a pedophile from a different perspective, one that makes you want to run up and hug him and sympathize with him. Uncle Peck is really a kind, helpful, loving man who wants to do all he can to help his family; he loves Lil’ Bit, yes a little more than normal, but he never does a thing to intentionally hurt her. Now, don’t get me wrong, what he does is sick, it’s just that he lets her draw the line and doesn’t do anything she doesn’t want him to do. Although he has skewed her idea of what is appropriate for him to do, she still knows she can draw the line, but she still goes on with it and even initiates some of it too. It is still sickening to watch an old man molest a small child and that, from whatever way you look at it is still wrong, but you still gotta love Uncle Peck. He is truly a good man and a genuinely sweet one at that, which is what the play is trying to show us. Look at this good man, who due to something in his past has gone sour in some areas. You feel sorry for such a good man to be trapped in his mind where he thinks pedophilia is okay, you want to comfort him and let him know everything will be okay, you want to help him.
This play shows us the same story we have heard for years and years, that pedophilia is wrong, but it shows us from someone else’s view. A story is adapted to be told how someone else views the situation. It brings out a new opinion and side of the story; this one tells about something most people have never thought about. Honestly, until seeing this play, I have never sympathized with a pedophile, but now I have, even if it’s just a fictional one. The story brings about new ideas, while still maintaining the same morals—yes pedophilia is wrong, but have you ever looked at it from inside the pedophile’s head, do you know what they have gone though to be here and what they are truly like as a person? I really enjoyed the play because it brings out a different aspect of the story that isn’t usually perceived.
Fact or Fiction - Lauren's Seventh Blog
In the recent blogs, people have discussed what they think about many stories having more than one version. Some people think it’s perfectly normal, others think that may discredit stories altogether.
I believe that stories are meant to have more than one version. Think way back in the day before there was pens and paper and internet. How did people communicate? Through stories. Maybe not stories with words, but through stories. So if caveman A was talking to caveman B about a hunting trip, that’s one version of the story. But then caveman B goes to caveman C and tells him the same story but adds his own details. What he caught, what he saw, what he heard. Just a few details can change a story a lot.
Even now, when you tell stories, don’t you get the urge to change the facts, even just a little? Maybe you want to make it a little more dramatic or make yourself look better?
It’s only natural that stories from centuries or decades ago would get a little changed over time. I think it makes them interesting, not invalid.
Meditation # 7 -- Katie Marchant
There are so many creation myths. Basically every country and culture has a creation myth that they claim as their own. But many of these myths have some of the same basic elements; a deity of some sort, a man and a woman and animals. The three versions I want to briefly explore are some variations of the Christian/Jewish Creation Myth (The Book of Genesis), The Navajo Creation Story, and The Chinese Creation and Flood Myth. I am not sure why I choose these three in particular; I think that it is because I just liked them. Each of these myths have the three basic elements that I mentioned earlier.
Starting with the Christian/Jewish myth, only because it is the most widely known and the easiest to explain. It begins with God creating everything in a certain order. 1- heaven and earth 2- light and dark 3- separation of sky and earth 4- sea and land 5- plants 6- sun and moon and stars 7- birds and amphibious animals 8- animals 9- man 10-woman. God did all this in six days and rested on the seventh.
The next myth is one version of the Navajo myth. The Navajo myth differs in that the people came from 3 underworlds into this world. After they arrived in this world, the “Glittering World” they decided where to put the mountains then the Gods made the sun and moon and sky and all the other necessities of life. It goes on to tell about monsters and the twins that saved the new Earth People.
Next is a version of the Chinese myth. It is a creation/flood story that was originally in a poem form that was sung. In the beginning there is a deity that creates the three basics but there was a huge flood that wiped out all of mankind except for one man and his sister who survived by using a huge gourd as a boat. The man wants his sister to be his wife. In the end they have a child together who turns out deformed with no arms or legs so the man chops it up and throws the pieces around the hills but when he wakes up the next morning all the pieces became men and women, the new mankind.
I really like how vastly different these myths are even though they are telling basically the same story, how humans came to be on this earth. I like that in each of the stories there is a deity that creates the world but then that deity leaves it up to the people it creates to populate and take care of the what it gave them.
This is where I found the myths that I used:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
One interesting aspect of theatrical adaptation is how many different stories can evolve from one main idea. The first thought that came to my mind when we began discussing this as a class was superheroes. Superman especially, since 1940, there has been at least 30 different adaptations released in the form of film. (http://searcha.movies.go.com/?q=Superman) This number does not include the television series “Smallville”, “Lois and Clark” or the new movie based on the original Superman’s life, entitled “Hollywoodland”. All of the preceding based from one original work, a comic book. It is interesting to me to see so many varieties of adaptations evolving from a comic book. Television series, novels, fantasy movies and dramatic movies are just a few of the factors that contributed to Superman’s fame and made him an international icon. I don’t believe that all adaptations have had as much influence as the Superman cartoons did. But really, think of Spiderman or Batman, they have theme parks and action figures and Saturday morning cartoons created because of them. I believe that these are myths, in a sense that they have magical powers, and more likely than not they could not really occur. However, to the children of our generation, they are heroes, in the same sense as the Greeks believed their gods were heroes. As I think about all of the stories I was told as a child, I realize how much they came to be a part of my identity. Take Santa Claus, a legend, a myth- one which has sparked countless stories, movies, and become an iconic part of Christmas.
It fascinates me to think about how important one character can become to so many people’s lives. In a way, we are just like the Greeks, knowing that there is no way that our heroes could really accomplish the feats they claim but still accepting them. Like Santa Claus, leaving presents under every child’s pillow in one night, no person could possibly accomplish this, and yet we still accept it; not as truth, but as a story which dances in our dreams.
The Multiple Versions of the Return of Orestes
How is it possible that there can be multiple versions of the same story? Wouldn’t the differences between the plots discredit the story as a whole? This is the case with the varying accounts of the return of Orestes by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Each of the three has written different interpretations of the story of a brother and sister’s attempt to avenge their father’s death. One would assume that the mere presence of three varying versions of the event would discredit the validity of the story. After all, true historical facts would not be so controversial. However, I believe that one must accept the consistencies between the stories as trivial effects of the varying interpretations.
One can see how the accounts differ when examining how Electra comes to believe that Orestes has returned. In The Libation Bearers by Aeschylus, Electra is suspicious that her brother is in town because she sees a lock of his hair and his footprints near her father’s tomb. Her suspicion is confirmed when Orestes shows her an article of clothing he was given as a child. This is different from Sophocles’s account in Electra. In his version, Electra doubts that Orestes is who he says he is until she sees her father’s ring on his hand. This ring convinces her of Orestes identity. However, Euripides writes in his story of Electra that she sees a lock of Orestes’s hair, his footprints, and an article of his childhood clothing and still doubts his return. She only believes that the man is her brother when she sees a scar on his forehead from when he was a child. These differences suggest that none of the three stories is to be trusted because the accounts are too inconsistent with one another.
However, I think that these discrepancies are somewhat irrelevant. I think that there will by differences between the versions of all stories that are passed on throughout time. The more important thing is the fact that each of the three stories describes two siblings that yearn to avenge their father’s death. Each story depicts Electra’s initial disbelief of Orestes’s return. For a story that has been known to hundreds of generations, I think the idea that this story is still alive is impressive. The details of the story can vary, but the overall plot is the same; therefore proving the story more valuable for its mere existence and survival throughout time.
Differences
How can three stories that revolve around the same story, and have the same type of characters, portray a situation differently? Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides did in their interpretations of the return or Orestes. All three stories tell of the same brother and sister who are trying to avenge their father’s murder, but they each have their own spin on how Electra comes to find out about her brother’s return.
In Libation Bearers by Aeschylus, Electra, with help from the chorus, visits Orestes’ grave, and once there spots a lock of hair on the grave. She believes that this hair is much like her own, giving her reason to believe that her brother might have come back in secret to avenge the murder of his father. A few moments later, Electra notices some footprints that she states are: “Marks upon the ground/ Like those my feet have made, the very same…” (Lines 216-217). She claims that the footprints are the same size as hers, and look just like per own footprints, but she notices that there’s two sets of footprints, one for her brother and one for the person with him. But when her brother appears, she doesn’t believe it is him when he tells her who he is. He finally convinces her when he pulls out the piece of clothing that she made for him before he was sent away. This is an interesting way of proving that she thinks it’s her brother, because it would be hard for someone to know anything about a person from hair, and footprints.
On the other hand, in Sophocles’ Electra, Electra is holding the ashes of who she believes is her brother, when Orestes’ comes to her and talks to her about her misfortunes, and about her sorrows. He tells her that she shouldn’t have any sorrow because there’s no need to mourn the living. It isn’t until she sees the ring of their father on his hand that she believes it is really Orestes and he is really alive. This version, I thought, was more entertaining because of the confrontation between Orestes and Electra in which she believes he is mocking her for grieving her brother’s death until she realizes that he really isn’t dead, and he is standing directly in front of her.
In the last rendition we read, Electra written by Euripides, the realization that it is truly Electra’s brother who is talking to her is brought out in a more humorous way. First, Electra is married to an old man, and Orestes and his friend are guests in her house, though she doesn’t know the whole time they had been there. When she is shown the piece of hair, she shoots it down because she knows not all siblings have the same hair. When she is shown the footprints, she again shoots it down because it is a rocky ground and there is no way footprints would show up on rocky ground. The proof she needed was a tiny scar he has on his brow from falling when they were children. This small piece of proof was what changed her mind; a tiny scar made her realize that the man who was a guest in her house was really her brother for whom she has believed was dead for all those years.
Though all the stories are different adaptations of the same story, they all have the same ending, with her seeing that her brother is really alive, and he has been for all these years. And they all have the same moral: Don’t trust what you see; instead, go deeper to see all the clues needed to know the true version of what you’re looking at.
Myth
Myth is defined as "a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society" by the American Heritage Dictionary. In the discussion conducted in class we can see where that would apply, Greek myths or mythology are moral lesson using ancient heroes as subjects. In Greece they were widely held as truths.
Some people in discussion brought up the fact that tales could often be brutal or seem evil, and so could not be moral tales. However, that merely supports the fact that these are moral tales. By showing the evil the writers and tellers of greek myth are showing you what not to do. Do not kill your father and sleep with your mother or bad shit will happen, Oedipus has shown us this quite effectively. He had severe punishments for his actions, because he did wrong and the gods delivered justice. Now the Gods have different moral standards than humans, but thats allowed because they are immortal. The myths are a way of showing what not to do as a human, because no one reading the myths are gods.
There are many different definitions for the word myth. One of the most prominent is that a myth is something that is false; something that is not true, but we all believe it because it’s what we have been told, most of the time, someone tells us to scare us.
The most memorable myth I have been told is not to swallow my gum. I was told many myths about this, actually. One said that it would stay in my stomach for 12 years. Another said that it would stay in my stomach and grow bigger and bigger for 7 years. And the most frightening one-it would clog my throat, and I was going to choke and die. Another myth I have been told is not to swallow watermelon seeds. Why? Because it will sprout and I will have watermelons growing in my stomach until they get so big that I have to have them surgically removed. I believed this for a good 5 or 6 years until I accidentally swallowed a seed, and I got so upset I sat up all night crying, and my sister had to explain that it wasn’t true. But because my mom had told me these stories, I believed them.
The same could be said about “urban legends” and fairy tales. Because we have been told these stories for such a long time, we believe them. An urban legend that I once saw solved on the show “Myth busters” was the myth about if you mix pop rocks and coca cola, then you will die. They say something about the carbonation mixed with the sugars and ingredients that make pop rocks pop causes your body to basically implode. But this was proven false. Because no one was willing to volunteer their lives, for all they knew, this became a myth. And everyone believed it because for so many years people were told this story, and over the years the story became more severe, and perhaps grotesque, causing people to fear even thinking about it. Fairy tales, on the other hand, have changed over the years, too. If you take the Disney movies, that are told to be fairy tales, they are changed to gain an audience from children. The fairy tale of The Little Mermaid and even Pocahontas are changed to draw in a bigger crowd with their happy endings; the typical fairy tale ending of “and then they lived happily ever after.” But in real life, that never happened. Or in the original stories. But let’s face it, no one would want to go see the true story of Pocahontas, in which her real name was not Pocahontas, but Matoaka, and she was captured and taken to England, and that is where she met John Smith. But she didn’t fall in love with him right away. She very much disliked him at first (
The Pocahontas Myth).
I would have to say that my definition of a myth is not that it is a story that is false. I believe now that a myth is simply a story that is passed from generation to generation, that has yet to be proven false.
Myth Busters! - Lauren's Sixth Meditation
In class on Wednesday we began talking about myths. I still believe that many myths are meant to teach people things – specifically children. We talked about Greek myths, urban legends, and ‘prescriptive’ myths. It got me thinking about all the myths I heard when I was a kid. I decided to look up a few and finally put my questions to rest.
I always heard that if you mixed Pop Rocks with Coke, your stomach would explode due to too much carbon dioxide. This has since then been proved untrue, and the Pop Rocks company ended up having to do serious damage control when this myth came out only four years after the company got up and running. Pop Rocks were no longer sold after about 1983, which many thought proved that they were dangerous. The truth is that Kraft bought the rights to the candy and marketing them under a different name.
I remember when the movie Dead Man on Campus came out. The movie is about a guy who hears the myth that if your roommate commits suicide, you automatically get a 4.0 for the semester. He then spends the rest of the movie trying to find a roommate who is fragile enough to kill himself, thus giving the surviving roommate a 4.0. While most colleges will take deaths or other accidents into consideration under these circumstances, there isn’t a college in the US that has the 4.0 guideline. This myth is supposedly fairly recent, is seems to have started in the mid-1970s.
I’ve also heard tons of myths about how Disney incorporates sexual messages into their films. A lot of these, when you stop and take stills of the films, are completely untrue. Some are still pretty sketchy, and others were obviously done by accident.
I think myths are a funny thing. All these things above seem so silly now that I’ve looked at the evidence, but I’ve believe much stupider things before. What about myths makes them so damn believable? I’m not sure – does anyone else have an idea?
Citation
Snopes.com. 13 October 2006. < http://www.snopes.com/>.
Myths. What makes a myth a myth and not a fairy tale or a legend? The word myth, like Layne said in class, has a negative connotation to it, while a legend often involves a hero doing some extraordinary deed. But really isn’t the purpose of a myth to explain some event or occurrence? Greek Mythology became the source of explanation, for example, Zeus had Hermes create a woman of stunning beauty with which to punish mankind. This woman was named Pandora, thus giving birth to the myth of Pandora’s box, because Pandora could not control the temptations of opening the box, despite the warning that all hell would break loose. She gave in, and here we are today, (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/scaffold/GG/creationMan.html, J.M. Hunt). Another interesting possible myth would be the story of Eve giving into temptation by eating the fruit, and to punish her, God created the agony of childbirth. I had never really thought of the story of Eve as being a myth until now, it was always something I just believed and never needed justification or evidence to prove it, I just accepted it as true.
So we could consider “The Wizard of Oz” as a modern day myth, especially due to its international popularity and the fact that it has caused several different forms of adaptation including movies, musicals and even more novels. It doesn’t really explain anything but it is still a magical story with a journey where the hero, Dorothy, triumphs over her nemesis, The Wicked Witch of the West, to achieve her goal. It could encourage children not to do evil deeds or they will turn ugly and green like the Witch, but that is not the moral of the story. I suppose it basically just serves as a reminder that there is “No place like home”.
Fairy tales, “pre-Disneyized”, were meant to teach lessons as well. For example, in Cinderella, the wicked stepsister’s eyes were poked out by crows at the end of the story. But after the various adaptations, the moral had disintegrated. I think that the terms fairy tale, legend and myth might possibly be interchangeable, despite their various connotations.
Meditation #6 -- Katie Marchant
Wikipedia.com describes myth in two basic ways. The first is “Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics - In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form.” The second is “A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false.” In my opinion a myth is a story that has been told over and over for many generations and even many centuries. But thought all these years the story has changed and been adapted by each individual storyteller so they can make their point. I believe that a myth can have some “true” parts but the majority of the ideas and characters are “false”. Because myths are “false” they can present morals and the basics of life in a way that many people can understand and relate to. To me a myth should have some sort of meaning behind it. Be it a creation story, a story that is teaching us something or even teaching us what is wrong with society.
I would be really interested in studying myths and folklore from different cultures and investigating the similarities and differences from culture to culture. Part of my family is from Nicaragua and I know that Nicaraguan myth and folklore is very different from European myth and folklore which is different from Greek myth and folklore. What interests me the most about these differences is that although they do change the stories each of these cultures all have variations of the same story. It is intriguing how many different cultures can have similar stories that can shape the people in very different ways.
Why Zorro IS a myth. 10-13-06 #6
Well after thinking about different myths and what the definition of a myth is, I read through many different passages on www.wikipedia.com, and found evidence to support the Legend of Zorro to be classified as a myth.
Mythology is defined by wikipeida as “a story or legend, an account or speech, literally meaning the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the field of mythology does not use this definition. Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests. Once this link to the spiritual leadership of society is broken, they lose their mythological qualities and become folktales or fairy tales. Not every religious narrative is a myth however; unless it is deeply rooted in tradition, it may also be trivial pious anecdote or legend.”
Wow, long definition but seeing as the “The Legend of Zorro” is a story that has been passed down, retold, and adapted since his first appearance in All-Story Weekly in 1919. It has been passed down in stories both orally and written to tell of the hero named Zorro who comes to oppose the French and later Mexican governments and give justice to the people. Zorro is used to explain the nature of humanity by taking a stand against the corrupt governments and doing what he believes is right to save the country and well all the beautiful women, which if you ask me saving all the beautiful Spanish women would be a nature of the males of humanity if they were given the chance. Zorro has also been related Joaquin Murrieta, the Mexican Robin Hood, California bandit Salomon Pico, Robin Hood himself, and William Lamport, an Irish soldier living in Mexico in the 17th century. Zorro has been linked to finding his basis from these men, but it cannot be proven therefore he is still a myth. The story of Zorro is about a heroic man whose story has been passed down, and no longer, an endorsement of the religious community. Once a story has lost its spiritual backing it loses mythological qualities and becomes a folktale, or a legend. And what do we know the story of Zorro as? “The Legend of Zorro,” right.
So, as we can see, Zorro is in fact a myth. It may not have been the first thing most people thought of when trying to think of a myth. But in my eyes, Zorro is a myth.
Myth - Educational or False
The word “myth” is often used in passing conversation to describe something that is not true. I think people sometimes use this term in reference to far-fetched stories or unproven speculations to express a feeling of disbelief. Due to this negative connotation, myths are often discredited. However, I believe a myth’s validity should not be measured literally. Before completely dismissing a myth as a misleading notion I think that one must examine it in search of deeper meaning. Perhaps myths are more than just elaborate stories or explanations. Perhaps they serve a greater purpose of offering insight into the world.
When I first think of the word “myth” I think of all the silly health tips that can be found in magazines or on the internet. Statements like “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” come to mind. Most everyone knows that eating an apple every day will not prevent from getting sick for an entire lifetime. Therefore this saying can be written off as a myth, causing people to overlook any realistic value this phrase may offer. Nonetheless, this myth has some significance or truth to it. This popular saying promotes the idea that eating healthy does the body good. It urges people to pick up carrot or a piece of fruit the next time they’re hungry, instead of going for the habitual bag of chips. This proves to be a very good message; yet this message is unfortunately lost in the phrase because people take it too literally.
The same argument can be made when examining more conventional myths, not just catchy phrases. Stories in Greek mythology are examples of these kinds of myths in that they are not proven as factual history. They also fit this definition because the events and characters in these tales are difficult to believe in a literal sense. However, one can still find a moral lesson in these stories. For example, the danger of infidelity is demonstrated when Hercules dies after leaving his wife, Deianeira, to run off with Viola. Granted, he is killed because the centaur Nessus tricks Deianeira into giving her husband a poison instead of a love potion; nonetheless one can see that nothing good can come from being unfaithful. In this case, the morality of fidelity would be overlooked if one simply dismissed this Greek myth as an erroneous story.
Therefore, a lot of insight can be neglected if one does not take a close look at examining the figurative implications that can be found in myths. Far too often, people take myths literally and thus misconstrue their entire message. Although many myths are associated with false ideas, one must attempt to extract the moral value of such a story before disregarding it as useless speculation.
It's hard out here for a pimp a nun and a man with premarital relations.Mistress Overdone is not overdone.
Note There are many descriptions of the play on the internet so I avoided summarizing.
I am considering adapting “Measure for Measure” as my project. I am drawn to the idea because I feel “Measure for Measure” is under rated and underperformed. “Measure for Measure” is criticized for its inability to fit into a neat classification of comedy or tragedy, or to provide entirely satisfactory answers to moral dilemmas at the ending. But in my mind those supposed faults are greatest virtues of the play.
I am fascinated by the broad range of adaptations of the work that exist, adaptations that did not requiring the changing of a single word. How is it possible that the character who in one persons mind stands as the image of saintly altruism, compassion, humbleness, and courage could be to another person the epitome of selfishness, callousness, self glorification and cowardliness. How does classifying the work as a comedy as in the original publishing make one view it differently than if your told it’s a tragedy, history, or romance. I have heard it classified as all of these although the romance one is in my opinion quite a stretch as is the history.I would define the work as a dark black or tragicomedy which is I belive very much in the modern taste. “Bowling for Columbine” the “Daily Show” “Thank you for Smoking” all mix political issues human suffering and humor. Concocting such mixtures is a modern American past time. Durnhmat said tragicomedy was the theatre of the 21st century.
As towards the complaint of the unfinished nature of the play. Shakespeare did tie up the story, albeit it in a artificial and forced way (I believe intentionally so.) The entrance of the duke means everything is happily ended. His being back in power cures Isabella’s nightmare. But the play is largely an if exercise. If you had to choose between your family and your virtue what would you do? What if you could provide Mercy or Justice but not both? Finally what choice is right or is their no right choice? The extreme circumstances of the play are unlikely and require a suspension of disbelief. But the issues are real and faced by us on a lesser level. The Dukes tidy entrance is like the perfect world created in the matrix .We wont accept it resolves the story but not our anxiety provoked by it..
Moreover it is not a solution to the moral questions asked. We go back to the if game “ what if the duke doesn’t exist “in fact more accurately the Duke doesn’t exist in my life so what happenens to me if I face such choices. It is the broader moral issues of the play that are left lingering and that Measure for Measure questions haunts nags and generally irritate critics and general audiences a is a sign of its eloquence and depth not of it’s weakness.
The questions provoked by the play: whether government can regulate sexuality and morality, whether marriage is a legal religious or personal institution, whether the death penalty is Christian, are all issues as prevalent in today’s headlines as the script lines.
I am running out of time and space but whether to use condoms in Africa, Gay marriage, and abortion all link to the play. My next bog I intend to give more specific examples, but I wanted to set the premise.
Meditation #5 -- Katie Marchant
I was very intrigued by the moral and sociological questions brought up in both acts of
Lovers. The titles of the individual acts provoke some very confusing thoughts in the minds of the audience members. Why are the lovers who die at a very young age called “Winners” and why are the lovers who get to spend their whole lives together called “Losers”?
In my opinion the first act is more of a classic tragedy in that the main characters die in the end. But the title seems to say otherwise. “Winners” provokes a very optimistic, promising feeling in the audience. These lovers are predestined to die on the same day we meet them, several hours later, but the audience learns of this predestination in the middle of the act from the monotone narrators while the characters are still full of life. It is hard to comprehend that these very young people truly are “winners” in love when they tragically die “…due to asphyxiation as a result of drowning. ...” (
Lovers, page 64) but in the end the audience comes to understand that indeed they do win because they die together, and in love.
The second act “Losers” provokes very negative, pessimistic thoughts in the audience. We expect the characters to fail in whatever romantic pursuits they embark on, but in “Losers” the lovers do get to spend their lives together unlike in the first act. Like the first act they do live up the acts’ title of “Losers” in that they are married and get to be together but they are not happy and essentially, the losers compared to the "winners" of the first act.
Variation of interpretations
Performing in front of an audience brings out a much different kind of performance than rehearsal does. During rehearsal, actors run lines and occasionally have an emotional connection, but rarely do they have an experience like a performance. The time a show is performed also has a major impact on the outcome of the performance. For example, during the Friday night show, the audience found almost every line humorous, even ones that were not intended to be funny. However, during the Saturday matinee, the audience laughed a total of four times; therefore, that show was affected by the audience as well - in a negative way. If people were not laughing and staying involved, it became much more tedious for the actors on stage to stay focused. In the same way as when the audience was almost too attentive and participated too much.
Another interesting aspect of live performances with audience interaction is the feeling they come away subsequent to viewing the show. Like Jackie said, on Friday night, she didn’t really feel bad for the Lovers in the second act. However, viewing it on Thursday night, Lauren said she felt something much different toward the Lovers in the second act. Their opinions were varied because of the different times they viewed it, and the different audiences of which they were members.
Personal feelings about the characters and their situations also varied. For example, in our meeting, Julia and Lauren had opposite viewpoints on the characters fates and relationships. One person felt that the Losers really had more potential for success while the Winners didn’t really understand that their love would not last. The other person believed that the Winners achieved success because they really did feel true love for each other, even though they would have only a short time to feel it. The way one script can have such a variety of ways of being viewed is fascinating. Just like L. Frank Baum’s "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", one story can cause so many different ideas and works of art; like "The Wiz" and "Wicked". Everyone brings away something different even though they have seen the same performance.
Lovers and Losers - Lauren's Fifth Meditation
Lovers – just the word can evoke certain thoughts or feelings, right? For most, I would assume that lover is a term of endearment, maybe something to be desired. I knew from the beginning that the play ‘Lovers’ was divided into two acts – ‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’. I was not sure how lovers could be losers - but I was anxious to find out.
The first act was the ‘winners’, Mag and Joe. The audience soon finds out Mag is two months pregnant and she and Joe will be married in three weeks. Not a great start to a marriage, but I’ve heard of plenty of marriages (real and fictional) that have started out roughly and ended up becoming almost like great, epic love stories. The baby would be born, the couple would struggle, but in the end, they would realize they really were madly in love and meant to be together. I simply assumed that the ‘winners’ would have a happily-ever-after ending. A winning situation would leave them alive and well, of course.
I was very wrong. At the end of Act I, we know that Mag and Joe are dead. At first I didn’t understand how the fact they died could play into them being ‘winners’. Then I saw Act II. I thought that if the couple dies in the first act and they’re ‘winners’, what’s going to happen to the ‘losers’? I assumed the mother-in-law could be some comic relief, but not the catalyst for the problem. Again, I was wrong.
After seeing the play, it took me awhile to finally understand what Brian Friel meant for his audience to understand. The deaths of Mag and Joe could have very well saved them from heartache, misery, and discontent with each other and their lives. They died young and in love while the losers were simply stuck in their discontented position. Andy was at a loss on what to do with his wife and his mother-in-law. Brian Friel leaves the audience pitying Andy – the poor fool is destined to lead and unfulfilled life with his wife and his mother-in-law pitted against him.
Lovers:the blog
Comedy is our way of coping with what is tragic. Laughter is the natural recourse of the body to bring itself back to equilibrium after viewing that is wrong with society or fate. In reference to the play "Lovers", the whole of both is set in a semi flashback setting. IN the first act the lovers are a pair of border school students studying for there exams, but we find out as the play goes on that they died right after this scene of their life. As morbid as it is we still laugh, the man and woman explain that the couple died, explain the funeral in detail and yet still we laugh. We are drawn to the humor in the situation presented even at the expense of the overall so mberness of the actual events. however in some way its a happy ending, in so much that they die in love.
In the second act, the whole flashback is much more intense due to the fact that we already know that they are the losers. At least in winners there was some hope for a real happy ending. In losers we know bad things are going to happen, the narrator tells us the bad things that are going to happen. And they happen. And yet it's still funny, in a way it's funnier because it's so tragic that a person's whole love life can be killed by simple stupid mistake. Hence the term LOSER. To have true love and lose it in an instant, which incidentally is funny, is sad. Yet the whole thing is funny.
so there.
10-6-06 #5
After this weekend’s productions of Lovers, I believe that the environment of every performance can entirely affect the way the story is told. Any minute changes in detail can alter the story to the audience; and even the audience itself is a large factor. Adaptations don’t only take place between different versions of a story, they also happen from each time you read the book or every time it is performed. I noticed there were several differences in each night’s performance that an audience member may not notice, but still differences enough to affect the performance itself.
From night to night, lines were slightly altered, words changed, phrases, or even whole lines rearranged, there weren’t any major points left out, but things varied from night to night, affecting the information someone could receive and how it is processed. One example that sticks out in my mind is every night the dialogue between Joe and Mag after her false pains where she is talking about how hungry she is. Every night it was a little bit different, some nights, all the lines got rearranged one night, certain lines got left out and others were repeated. For each time, the audience was presented with different facts, for example the night I said “No breakfast!” as the reason before saying “Hunger pangs, that’s what it was” the audience is focusing on a different aspect that when those two lines were switched. They can take an entirely different focus out of where the line is coming from. The same thing with goes with the monologues that got rearranged from night to night; the order things are given changes the focal point of the information and what the audience remembers.
Also, each performance varied from the reactions given by each of the different audiences. Thursday night was a good night, we had a good, responsive audience that we were able to feed off of and make the show more energetic and believable. Friday and Saturday nights had an even more interactive audience, oohing when Joe insulted Mag and called her stupid or laughing at every slightly funny thing; they inspired a greater energy and encouraged more drastic reactions. While Saturday afternoon had a very dead audience. There was little reaction to feed off of and long pauses that looked suspicious while we really were just waiting for laughter. It was hard to feed off the dead audience and it was harder to wake them up and impress them with our story. So the energy of the actors and the encouragement to become more angry or happy or sad or excited about something partially depends on the audience and allows for a different representation of what the character is trying to convey.
Every production allows for an entirely different interpretation depending on the different factors that influence the performance. The way things end up occurring, like lines out of order or certain things skipped or even the enthusiasm of an audience can entirely affect the way a show is perceived from performance to performance. Each different show can have a different point of emphasis and each audience member can take a different message from the different ways every performance is adapted.
Ann Nelson
Lovers
I am a firm believer that the audience is the major part of a production. Audience participation and even what the audience takes from the show is what determines how the show has gone.
Each member of the audience takes from the show different views, different thoughts, and even different memories. For example, when talking in class about Lovers it was discovered that I remembered different aspects from the show than Robbie and Lauren. I remembered it was said that Mag and Joe were buried in the same cemetery, but I didn’t remember that they were buried on separate plots. This could be because at that particular moment I wasn’t paying attention, or I had been distracted by the lights or something from off stage, which wouldn’t be anything new, or I just didn’t comprehend what had just been said. There are dozens of reasons why two audience members will remember two different pieces of information about the show.
Another key thing about audience participation is the laughing or clapping within the show that may throw off the actors. Ann Nelson talked in class about it being different with the audience there because the audience laughed at parts that no one had ever really laughed at, or they wouldn’t laugh at parts that the actors had always thought were funny. This kind of interaction from the audience can completely change how a show is done. Going through weeks of rehearsal and doing the show hundreds of times makes the lines less affective, even boring for the actors. But this is the first time the audience has seen the show, so the actors need to make it real to the audience to keep them into it without giving away the ending. So if the audience laughs at a line, it is very hard to not break character because you haven’t laughed at that line in so long that hearing laughter makes you want to laugh with them. Or if the audience doesn’t laugh at a line that you thought was funny, then you work harder, raise the stakes, to get the laugh-lines across so the audience will catch on and react.
Plus, the audience makes it hard when you can see them in the first row, and all your friends are in the first row making faces. Just ask Ann; it can throw an actor off when you look up and see a friend making a strange face at you letting you know that they are there. The audience has a major role in making the show go a certain direction, and making the performance turn out great, or not so great.
Losers - The Value of Multiple Viewings
When my parents told me they were coming to see me in Brian Friel’s play Lovers, they said they would be attending both the 2:00pm and the 7:30pm performances on Saturday, September 30. I immediately discouraged them from doing so. I thought that the play was pretty straightforward and that it was not necessary to see it twice. However, my mother insisted on coming and told me that the only way to truly understand a theatrical production is to see it more than once. Now that the play is over I can see that she was right, especially about act one.
Between the multiple rehearsals and run-throughs I had become extremely familiar with the script and the characters. I knew the play like the back of my hand, and to me everything was obvious and set in place. However I think that as an actress in the production, I had forgotten that the audience knows nothing of the background of the characters or the plot. This is important because it means that the audience is jumping into the story with no concept of what to expect. Such a lack of prior knowledge could cause an audience member to miss certain key facts in the story; thus leading to great confusion. Take for example the two characters sitting on either side of the stage. In the beginning, their narrations follow along with the actions of the main characters. They describe Joe and Mag as they climb to the top of Ardnageeha on June 4th. By the end of the story however, they are speaking about events that take place after the death of both Mag and Joe up to a month later. This could be confusing to the audience especially since both characters are still on stage and the action that occurs between them is still taking place on June 4th. Therefore, there are essentially two time periods being depicted on stage at the same time. Should the audience not understand this concept, they would have a hard time understanding the irony of the entire act. In this case, viewing the show a second time would be beneficial. At a second viewing an audience member would be able to appreciate the story more because they would already understand from the beginning that the man and woman dressed in black are narrators and that Mag and Joe are acting out of the past.
Seeing the play a second time would also help bring the other characters mentioned in the play to life. The play Lovers is filled with many facts and names that can potentially be lost in the dialogue. I know that I never paid much attention to what was said about the parents and friends of both characters until about a week into rehearsal. Since Mag and Joe were the only characters that actually appeared on stage, I naturally disregarded most of the other characters that were brought up in conversation. However, I think that by seeing the show twice, the audience would pay more attention to she names of the parents and friends because of their familiarity, and would thus be able to gain a better understanding of the outside world and family life of the two characters. After all, an interesting aspect of the play is the relationship between the two characters and their parents and how that affects how they relate to each other.
Therefore, I think that a play like Lovers deserves being watched more than once. I agree that an audience member that goes to see a show only once can walk out of the theatre feeling entertained or amused. However, going and seeing a show more than once can teach an audience member more about the worlds of the characters and the situations at hand. After all, a worth-while play will never cease to engage and give insight to the audience – even after repetitive viewings.
