I've been somewhat perplexed by the rather modest level of apparant interest in theatre writing in WW, and remain surprised that so many talented writers as I have found here have not considered writing for this most remarkable of forms.

So...to see if I can kick off some thoughts around what theatre can (should?) be about, and why you might consider stage writing as an option for some of your burning ideas, here's a favourite passage on the subject of tragedy by one of the (flawed) greats, Eugene O'Neil:

I have an innate feeling of exultance about tragedy. The tragedy of Man is perhaps the only significant thing about him. What I am after is to get an audience to leave the theatre with an exultant feeling from seeing somebody on the stage facing life, fighting against the eternal odds, not conquering, but perhaps inevitably being conquered. The individual life is made significant just by the struggle. The struggle of Man to dominate life, to assert and insist that life has no meaning outside himself where he comes in conflict with life, which he does at every turn; and his attempt to adapt life to his own needs, in which he doesn’t succeed, is what I mean when I say Man is the hero. If one out of ten thousand can grasp what the author means, if that one can formulate within himself his identity with the person in the play, and at the same time get the emotional thrill of being that person in the play, then the theatre will get back to the fundamental meaning of the drama, which contains something of the religious spirit which the Greek theatre had—and something of the exultance which is completely lacking in modern life. -- Eugene O’Neil

Discuss

:-)

Tim, this is a very personal view... as I suppose everyone else's response will be. I write novels because I enjoy the wholeness of them - the control, I suppose. I like to create the complete picture; the scene, the atmosphere and the emotions as well as the dialogue and actions. That's why I don't write for the stage. It uses a whole different set of muscles.

It's possible that we're looking at this from the wrong angle... maybe - dare I say it? - WW doesn't attract theatre writers in the same way it does poets and fiction writers...

Just a thought.
Dee

Tim, nice way to kick-start the theatre writing debate. I do think, though, one answer to this re. WriteWords is that theatre writers are out there in their thousands (well, at least many hundreds) but by its nature, theatre writing doesn't work so well on the web- and many theatre writers tend to gravitate towards workshops or new writing venues who run projects where you can have your work read. And unfortunately we haven't found a way of duplicating that just yet...! And it's probably a lot more difficult to critique or respond to a whole play or even an act online, whereas we are obviously used to reading prose and poetry. But keep it up.... we're currently planning more interviews with theatre practitioners, including actor/writer/designer types, to give that slightly different take on theatre writing, so thanks for that suggestion earlier.

Dee, I think you're right: it is a different set of muscles. But I did not mean to suggest an either/or question about choice of medium, still less a better/worse selection. I have nothing but admiration (and not a little envy) for writers of novels and short fiction (how I wish I could write in those forms!); what I was really driving at was a sense that some of the delightful material I have read among the submissions here suggest to me very strong possibilities for stage, perhaps in some instances even stronger than as prose fiction, and wanted to provoke some consideration of the medium of stage, and what it might mean to writers now.

Partly, I own, this reflects my own particular experience. I had written a string of utterly undistinguished short pieces and a genuinely execrable novel before, by chance, I was reluctantly dragged off one evening to see a play (The Iceman Cometh, many years ago at the National)--I was unexpectedly and wholly blown away by the experience, couldn't believe so much could be achieved in so circumscribed a time and place, and have not ceased since endeavouring to learn what I could of that craft. And I can't help wondering if there are not others, somewhat as I had, who have simply overlooked the medium of stage.

My own feeling, for what it's worth, is 'horses for courses,' some stories seem to me a natural fit for stage rather than prose, for others very clearly the reverse. This might be just me, I don't know, but I enjoy arguing the case.

More significantly, I have a nagging worry about what theatre represents in the 21st century. Certainly, even Aristotle highlighted 'spectacle' as an essential ingredient, though for much of the West End and Broadway, that seems the focus, and I find that a little depressing sometimes. Theatre isn't merely entertainment (though I hope it is always that), but something, at its best, which is utterly transcendent and (dare I say it?) sacred. But then, I guess I really am something of an old fart, after all.

The real thought here: theatre is the crucible of character, and character, surely, is the heartblood of story-telling--which is why I would like to tempt more storytellers, working in whatever medium, to have a crack at stage: it might be more rewarding than you think!

Best

Tim

Anna, we were posting at the same time, so I missed your entry before. I agree, theatre writing is harder to represent on the web, though it's worth the effort, and I think WW has some magnificent resources for writers of drama.

And it's true that reading a playscript is altogether different from reading anything else. When I first started reading plays, I found it quite difficult and (you will laugh at this--I do, now!) for a time had to resort to a device in order to follow the action in writers like Ibsen and Shakespeare: I had an old chess set, and I would label the pieces after the characters in the play in order to bring the characters on and off 'stage' (my desk) as directed, as I otherwise couldn't keep straight who witnessed what in the action of the play. Sounds silly, I know, but it worked.

But of course, a script is not meant to be read; it is enacted, or it is nothing. So--I'll give some further thoughts--to how WW might pioneer webcast virtual theatre!

Best

Tim

I know what you mean, Tim. I have an unpublished novel which I can see so clearly as a film… not the same as theatre, obviously, but sometimes you just know a story would work so well in a different medium.

Funnily enough, after what you say about character, I think that is what stops me from writing for film or stage. It’s what I meant earlier by control. In a novel I can create fully rounded characters. But in the theatre (and shoot me down if I’m wrong here) you create the basis of a character and then hand it over to an actor and/or director to interpret. I think I could handle that loss of control if I were seeing an adaptation of a published novel because the book would be there in print, preserving my original concept. (lots of money would help too ) In theatre, though, there wouldn’t be that stepping stone.

I’m sure plenty of other members will feel quite differently and only need a little encouragement.

Good luck,
Dee.

Interesting Dee - I last wrote for the stage in 1998 and previous to that I wrote several fringe plays, one in particular was quite sucessful with productions in London, Edinburgh, Melbourne and Off Off Broadway. What I learned from that experience was very humbling. When I had a great cast the play worked brilliantly, when we didn't get it right it was a bloody mess. So for me, what I'm saying is a theatrical piece has a lot of contributers. The director, designer, stage manager and of course the actors all go to making or breaking your work. Whenever I did rewrites I was unsure as to whether or not to include bits of business added by actors or directors because I knew deep down, though my words may have inspired them, at the end of the day other people had improved on the original.

Julie

Once upon a time there was a story which needed to be told; it found a person to tell it & arranged for that person to invite along others in order that the story might be heard. The people who liked the story went away with a burning desire to pass it on and, to achieve this, gathered together further groups of people to hear it. They also liked the story and went away with a burning desire............The story became extremely famous and well loved, which made it very happy, as it had made the people who heard it happy.
This is a huge debate, which would require, and has produced, many scores of books to elucidate, but, the above is the root impulse behind what all of us do; many poems in particular, I find, are what Samuel Beckett called dramaticules: miniature pieces of theatre; it comes after all, in many shapes and sizes. The first 'play' was a story, a monologue; then someone thought, what if there was another bloke telling the story and maybe not always agreeing: dramatic conflict was born.......etc.
Anyone feeling theatre to be an alien discipline, should look at a short story or poem they have written which possesses a clear narrative voice, and simply imagine someone standing in front of a bunch of others telling it to them. That's theatre!


Best,

Mike

Thanks to all for such interesting thoughts--much appreciated, as I struggle with my own musings on the topic! I'm not arguing a case here at all, just musing aloud (and armed with a keyboard).

And the thought occurs, if character is the prime 'stuff' of storytelling, the differences in media are differences in how one gets at character. Someone (can't for the life of me remember who, alas) once said something along the lines of, you never know anything about a man from what he tells you about himself, because (1) he probably doesn't really know that much about himself, and (2) he won't tell you the real truths about himself which he does know, anyway (i.e., we don't know ourselves, but do lie about ourselves). And that, to me, seems pretty accurate about how we know people: it is through their actions we know people best, indeed, know ourselves the best, because our actions spring from our choices, and our choices spring (perhaps more directly than anything else) from our ultimate characters.

I think some mistake a play as a novel with 'just the dialogue,' which is very far from the truth (though I can think of a few really bad plays which really are only dialogue! In fact, I've written a few of those bad plays!). Really, a play is about revealing character by portraying the choices/actions to which character give rise--and the higher the dramatic tension, the more at stake in the choices, the greater the revelation of character--or something like that. For me (and it really is personal inclination, not a right or wrong choice), I find the interior POV available to the novelist can be less illuminating, at least for some stories. An example I've used before: imagine a 1st-person narrated novel by Hamlet--what a bore! But put to that same character the drama of a choice--what do you do when your usurping uncle murders your dad?--and KAZARK! not only Hamlet's character, but aspects of deep human nature are illuminated like nothing else.

...I'll shut up now--but thanks to all for your responses, its all fascinating to me

Best

Tim

Hi Tim,
This is a fascinating subject and will continue to be discussed in generations to come by generations to come. I know what you mean about the creativity seen in the work of writers of fiction and poetry being the basis for possible stage material. However the chasm that exists is that writing for the stage is akin to providing all the ingredients, all the recipe instructions, all the 'ways' in which these go together but the finished product depends upon the expertise and creativity of other people... it is the teamwork that matters and even the most brilliant and emotionally persuasive the original script may be, the end result could fail as 'good theatre'.

It is not easy to discuss stage scripts in such media as WW for unless one has had experience in the world of Theatre, comments are unlikely to be truly
helpful.

Len

Julie, why don't you upload some of your theatre pieces? Are you working on any new plays?

Best

Tim

Morning Tim, I might upload, I'll have to join the theatre group first. I'm co writing a play, well a one woman show with a performer for this years Edinburgh Festival, will start work on it in the coming weeks. Most of it is already written but it needs a huge rewrite.

Best

Julie

Len, thanks for your thoughts here; indeed, there is always the extra dimension of performance which can, when it goes wrong, feel like something that stands in the way of the written creation. But it's also the case (and, optimist that I am, also believe to be the case far more often) that the performance enhances the written creation, a good director, designer and cast uncover truths in the text overlooked even by the writer.

Put another way: it's not too hard for a poor production to ruin a great script, but virtually impossible for a good production to salvage a crap script!

Best

Tim

Julie, liking the sound of your Edinburgh-bound show- how about keeping a sort of online diary-type thing for the site about your experience? Having just had my latest play produced, I kind of wish I'd done that, but as always, only think that afterwards, and once it's gone... And do join the Theatre Writers group- the more the merrier. This might be straying a little off Tim's thread, but if people see good new theatre, tell us about it- we can add a review section akin to Books, so we can all share thoughts about lively new writing for the stage. Good idea?

Excellent idea, Anna!

And Julie, do please join the Theatre Group!