Edward Albee

   I like to appreciate things at face value. History, backgrounds, fabrics, etc all just complicate and divert me from the true meaning of a piece of art. For example, knowing that Vincent Van Gogh cut off his ear is the dominant feature that jumps out at me every single time that I look at one of his paintings. Without knowing this fact, I would probably love his artwork. However, I truly can't enjoy his work after knowing that gory detail. 

    Plays are like this for me as well. I love to sit and read or watch plays. However, perhaps the exception being Shakespeare, I truly don't want to know everything about the playwright. I loved the documentary about Edward Albee. I found him to be an interesting person, and his process of writing a play is fascinating. However, I would much rather form my own opinion and interoperation of his plays that listen to his. While his most be the most "accurate," the emotions I feel the first time I see or read a play are true to me. 

Lysistrata

      Simply from the title "Lysistrata,"as I picked up my text book I expected to read an ancient play with ancient themes. While I believe that much of literature loses it's meaning with time, Lysistrata is a rare example of a piece of writing that is timeless. The themes and values it contains relate to both ancient and modern human desires, needs, and experiences. Love, war, and relationships have and always will be major aspects of human life.
      I really liked the story and plot of Lysistrata. I found Lysistrata, the character, to be witty and amusing, which surprised me coming from an old play. Because she was so unusual and unique for her time period, she kept me engaged, wanting to know what she was going to do next. I had expected to read about resigned women who fulfilled their role in society.

Lysistrata

Lysistrata is not what I expected from my first thoughts of a Greek play. I have only ever been exposed to Greek tragedies. Despite the fact that I knew it was a comedy, because of its classical nature, I still expected some type of formal tone. I was very surprised with the casual and almost crude nature of much of the dialogue and events. The introduction indicated that this is typical of Greek comedies, which I find very interesting. I also noticed their portrayal of women. Though Lysistrata is a strong character for the most part the women come of as rather silly. Knowing that male actors played these roles I can’t help but wonder if this reflects the Greek view of women and their status in any way.

Another detail I noticed was the voice of Lampito. I assume her accent indicated in the dialogue is due to the fact that she is Spartan whereas Lysistrata is from Athens.  I though it was very curious that the translators seemed to give her something like an American southern accent. Perhaps, I was just reading incorrectly but this does seem like an interesting decision that couldn’t have directly come from the Greek text.

Edward Albee

Having never read one of his plays I cannot judge Mr. Albee on his abilities as a playwright, but based on his personality I must say that I’m not a fan. Mr. Albee seems rather conceited and caught up in his own genius. Though I must say I found the interviewer annoying as well, I didn’t think Albee handled his more annoying questions very gracefully and seemed resistant to a lot of them.

He did seem to have an impressive life, one very suited for deriving inspiration from. His position as an adopted child, his problems at home, and then his very independent youth, all serve as very inspiring and interesting events.

One detail of the interview I found interesting was his connection with other artists. They spoke of many famous artists he lived near in New York and his friendship with Tennessee Williams. I find the fact that so many of these, almost larger then life, legendary artists all interacted.

Lysistrata

In all honesty, I was not looking forward to reading an ancient Greek play. I was terrified that the English translation would be hard to follow,  and that I would be unable to follow the plot because I do not know much about ancient Greek history. However, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that not only is the play fairly easy to follow, but also the play is extremely humorous as well (particularly the scene with Kinesis and Myrhine).

            While reading the play, I pictured that male actors played all of the female characters because there were no female actors during Aristophanes lifetime (specifically for some reason I pictured that Lysistrata was played by Robin Williams as his character in Mrs. Doubtfire).

            While Lysistrata rejects the female stereotype and is “…positively ashamed to be a woman,” she exploits women as sexual creatures, insinuating that women are only good for sex. I found this to be somewhat contradicting because while Lysistrata rejects the female stereotype, she also encourages the women to play up the classic stereotype that a woman’s greatest role to a man is related to sex.
            On a different note, I thoroughly enjoyed the role that the Choruses had the play particularly because I did not pick up on the purpose of the chorus until the second read through. Not only did the chorus add comic relief to the play, but I also appreciated that the chorus particularly mirrored the action of the play. As the tension between the female and male characters increased, so did the fighting between the female and male choruses. I also appreciated the fact that Aristophanes brought the chorus together once peace was reached in Greece. 

Lysistrata

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Lysistrata. Although I was not able to follow all of the set directions and other details, I did grasp the main components of the play and I was able to follow the plot. The concept of the chorus was somewhat confusing, as I was unsure at times of whose perspective they were speaking from.

I found the play to be surprisingly entertaining, given the fact that it was written over two thousand years ago in a society and culture much different from our own. I was especially surprised by the plays on words that translated so fluidly form the Greek into our modern lexicon.  I appreciated the lack of subtlety when they were discussing the more risqué aspects of the comedy. I find that this honesty in dealing with touchy subjects (just saying it, rather than dancing around the subject) is notably absent in our postmodern culture where we do not want to offend anyone’s morals.

I was also surprised that women were shown in such a powerful position. I have not taken a history class on ancient Greece in years, so it was reassuring to know that women at least had some rights, even in ancient societies (although those privileges and rights were diminished and changed over the years).

I am curious to know whether the play, at the time of its premier in Greece, was seen as risqué or avant-garde, or whether the subject matter and method of display were taken as normal and conventional. 

Interview with an Albee

Mr. Albee seemed a little too conceited and self-righteous for me to want to go and read one of his plays. He spent time talking about his upbringing, and how his plays are a critique of the upper class society/culture he was raised in, yet the way he presents himself is the same way a stereotypical bourgeois academic would: the aspect of society he is criticizing is the same one he seems to be happy to be a part of in his interview.

His mannerisms aside, I do respect Mr. Albee’s ability and genius in writing plays. He has obviously had many successes and his contributions to the “off-off Broadway” movement cannot be overlooked. Also, the theater production group he formed with the money from his commercial success was very helpful for the art of playwrighting in the 20^th century when more and more people were becoming less and less interested in seeing plays.  

I have not read any of his plays, so I cannot personally attest to the quality of his writing, but the critical acclaim he has received over the years hint that there is some genius in them. I would be more interested in going out of my way to read one myself if I had not been so disinterested in him by the way he carried himself.

On a side not, for whatever reason, I was interested in how close he was with Tennessee Williams. I thought it was fascinating knowing that the two were such good friends, and that they had alluded to each other’s works in their own plays. 

Lysistrata

So, Lysistrata was wonderful. A very effortless read with powerful themes on feminism, gender roles and politics. With Lysistrata, Aristophanes achieves something that few writers ever do; timelessness. When the words of a thousand year old play come across to the reader as having a very modern applicability, an incredible thing has happened.

I was truly mesmerized from the first to the last page by the characters and the comedic relevance of the situations they find themselves in. I think it is noteworthy to point out that Lysistrata and Calonice seemed to be divined as the yin and yang of womanly embodiment.

It seems a novel idea to withhold sex as a way of stopping war. I think that this plot mechanism says a lot about the freedom of such thoughts and sexual prowess in ancient Greece, something that makes our modern world seem archaic and stuffy.

Albeetross

Edward Albee is ridiculous. Talented, but ridiculous.

Mr. Albee is a man who is so caught up in his own genius that he comes across as pompous and arrogant, which ultimately does his writing a great disservice. The sheer fact that he behaves the way he does, and SPEAKS the way he does, makes me want to never read his work. It is people such as Mr. Albee who give grave sentiment to the term "first world problems."

So, your life was hard. So, you were adopted. You're a white man in America... GET OVER IT.

I found myself stifling laughs throughout his interview because I felt as though everything he was saying was so out of touch and pathetic. I thought playwrights where supposed to be people watchers. What type of people is Edward Albee watching? Shut-ins with no people skills? Because that is exactly how he behaves.

Lysistrata

            I was surprised by how breezy of a read Lysistrata was, especially considering its age. I think this was due in large part to its modernized translation and to the fact that much of what makes it funny is not specific to any single time or culture. The gender politics that drive the central conflict of the story are the same today as they were at the time the play was originally written. The modernized translation did bother me to some extent, though. While it made things a lot clearer, I couldn’t help but wonder exactly what had been omitted. It seemed to be faithful to the original text, but having never read any other versions of this play, I have no sense of how close it was. This bothered me the most when innuendos came up, as I would have no idea whether the jokes had aged particularly well or if they had been reworded to appeal to a contemporary audience.

Behind the Mustache

After watching the Edward Albee interview I thought I would gain a new sense of appreciation for the man and his work. However, his personal demeanor was too condescending and haughty for me to overlook. He treated the interviewer as if he was a bafoon, a non-playwright unable to understand the subtle nature of great playwrights. Of course a pause can be specific!
One thing that I did not understand was his reluctance to admit his personal history's obviously heavy influence on his work. His play Three Tall Women was modeled after the life of his late adoptive mother, even including his return to her life prior to her death. What about the fact that his adoptive family ran a string of successful vaudeville theaters? Could the fact that he became a writer for the stage have been influenced by an early exposure to theater?
I was, though, rather impressed with his life. He lived during one of the most formative times for artists and was able to rub shoulders with some of the most popular artists of our generation. I am also impressed with his ability to transcend the stage. His works are some of the last highly successful pieces that went from the stage to the big screen and remained profitable.

Lysistrata

I really enjoyed reading this play, because I have heard of it before but I have not read it. What shocked me the most about the play were the sexual innuendos that were spread throughout the whole play. I found myself rereading every line and being shocked about the double meanings. I found the plot of the play to also be very unique, and it was an unexpected plot for a play that revolves around wars. The physical humor and over the top double meanings were funny, because I think plays can sometimes be generalized as being strictly serious. This play put a comedic spin on issues that were really occurring though, like the prevalence of war in Greece.

Overall, I really enjoyed reading Lysistrata because it reflected the stereotypes that men have about women and the other way around. I found it funny that many of those stereotypes are still believed and joked about today. For example, that women are always late. After reading this play, I remembered what the intro to the play said, that at this time in Theater the roles of women were still being portrayed my male actors. When I first read the play, the image I had created featured men and women actors playing their own roles. Thinking back about the play and its dialogue, the fact that the men had to play the women and the men who lusted after the “women” made the play even more amusing to me.

Edward Albee

             Just like the short previews of the plays by Edward Albee seemed interesting, his personality can also be described as interesting. Although he definitely had a sense of arrogance, his personality was not completely off-putting to me. I found it interesting how clearly alcoholism issues of abandonment, and relationships among parents and children were represented in his plays, yet he nonchalantly talked about these issues in the interview. The way he discussed his relationship with his parents and how he dealt with his father’s death were pretty revealing about his character. Yet he did not seem fully comfortable with discussing his own life, even though many of his plays seem to put these issues on display for the whole world to see. I liked that we did learn about his background and his childhood growing up, which proved to be very visible in the plays he wrote. When Albee described his feelings about his family, I did not fully understand why his seemingly pleasant life was not pleasant to him. But after thinking more about it, what appeared to be a “normal” life in the suburbs to me, could have affected him in a different way. I feel like I do not know everything about his life and I can’t judge how traumatic his life was or not.

            Regardless of his personality, his plays did interest me. I thought “Three Tall Women” sounded like a very unique concept, and I would be interested in seeing that play performed. However the “Zoo Story” seemed less interesting but I think this may also be because it was not presented as a full production during the movie.  

Lysistrata

Reading Lysistrata it was hard to read, being there was a lot of words i didnt know. As well as trying to say the characters names in this play was also a bit hard. But i found this play very humorous, and interesting to read. Lysistrata was my favorite charcacter, she didnt give up on what she wanted to do. She fought to get those men back with great power and courage, and the way she decided to do so i found to be very interesting. This was my first play i've raed and i did enjoy it but it was kind of difficult to follow. I believe if i had a better understanding of most of the words used in this play i would have had a much better understanding on some of the scenes. This play in away make you think about how some women and men relationships or now in today's world. I look foward in reading other palys as good as this one but hopefully with a better understanding of some of the vocabulary written.

Lysistrata

In contast the my last post, which included an unfavorable opinion of Albee, I actually found Lysistrata a good read. As one of my first plays read, it was a bit tough to follow. I actually tried to ignore who was speaking and analyzing the characters and instead just read the text and tried to paint a picture of what was happening. I'm sure eventually I will have to focus on the text of each character, but that will come in time.
The theme of this play is comedic as well as much of the text. By introducing the fact that women are withholding sex in the prologue, I was interested in reading the rest of the play. The plot thickens when the women get in the way of national defense at the treasury, and this is just the beginning of the men's suffering. Eventually, the men are so desperate that their "sex drive" is a visual phenomenom, which was hilarious. In today's very politcally correct world, I found this refreshing.
I also enjoyed the conversation between Lysistrata and the Commissioner because for every complaint/excuse/request of the commissioner, Lysistrata shuts him down with a quick response. She basically puts some sense into the commissioner who probably assumed he was a very powerful man until he felt powerless after talking with the women.
Also, I liked to see references to the ancient gods and mythology. On page 176, Charon and river Styx are mentioned.
Overall, I was glad I read this play. I hope the rest of the plays this semester will continue to grab my attention with the same cleverness as this one.

Albee

When Prof Parent mentioned that Albee was one of her favorite modern playwrights, I was excited to watch the documentary. However, I had a tough time listening to him talk about his plays and what feelings evoked him to write them. Maybe this goes back to the fact I do not yet have a good understanding of plays, or maybe the type of plays Albee writes are not the type I am accustomed to, i.e. Greek and Roman plays, Shakespeare, etc. I much prefer plays with some action and stage movement rather than two people sitting on a bench reading script to eachother. Those scenes almost seemed fake, so in other words, I feel as if acting is more than reading lines off of a script and attempting to create the persona of the character you are "playing/reading".
Albee himself was an interesting figure. I feel like he played the "I'm an orphan so I deserve more sympathy than others and people will understand my synical thoughts due to credibilty as an orphan"...well I didn't buy into any of that. I do not think one should blame his childhood situation on anyone other than himself. Being an orphan does not give you an excuse to claim all these emotions valid. I'm having a tough time explaining my frustration with him. Before the film, we learned that he is very strict with others performing his plays. Yet he is so arrogant (yes, arrogant) for no reason, I feel like. He has a chip on his shoulder but would never admit it, and that is not something I value in a man. As someone who grew up with military parents, I could not find any similarities between Albee and myself.

Edward Albee

Watching Albee discuss his plays in the beginning of the interview, I was intrigued with his life story and it's influence on his plays. I respect him for turning his negative life events into something positive and using his frustrations and anger in a positive way. 

However, towards the end of the interview, I began to lose interest in Albee. All of his plays (described or shown in short) seem to be about him and his troubled life (although not directly, symbolically). Also, Albee began to show his arrogance. Personally, he began to bore and annoy me. Also, he continually referred to his horrible upbringing, which, in my opinion, wasn't so bad. 

Because I don't know much about Albee (and haven't heard of him until a couple of weeks ago), this only my first impression of him. Maybe I will earn more respect for him after learning more about him and his plays.

Lysistrata

 While I did find the play to be a little hard to follow, I found Lysistrata to be very humorous. I thought the overt sexuality was hilarious and extremely liberal. It was interesting to have these sexual under(and very over) tones because it made me realize that some historical societies were as, or even more, socially advanced than we are now. In opposition, however I found the way women were seen to be very conservative. I also thought this was pretty funny, because things that women and men are stereotyped for were also true. I also could image the Spartan women as having big Southern drawls which made the play come to life in my mind a lot better. I thought the scene with the commissioner, Lysistrata, and the old woman was funny because the old woman was finally saying what she had always wanted to, and was just constantly making jabs at the commissioner while he constantly shut him down. My favorite part was when Lysistrata explained her views on war from the perspective of weaving. The men thought she was being ridiculous, but she made really good points. It was also interesting to see how these thoughts (who were obviously Aristophanes') were being conveyed to the audience in a way that was easily understood by a large audience and was a reasonable commentary on the destruction that war can cause in a household.

Inside the mind of a playwright

What really stood out to be in the interview of Edward Albee that we watched in class was the process in which Albee writes a play. From the idea in his mind, to the final script on paper, Albee describes the process as a translation for the unconscious to the conscious to the page—without writing anything down before getting to the final product. I never realized how much time and thought is put into the creation of a play before it is even drafted on paper. Albee further describes that a play “goes on in his head” for at least 6 months to 3 years before he even writes a word on paper. This concept has given me a new appreciation for plays, and all of the work that playwrights put into every fine detail in order to make the final product what it is.

Albee’s relationship with the characters of his plays also taught me more about what goes into the making of a play from the playwrights’ perspective. Whether Albee consciously or unconsciously does so, many of his plays, including “Three Tall Women,” depicts an unhealthy relationship between children and their parents. This is indubitably connected to Albee’s personal injury of being abandoned by his birthparents and having a poor relationship with his adoptive parents. I can imagine that writing these plays is a form of catharsis for Albee and a healthy way of expressing his emotions without the involvement of alcohol.

Edward Albee

I found Edward Albee to be an interesting character. I can definitely see how he is such a controversial figure, as I started the documentary thinking he was very humorous, and by the end was slightly annoyed with him. I understand that he is a great writer, and had a rough upbringing, but I think that he is using that as a shield. I come from a small suburb similar to the one he grew up in and he made it seem that everyone there was desperately clinging to the stereotypical "American Dream". I know that this is not true, and there are definitely people living that lifestyle who may live geographically in an uppity suburb, but who do not live in the way he portrayed philosophically. I think that he is exploiting his situation and over-exaggerating it to advance himself and his writing. I have no problem with the fact that he had a bad childhood and is inspired by it, but it seemed to be that he is making it seem a lot worse than it is. After watching the scene from Three Tall Women, it felt to me like he also used his writing to forgive himself for leaving his adopted mother when she was ill. He had the woman’s character forgive the son for leaving, and in doing so gave himself closure. I think that Albee is a very funny guy, and I do like him except how he portrays himself as this lost soul who was so isolated from the world, when it appears, especially from his comments on not wanting to find his birth parents even to find out his medial history, that he is isolating himself.

Edward Albee Video

I believe Albee is a great writter, in the video he states many ways he go about writting and conducting a play. Edward Albee seems very protective of any of his work, and i feel ther`s nothing wrong with him doing so. Any person  who puts hard work and meaningful structure into what thye do, should have a way they want it to be done by others over each time. My favorite part in the video is when Albee explains how he composes his being of doing a play. I have never read or seen any of his plays until watching this video and by just watching 5 or 10 minutes of it,  i saw and felt the graet quality of a good play writer. Albee also shares how he was adopted by a family and didnt get along with his adapted parents, so he ran away and led himself into writting plays. I admire how he came from a rough family backround but didnt let that steer his career into a wrong direction. instead he fundexactly who he was and  became a succesful play writtter.

Evan Koehler: Lysistrata Response

My senior year English teacher always rehashed the following: Shakespeare's plays are so important because the themes are timeless. It is amazing to me that, even though created so along ago in the past, Lysistrata is very relevant. The battle and roles of the sexes, argument, war, money---all of those are transcendent things in history. I am, too, in awe at the circle of things. Arguably, today's age is the best is has been for women. Tracing backward, things get worse. But to know that in 411 BC, an important male figure like Aristophanes understood the importance and power of women, and that he could successfully embody the two into characters like Lysistrata, Kalonike and the old women, and that he two wasn't afraid to do so, is thought provoking. The artistry, too, is incredible. With little or hardly no character description, Aristophanes created lucid images in my head of who was important and powerful----only with dialogue as a vehicle. He gives intelligence and wit to women, the practice of which will leave for a more than a few years. He even downplayed the men's alacrity and mental prowess; very infrequently do the Commissioner, Spartan delegate, or old men respond with adequate answers to the women. On a off note, I really liked the choirs aspect. I've never read nor a scene a play in which musical accompaniment is  present and I half-believed I was watching the movie Amadeus while reading. The play starts off with a separation of the sexes, and ends in the opposite scenario. In a play with war as almost its main subject, a peaceful resolution is not what I was suspecting.

Evan Koehler. Response to Edward Albee video

The first half of the video is largely a succession of questions about specific content in Albee's plays, so any information relevant to his writing process mainly comes from the video's later half. A lot of what Albee said is typical of most writers: he said that when actually writing the plays, he is not privy to any specific lines he is interested in and likely to incorporate; characters, like the son in the Three Tall Women, stem from his own life; the concept of a play is made during periods of differing time, et cetera. I am ignorant to any content of his plays, but, judging by their variety and themes, find Edward Albee particularly uninspired and more of an laborer than a creator. In the video, Edward says he was adopted into a fairly affluent family, which he later abandoned. His life after that was spent largely as a writer in New York City; never did Albee spend time in war, engage in journalism, spend significant time abroad (time not having to deal with play production), and I think it is because that lack of attendance to anything character-shaping or organic that I find him aloof and inhuman. A lot of his life seems to be spent in observation and self-effacing practices, which maybe why I particularly disliked what I saw of Three Tall Women. I do not know of Edward Albee for the same reasons I do not know of fringe German Folk bands: the two cater to unique audiences and don't evoke the ordinary man's spirit. Edward Albee's most trying struggle was being adopted into a rich family with a nice home. I should, however, read more of his work before writing something so scathing.

Why Read Plays Response

           I think that Albee brings up a very interesting point in this article. The examples of the conductor and his piece along with the novelist's "sunset" bring Albee's point to light. When one reads a play, everything that that specific playwright put into words is being directly transferred to the reader. Every emotion that the playwright has put into his words brings to life the true feeling of a piece of work. On the other hand, when a play is preformed, a sense of truth and personality can be lost. The work of actors and directors can rob audiences of the emotions that the playwright intended to inspire. As Albee explains in the article, the work of actors and directors can also cause a play to seem greater than the work truly is. In either case, the influence of those involved in a play can cause the original intentions of the playwright to be lost in translation. I do believe, however, that seeing a live play is a unique experience that people should take part in. Although it may not convey the same emotions that the playwright intended, I believe it is important to allow yourself a chance at interpreting emotions through the work of actors and directors. Plays are not novels for a reason, they are meant to be in front of an audience. While I agree that the strongest personal connection to the author comes from reading the text, I still believe that live shows are important in bringing an entire story to life.

Albee Darned, Plays Are Written

Edward Albee considers questioning the reasons behind reading plays in addition to, or in place of, seeing a live performance absurd because he feels so much of the author's intention is lost in translation from the page to the stage. Only through reading a play can someone truly appreciate and visualize what the author intended because a performance is limited by "the minds at work" behind its production. 

While Albee makes several good points concerning the limits of live performances, I disagree with the idea that a performance cannot improve an already great play. Of course visualizing a play as one reads the author's words is great, but is it not as satisfying to see a play performed so tremendously that it gives you a better understanding of what the author was trying to say? Sure everyone gets a little annoyed when a director abuses his or her creative license, but isn't it nice when we see a fresh take on an old favorite? 

Plays are meant for entertainment. Too many times do people get caught up in the technical mumbo jumbo of what is proper and what is the true way to appreciate art that they fail to sit back and actually enjoy the glorious wonder in front of them. Plays, whether written or performed, are meant to allow those who enjoy them a brief escape from the mundane reality that is everyday life.

Why Read a Play

            I agree with Albee on some points, but I disagree with his main contention that the writing itself is far superior to the production. He is right in saying that plays are literature; however, they are literature with an intention of being performed. That is after all the main distinguishing factor between a play and novel in my opinion: one writes a novel so it will be read, one writes a play so it will be read and performed on stage.

            The qualitative differences between reading a play and seeing a production do not, in my opinion, lend themselves to any hierarchal distinctions that subordinate the performance to the reading. Each experience has its own unique perspective, and different elements come into play in each perspective. For example, when reading a play, if the playwright allows room for interpretation in how the set is arranged or how specifically the characters act, then the reader will bring his or her own prejudices into that reading and shape the story through them. Also, when I read a play, the perspective I watch the events transpire from is one in which I am on the stage in the middle of the events as an invisible 3^rd person onlooker.

            When watching a play however, I am fixed in the perspective of an audience member. Watching the play requires less work on my part in creating the scenery and actions in my head, and it also does away with the invisible 3^rd person perspective with which I instinctively read plays. In some plays, the audience is integrated into the actions of the performance, and this element is absent when reading a play.

            In conclusion, it is apparent that reading and seeing plays are two different experiences, but although one may have a personal preference for one over the other, I do not think it is fair to say that one medium is objectively superior. Rather, each lends itself to a unique experience, incorporating different elements and perspectives from which one can draw different meanings and interpretations.

Why Read Plays? response

The fact that the question “Why read plays?” even needs to be posed, is a pretty sad reflection on our current place as a society. Plays, like the many other art forms prevalent in our culture, are created to be enjoyed and to inspire and evoke assorted emotions in their intended audiences. People shy away from plays more than other forms of literature because they are so unique. Through performance they are capable of existing in a different way than just on paper and many may find that intimidating or may see that a reason to skip over reading the actual play.

Albee was very adamant about the contrast between watching a performance and reading the play. She discusses the great influence that the visions of the actors and director can have on a play. When reading, one can see the play as they wish and can really examine all aspects of the plot and characters. However, when viewing a play we are given the directors views and have little or no room to formulate our own. I agree with Albee that there is great value in reading the play and much more can be learned about its actual content than can always be seen in a performance alone.

Why read a play?

In the mind of an inexperienced play reader such as myself, the concept of watching a performance of a play appeals to me much more than reading through a play myself. However, the author of this article brought light to the value and importance of reading a play and envisioning it for yourself. A production that is put on by a director as an “opinion,” can often be misinterpreted and disconnected to the author’s original intent of his work. Differently, a play is 100% how the author wanted his work to be portrayed, and it is up to the reader to interpret the messages and themes for oneself.

            While I do recognize the value of interpreting a play for oneself as opposed to watching the interpretation of a play from the visions of a director, I also think that the author of this article fails to mention the value of performance in society. Playwrights do not write plays so that they can be read—plays are written to be performed in front of a live audience so that they can entertain, edify, and exalt. Nonetheless, I look forward reading plays in this class so that I can interpret them for myself and so that I can have a better understanding for myself of what truly is the reason for reading a play.

Dan Conklin Why Read Plays?

After reading some previous posts and thinking about what we talked about in class last week, I think there should be some debate over whether a play is art or literature, whether literature is an art, whether a playwright is an artist or writer, whether a playwright is an artist for art's sake or businessman/woman selling a product, whether...well I'll stop there.
There are people who enjoy art, in its most common connotation, for the lack of effort it takes to enjoy the art. For example, an casual art gallery attendee may go to simply enjoy the aethetics of the "pictures", rather than toil in trying to interpret its subliminal meanings. However, other attendees may go in search of trying to understand how exactly, in terms of techniques and styles, the artist produced the "picture".
In literature, there are those who enjoy reading and those who do not. Personally, I am one of those people who would never read the book after seeing the movie, nor would I read the book before the movie if I knew that a movie for that book existed.
My point is this: I am a finance major. I like things that are presented to me in clear, concise formats. I do not enjoy trying to interpret and extrapolate ideas in a language I do not understand. I honestly can't say that I understand the language of plays (yet), so I do not see merit in me reading them (at this point in the semester). On the contrary, any of you theatre majors would hate reading financial statements and trying to deduce what they meant.
I understand the author's point in the article, and I will hold off judging whether or not everyone should or should not read plays until I read more myself.

Candace Ross: "Why Read Plays" Response

I agree with the merits of reading a play rather than solely watching a theatrical performance of a play, but the author of this article downplays the benefits of seeing a play acted out. The author brings up the point that actors and directors may interpret a play differently, and that a play be manipulated by a director in ways that do not reflect the playwright’s intentions. However, I don’t find these facts to be deterrents in seeing a play. I agree that reading a play before you see it performed is very important, but seeing a play is just as important to me as reading it. After I read a play and form my own opinion or interpretation, I am often curious as to the perception of others who have read the play. One of the best ways to see how someone else has interpreted a play is to see it performed, which allows not only the director but also the actors to express their own interpretations. The fact that my imagination of what the play should look like or sound like and the imaginations of others who perform the play might not be the same doesn’t bother me. I find it interesting to compare and contrast what I thought the characters, setting, and voices should be with  what others envisioned. In that way it doesn’t matter if a play is “bad” or “good”, because it is still a chance to see a play through someone else’s eyes.

Courtney Journet: Why Read Plays response

Since I haven't read many plays, I can relate most to enjoying novels more than seeing movies based on those novels. Most of the time, like the author describes, the movie doesn't compare to what I imagined in my mind as I read the book. The director's interpretation of the book, or how the director chooses to portray the book on the movie screen, takes away from the original author's work (and the reader's ability to imagine his or her own interpretation--including how the characters look and how their voices sound).

Looking back on the plays that I have read, I feel the same way about them as I do novels. Despite my high school teachers' control of how the Shakespearean plays we read were interpreted, I was still able to enjoy imagining what the plays looked and sounded like. I look forward to gaining more experience reading plays and experiencing what Albee has.

Why Read Plays?

Nothing is as pleasurable to the individual than his or her own imagination. When I read a novel I like to imagine the characters and setting in my own mind. When a novel is made into a movie, such as Harry Potter every individual who ever read the story and imagined it will be satisfied. Maybe Harry is more attractive than you thought. Maybe he is too short. Maybe too serious. Someone, somewhere in the world is going to be disappointed by the director’s interpretation. Although I am an amateur play reader, I imagine it is the same way.  You imagine the props, costume, characters, and lighting in a certain way. If you don’t like what you’re reading maybe it’s a bit less bland. The more you like it, the more extravagant and detailed the setting becomes.

I think that this is what Albee was getting at when he brought up the point that a good play could be ruined in performance, and a bad play could be enhanced by performance. A good story can be ruined by the director’s interpretation, whether they cut out important scenes, or it just differs from how the reader imagined it. Any bad story can be enhanced with interesting props, costumes, and special effects. This “beefing up” of the story takes the audience’s mind away from what they are hearing, and more on what they are seeing. A good actor can compel an audience and convey a character without telling a quality story. 

Why read plays, or anything for that matter?

The lack of readership that plays have been dealing with recently are, I believe, by and large a symptom of our overactive society. Information is consumed at such an exponentially intense pace that the slow, lumbering read of a play just isn't quick enough. Reading is going that way too. Words are being shortened, paragraphs are tighter and quicker to end. Punctuation is nearly a lost art. To add to this the requirement that people actually learn what is a kin to another language, the language of creating a world from words, seems impossible. Asking the questions "Why Read Plays?" is trivial at best. Given the current health of the written arts, I feel the overwhelming response would be, "Why Bother?" I imagine a day when pictures will be too time consuming to view and we will just directly recieve them, beamed to our brains. It appears this is the way things are going. Not necessarily an idea or future I am looking forward to, but the current path, non the less.

Evan Koehler. Why Read Plays? blog

Performance can ruin most art. Frequently, I'm disappointed by a work's interpretation (be it a novel to film adaptation or play to performance. I do not want to say that the middle party--director--always fails to achieve the work's intended representation, but I very rarely find myself more impressed with a theatre performance than the original source. I read, or heard, that nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it and, in this scenario, especially for me, I think that's relevant. When I read a play firsthand, all the information is available to me uncut. Stage direction, how the author wanted to describe people, every nuance. The physical play is what the author wanted to communicate. With a director, a new aspect is added. I love reading and understanding something for myself, because, well, that's what art is for. You. I, however, don't want to take away from how amazing a performance can be. Shakespearean performances can be almost breath-taking; the memorization, research, and preparation of the best performances are truly something to marvel at. Interpretation, in that way, is it's own art. I want to call them two arts because they largely are. In the beginning of the article, Albee says plays are literature. However obvious that is, it's important. You have to read plays before seeing them. First, it's respectful; telling someone a play you saw is horrible closely ties that performance to the play. That will discourage the person from reading the actual play, the event of which could easily impress and provide joy to the reader. Second and lastly, you're more cultured and educated for doing so. Reading first and seeing after enriches your experience; you're privy to more and the play will be a more active, enriching experience for you. I'm never impassioned about something like this, but I do tell people to read the 'original'. I keep wanting to refer to the book-film-adaption, which probably is blasphemy for play critics, but it's very analogous and where I draw my sentiment. Trying to explain to someone why a book or play is better than the movie or performance is impossible; and, in that, I think lies how special the two former are.