!@#$&

What an incredibly aggravating, art-stifling class we had this afternoon. What an irresponsibly managed conversation. A student’s play was read aloud and discussed. It was the third play we have discussed and the first with a central character driven by a clear and strong objective, the first with clear stakes, the first with build and flow.

And what do we do? We tell him a multiple-act play should not have blackouts or scene changes. Huh? We suggest that he shouldn’t have multiple locations. What? We posit that there are extraneous scenes. No. None of these things are true.

I am frustrated because there are no guidelines for student reactions to these works. Many of the students in the room have little to no experience with theatre and yet they are given leave not to just ask questions but to tell their peers what they should be doing to fix their scripts.

It is absolutely not true that a blackout is an inherently bad thing. We’re simply being expected to cater to an individual's preferences. This is exactly why courses devoted to creativity require vigilance. This kid’s work is better than his peers and now he’s going to go back to the drawing-board to strip things down, rearrange scenes, cut locations, shift focus and remove scenes.

We are just sitting around throwing out “what-ifs” for narratives. We could do that all day long. Why are we writing each others stories?

"Maybe a dog could come in from outer-space."
"What if we swapped main-characters?"
"What if..."

Why aren’t we just asking questions or identifying areas that might need clarification?

(Ok...I have edited this rant a bit. Well, I edited it considerably. I believe that what remains is reasonable.)

Ughhhhhhhh.