2. Why do you think that Ralph responds so powerfully to Nancy's calm visit with him when he has never before stated that he felt bad about any of his victims or their families?
3. Do you think, in a twisted way, that Agnetha is very sympathetic and close with Ralph out of a vague need for an emotional "rebound?"
4. Many reviews of the Broadway performance of this play state that Lavery could have done a better job of making the play "as memorable as it could have been." Do you think, given the subject matter of the play, she could have written the play in a more powerful style?
5. Why do you think that although Nancy is a very functional leader of her FLAME group, she seems completely unable to keep up her relationships with the remainder of her own family?
6. Why do you think that Lavery waited until late in the play to reveal Agnetha's personal matters when the personal matters of the other characters were present from the beginning? Did you find it distracting? (You thought you should be focusing on Nancy or Ralph but just wanted to find out what was up with Agnetha)
7. Why do you think that, as time goes on, Nancy seems to grow more bitter, whereas most parents of missing children seem more eager to let things go as time goes on?
8. Do you think that Nancy ACTUALLY forgives Ralph or just says it to convince herself?
9. What do you feel is the significance, if any, of Ralph's connection with his tattoos?
10. What do you think of the "sound effects" written in by Lavery? (ice crashes in the background, sound of machinery, etc.)
The play did kind of throw me off when it went into detail about Nancy's and Ralph's personal lives because Agnetha is the first character we meet, and, so, I thought we would've heard more from her in the beginning. But, I didn't mind it too much because it kept me interested and in suspense about when Agnetha was going to open up to the reader/audience.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wasn't surprised about her and David being in love because they were spending too much time with each other to say nothing sparked between them; I was just waiting on the playwright to confirm it. I just wished that he wasn't married and that he wouldn't've died.
I also kind of thought that her and Ralph were going to have something between them, but, I guess he's too sick in the mind for her. I just felt that she had a compassion and pity on him that turned into a liking or love for him. It might just be my perception; I'm a hopeful romantic, and I always try to find a way for people to fall in love, even if others look at it in a sick or perverted way.
Do you think, in a twisted way, that Agnetha is very sympathetic and close with Ralph out of a vague need for an emotional "rebound?"
ReplyDeleteI think that she is because even I felt something for him as I read. I'm not saying that it wasn't his fault, but I totally understand why Agnetha felt like she did. Ralph began just as an experiment and ovetime, he became a person to Agnetha and losing David helped create that bond between them. There was obviously something there, but I dont think it would've gone to far because Agnetha would've put a stop to it...or the guard would've finally had something to do.
Why do you think that Ralph responds so powerfully to Nancy's calm visit with him when he has never before stated that he felt bad about any of his victims or their families?
I think that Ralph is struct by Nancy's visit because it showed him that someone cared; not particuarlly for him, but about what he did. I don't think Ralph knew what love was, I mean, he said he did but we all know his mind was a mess and I'm almost certain that raping little girls doesn't count but it may have been that replacement for him. As sick and twisted as this sounds, maybe the molesting and raping were substitutes for the hole in his heart, and when Nancy came by and told him that she forgave him, that heart took in alot...in fact, it took in TOO much; he was overwhelmed, which is why he brokedown, cried and eventually comitted suicide.
Many reviews of the Broadway performance of this play state that Lavery could have done a better job of making the play "as memorable as it could have been." Do you think, given the subject matter of the play, she could have written the play in a more powerful style?
Yeah, I'm not knockin on her but it was kind of confusing to understand. I liked it, but I think there was romm to make it stronger.
Do you think that Nancy ACTUALLY forgives Ralph or just says it to convince herself?
I think it's to convince herself; Nancy seems to just go with the flow sometimes and I can't blame her because I can't imangine how it'd feel to lose a child, especially a mother-daughter thing. I think does it just because Ingrid wants her too and since Ingrid's all she has left of her family, she mayas well but when she goes and actually does it, I'm not sure she meant it....but if it helped her out, who am I to tell her it's wrong. She may have felt remorse for him and overtime the actual "forgiving" may become true, but I'm not sure it was ginuine at the time....although she got the guy to kill himself.
What do you feel is the significance, if any, of Ralph's connection with his tattoos?
Each tat is a crime, a life...a mistake. It's kind of ironic, he cared more about his tats than he did his victims.
I feel that there is a huge significance with Ralph's tattoos. It allowed him to hold on to the children after they were dead. I think, for him, it was almost a little ritual. All of his tattoos had a lot of religious symbolism so maybe for him this was a way of dealing with some sort of feeling of wrong-doing in the eyes of god. Like he was recognizing and maybe even being proud of being this "demon". I thing the pain of it also held some importance for him. He always counted the needles. I think this added to the ritual of the whole process. Like he suffered for his cause.
ReplyDelete4. Many reviews of the Broadway performance of this play state that Lavery could have done a better job of making the play "as memorable as it could have been." Do you think, given the subject matter of the play, she could have written the play in a more powerful style?
ReplyDelete- I definitely think Lavery could have done a much better job making the play, especially after reading the Gladwell article. Before reading, Gladwell's article, I thought the play was interesting and moving. After reading the article, "Something Borrowed", I felt gipped. I loved the main line - "The difference between a crime of evil and a crime of illness is the difference between a sin and a symptom." It pains me to know that the playwright did not even write one of the best parts of the play. It's even worse that she did not credit Gladwell for his words or Lewis for her life accounts. I admire Gladwell for his positivity and for allowing her to build a drama off of his old works.
After reading "Something Borrowed" I think I was reminded about how constantly people complain about things. I understand that Agnetha was based on Lewis and that Lavery stole her words and her life and yadiyadiyada blahblahblah, but what's the real issue? The fact that Lavery plagerized (and isn't very creative) has been established, but the real question is what is plagarism. The dictionary defines it as "the wrongful appropiration, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work." Basically, is copy-catting without crediting and I understand why this is an issue but think about it....don't we do it everyday. Everything we've said, heard, wrote,drawn, typed, texted, whatever; it's all been done before. Now grantite, what you do may be different from someone else, but EVERYBODY ELSE? I find that hard to believe because they're billions of people on this Earth now and they're were billions of people before us. The concept of being creative is creative in itself because unless you get lucky and invent something new, you probablly have to work from a basic, simple, OLD idea. Yes, you've tweaked it, may have even obliterated it, started from scratch and came out with a result that was significantlly better, but as incredible as that sounds, you still used someone else's idea. That doesn't sound like much, but according to the dictionary, it's plagiarism and according to the law, it's a crime. If you ask me, that's ridiculous;you can only do so much because even though we have "endless opportunities", we're still kind of limited. I could debate this all day lol, but I'll makeit short- back to Lavery. Yeah, what she did was wrong and I still don't get how she couldn't aknowledge her mistake, but I don't think Lewis should've been that upset. She didn't even want to go to the show! And when she finally went to see it, she had a problem with it...I'm just saying,that sounds like bitchn to me. I'm not mad at her for the affair thing though because I see the logic behind that, but besides that, are you kidding me? If anybody has a problem with the play it should be Gladwell because it's based on his words, which was based on Lewis's life...so did they both plagirize? I'm just having fun with this because court cases just mean money to me and this problem could've been solved behind closed doors-sorry for all the mispelled words.
ReplyDeleteI think there's some really good comments on here, guys. Good job.
ReplyDeleteCaroline: Was it the words Lavery used that moved you, or the context within which those words appeared? I ask because it is annoying that Lavery didn't write the words, but I end up agreeing with Gladwell that it's hard to be mad given that the words end up having so much more resonance because of the context within which they're used (timing in the play, repetition at the end). Reasonable people can disagree about this, but I guess I'd just like to know whether what moved you about the lines were the words that were chosen or how they were employed.
Donavon: Do you think that, if money had not been involved, Lewis would have been more justified about her anger toward Lavery?
Brooke: Would you go so far as to say Ralph was, in some ways, the closest thing Frozen has to a Christ figure?
Touche Neal. I agree, the words moved me because of the context within which they were used, without it they are just words, but with it they mean so much more.
ReplyDelete@ Neal: I don't know, I don't think the money aspect would change alot of people's views but it would sure change mine. I don't think it's right when someone wants money for a problem that can be solved instantly and easily.No matter what, she's justified.She still has a right to be angry at Lavery because it basically is her life on stage and to me, her just stating that ment alot more to me than the whole lawsuit thing. Maybe I'm just a corny, moral kind of guy. I know it sounds crazy but I just don't respect people who sue for every little thing; I'm not saying Lewis is like that, but that was my first impression of her after reading this article and even she knows how important impressions are. So more justified, maybe, but it would've changed my perspective of her for sure.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite section of part 2 in "Backwards and Forwards" is when Ball described character a.k.a. the thing that can't be described. Ball says that character should be determined by the actor and the actions of the actor on stage. He also states that the less description of a character a script has, the better. The actor should develope the traits and characteristics needed to play a part because if the specifics are already there then it is extremely difficult to cast. The author was very thorough in this section, and although I feel alot of the stuff he said was common sense, it was stuff I wouldn't even think about like the bones thing. I think this is my favorite part because I can relate to it now; I've been on stage before, but it was for various other things, never a real production. This semester I was casted in the Electric Nigger and my character, Bill, is...interesting. I don't know who he is, what he does or what he likes(apparently I was perfect for the part) so I kind of get to create him. All I know is that he's a student and from there, he's literally whatever I want him to be: classclown,gangster,nerd,athlete,etc. He can even be a combination of them all because there are no boundries; the actor creates the character. I think I'm going to have fun with this and on a personal note, y'all should all come see me, just saying.
ReplyDeleteWhile we were talking about Ball today, I kept thinking about a conversation me and my friends were having this weekend. We were discussing how to play the worldwide game some call "dating." If you go out one Friday, meet a guy, and go home with him that night, the relationship is doomed from the start. Where is the intrigue, the mystery, the suspense? Similarly, in a play you must use a forward to keep the audience on the edge of their seat, keep them interested. In terms of dating, a forward is a flirty text that may or may not lead to an exciting end. Maybe it’s a bit crude, but I thought it was an interesting metaphor.
ReplyDeleteHannah, in my experience meeting someone at a bar is a horrendous idea.
ReplyDeleteBut do you think, in your analogy, that alcohol is a "forward" of a sort?
Ball Part 2:
ReplyDeleteI'm not an actor or a theatre person so, I'm not in on all the theatre lingo and methods. I thoroughly appreciate and approve of Ball's writing style. He breaks down each term and definition so that anyone, even non theatre people can understand. It should honestly be titled "How to Understand Theatre for Dummies." While reading Shakespeare's plays, I do feel somewhat compelled to read on. I now understand that there is a method to this playwright's madness. Shakespeare along with many playwrights use forwards to "arouse the audience's interest in things yet to come." (Ball, Backwards and Forwards) While reading Ball's explanation of forwards, i said, "Oh, so that's how they do it."
Real quick on plagiarism: I agree with Donavan to an extent. Everything is taken from something else. Creativity is putting a new spin on it. I think plagiarism is really a problem when it inhibits creativity, like Gladwell said. So, plagiarism should be less about the actual theft of word choice and syntax than it is about the thought put behind the theft. Personally, I thought that Lavery was a little stupid, yes, to not see the apparent plagiarism in her article. However, her spin on it was unique. She turned nonfiction into art. Isn't that what we do with biopics in the movies? In most cases, we just wait until the person is dead to publish it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Gladwell is a pretty chill dude. I pretty much found myself agreeing with all of his arguments. Did anybody else feel like that? If I were Lewis, I would just write something in response to the play and send it to a newspaper to be published: "Dear World: This is not my life. Despite clear similarities between myself and a certain character, I am not a crazy, murderous, jealous bitch. I did not have an affair with my partner or fall in love with a child murderer. In fact, it is safe to say I have my shit on lock. Lavery, I think, was doing that artsy thing wherein a person takes creative license and makes stuff up. Hence, different character names. In fact, seeing that I am a psychologist and my opinion is legit, I am going to say that she is probably the crazy person in this story. End of story. Thanks, Dorothy (not from Oz)."
... that was fun to write.
Anyway, it would have been more graceful, and funnier, and more memorable. It would also have allowed a good play to be seen as just that: a good play.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteFrozen, to me, is about life being hard. People die, children get molested, terrible things happen, people are crazy. But it's also about having to deal with those difficulties, about having to forgive life, yourself, other people, the human condition... Everything. And move on.
Gladwell made a really interesting insight when he said that Frozen is about becoming unfrozen. It's a theme running through each character's story: Stuck in stasis, each character has to (or is forced to) overcome their internal conflict and face the outside world with a new perspective.
Nancy had to go through with the apology to prove to herself that she could do it, she could forgive him, she could face her life without fear or regret. It was an insincere motion, but it's like forcing yourself to pick up a pen before even knowing what you're going to write — you have to start somewhere in order to finish. Right?
I think Nancy having problems connecting with her family is a symptom of broken families everywhere. There's something about that empty hole in the family that is hard to overcome. In a family, status and connections are set in each member's mind from the time they are born, like a maze of yarn looping around each member and meshing together to form a giant web. When one family member is disconnected, reaching past the tangled, broken string left behind to connect with someone close becomes hard, exhausting, and ultimately a little scary. Who you are to each other becomes confusing. What's your role? What's your purpose? I think Nancy is focusing more on strings being broken than she is about tying them back together again.
Ralph's tattoos reinforce his deviant character. The religious characters are mixed with non-religious characters, Madonna and Child, Grim Reaper, Sunburst Dagger of Death, Angels vs. Demons on a leafy background... a leafy background? I mean, seriously, what does that even mean? It just shows how skewed Ralph's view of the world is. The mad, also, are pretty down with the whole religion thing, and usually have their own mixed up ideas about it.
Although guilt certainly had something to do with it, Agnetha was probably in love with David. I think she just hated hated hated that after she finally got him, after they both finally gave in, he died. She blamed herself, she blamed him, she blamed Mary. But she really, really, really hated herself.