Remember, by all accounts, when Wallace took control of the courtroom with his “testimony,” it was generally regarded as rambling and tedious. I think you, Jeff Bishop, should take control of the material. Exercise your taste and discretion. Make us care.
I’ve read this Act I draft, so now let me say something more particular that’s not just reflecting a knee-jerk reaction. I do appreciate the way you have woven action into the testimony, particularly with your depiction of the actual abduction of Turner, etc.
I guess I don’t find Wallace’s account (I assume based on the trial transcript) very compelling at the outset. If the audience goes in knowing some of the details of the events surrounding the crime, investigation and trial, and if it is announced that the “play” is based on the actual transcripts, then, yes, the beginning takes on a certain curious fascination; but as a beginning for a contained piece of dramatic art, in my opinion, it works against itself. Yes, the audience is eventually filled in somewhat, but I think you may be assuming everyone will get up to speed quickly.
I think you, the “author,” have an opportunity to create a more driving and compelling expectation as the stage events unfold. The charm and quirkiness and absurdity of what’s in the transcript is too hit and miss. More “theatrical shape,” like what you did with the actual abduction, seems needed.
At present it’s all too much just an historical curiosity. But I’m just one reader.
No, I think you’re right. I’ve decided to take a somewhat different approach, so I re-wrote this act this weekend. I’ll be sharing some of the results shortly. Thank you so much for reading, and for your thoughtful and honest response!
Mmmm. I’ve taken but a small taste, but looking forward to more. I’ll get back with you a few pages from now.
Thanks, man!
Where is take 1?
Are we gathering this weekend?
Remember, by all accounts, when Wallace took control of the courtroom with his “testimony,” it was generally regarded as rambling and tedious. I think you, Jeff Bishop, should take control of the material. Exercise your taste and discretion. Make us care.
We can gather any time this weekend. Turf and I are going to Nitwits tonight, but there’s afterwards, and Saturday and Sunday.
I’ve read this Act I draft, so now let me say something more particular that’s not just reflecting a knee-jerk reaction. I do appreciate the way you have woven action into the testimony, particularly with your depiction of the actual abduction of Turner, etc.
I guess I don’t find Wallace’s account (I assume based on the trial transcript) very compelling at the outset. If the audience goes in knowing some of the details of the events surrounding the crime, investigation and trial, and if it is announced that the “play” is based on the actual transcripts, then, yes, the beginning takes on a certain curious fascination; but as a beginning for a contained piece of dramatic art, in my opinion, it works against itself. Yes, the audience is eventually filled in somewhat, but I think you may be assuming everyone will get up to speed quickly.
I think you, the “author,” have an opportunity to create a more driving and compelling expectation as the stage events unfold. The charm and quirkiness and absurdity of what’s in the transcript is too hit and miss. More “theatrical shape,” like what you did with the actual abduction, seems needed.
At present it’s all too much just an historical curiosity. But I’m just one reader.
No, I think you’re right. I’ve decided to take a somewhat different approach, so I re-wrote this act this weekend. I’ll be sharing some of the results shortly. Thank you so much for reading, and for your thoughtful and honest response!