Talk:Playwright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cleaned up
I cleaned up the language in the section regarding playwrights vs. directors, but I'm not sure I agree with what is actually said there. I rather think that the director is very important in modern theatre, and that it tends to be the directors vision that gives a play its, well, theatricality. Does any agree? whatever
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13268868,00.html
Classic example of misuse, typical of Sky News
[edit] Remark
Hey folks
I have a remark. in this article "drama" is opposed to "comedy or farce". I have the opinion this is not quite right. You have two big categories in drama: "tragedy" (eg Antigone, Oedipus, etc) and "comedy". This distinction was already made by Aristotle. Greetings.
Gero.
Gero is right. But who the fuck is Aristotle? Dont laugh bitch, I'm serious. Puneet Agarwal.chase
[edit] Removed item
I removed the following as there is no separation between "drama" and "comedy". Drama is the literary form of theatre and therefore encompasses comedy.
"The term dramatist is sometimes synonymous with playwright, yet is reserved for an author of dramas as opposed to comedies or farces." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moving
Perhaps this article would be better as Playwriting? There is a good deal of information that could be included under that topic rather than simply under the term for a playwriting practitioner. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I withdraw the pervious statement. Really playwriting and playwright belong under Play. Anyone care to differ? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion from User talk:Bishonen
I started this discssion since there was no response from my earlier comment. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since this place is such a hopping joint perhaps you, Bish, or someone else may have something to say on this. I've been considering merging playwright into play. To me it makes sense to make this move as there isn't anything in playwright (besides the etymology of the term playwright) that wouldn't be repeated in play or perhaps under another topic like History of theatre. I left a note about this on the talk page of playwright but I haven't recieved a response. Anyone have a sage opinion on this? Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would favor leaving them separate, because there is content that should be on playwright that isn't. When someone does have the long view necessary to add that information, the two would need to be split again. What I'm thinking of is, in fact, what I cannot do, quite. I can see what needs to be said, but, if I said it, it would be fuzzy. Some things that need to be said: playwright as priest (Greece, where tragedy and satyr are both part of religious ceremonies and where the subject matter was the equivalent of what for us would be a Bible movie, as these were their holy texts; then to the fearful medieval passion play, where the playwright is anonymous as an act of devotion and humility; playwright as irresponsible intruder upon holy work in the reactions to the emergence of the professional playwright in England in the Elizabethan era); playwright as profession (emergence from actors needing scripts in the Elizabethan era, when playwrights were expected to be directors; development of the "dramatic poet" and Dryden's idea of a playwright who is an epic poet; producer playwright in the 18th c. (see Augustan drama and spectacle), where the producer writes or hires whatever trash will put butts in the seats; playwright as professional reformer at the end of the 19th c. and the muckraking/naturalist/realist playwrights who see themselves as priests again, but this time as saviors of their nations and prophets denouncing hypocrisy; playwright as commercial profession in the 20th c., where the playwright is provocative as needed to get a payday); playwright as a specialized profession (divorced from the "poet" and the novelist and the screenwriter); playwriting as co-opted by film. Again: I can offer this outline and suggest that each roman numeral in it needs subheads, but I can't do it and be responsible. Geogre 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, damn, and Roman playwrights, who follow Menander and other late Hellenistic writers, who might represent the first non-priestly/non-religious play writing, as they allow themselves to endlessly reproduce the Greek tragedies and to move a bit away from religious celebration in their own plays. Geogre 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dam the damn: By "late Hellenistic writers" I don't just mean Menander, but all those playwrights who took their cue from Theophrastus and developed "character" comedies. Some of those comedies are kind of dramatic (but they still couldn't be too dramatic, because Tragedy was still holy-only), but it sets the place for the Roman authors to write without the Olympiad and festival of Dionysus. Geogre 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am in awe of your knowledge! Wow! I'll copy this discussion to playwright for further reference. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nothing since January?
Unbelievable. There's so much to be done, especially in the area of merging. Would you believe the following? Well-Made Play and Well-made play! The subject of theatre is so wide ranging; writing, acting, directing, producing, and the related lighting, costumes, sets, props, and the same in each of the performing industries; theatre, film, and TV (and radio belongs somewhere) that I truly believe that there should be just a few groupings, and then an entire list of "also see" and "external links" sections common to, and duplicated in, all of the groupings. Sure, each page can have some introductory and organizational material, but the detail and original thoughts are already in the "see also"s and "external links". Let's not look for much original thinking in the descriptive introductions, they all seem to be wearing the "needs references etc." stubs and will continue to do so. I also question the quality of many creative contributions which mostly need to be edited. On the other hand, the dryness of the traditional approach of an encyclopedia does not lend itself well to these subjects. Science, mathematics, yes, but not the arts, which do better in the informal article form. Just my opinion, but others jump in, please. JohnClarknew 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Playwrighting or Playwriting?
I know the former should be progressive, but the latter is 18 times more popular on google. I don't know if this is because people are that stupid and spell it wrong, or the verb is no longer based on the correct "playwright" - as that applies to a person, not an activity. Thoughts on correct verb? JesseRafe 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Wright" is a noun, not a verb. Your cannot "wright" something. Playwriting is correct. Liontamarin 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- But a playwright is a person who has wrought (verb) words into a dramatic form, just as a wheelwright has wrought wheels out of wood and iron.--80.169.172.95 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quite right. Playwright is still the current and correct form for both the person and the activity. Google isn't a reliable guide in these things, as has often been demonstrated in many of the talk pages on here, thanks mainly to English-speakers' boundless capacity for selective illiteracy. The use of 'playwrite' was part of an ideological campaign quite a few years ago - I don't have the details to hand but if people really feel that strongly about it we could examine the history. There are other perfectly good reasons for preferring to remain with playwright (laid out by playwrights far better at this than me, I just paraphrase them); mainly, the recognition that drama is not a literary art form, but one created in living, breathing, kicking and screaming time and space. Drama is something that is wrought in many dimensions in the playwright's imagination, not something that is captured by the linguistic flow of words on a page. When a playwright writes, the words only point to a process being wrought elsewhere - the playwright always anticipates realization on a stage; the written word isn't a terminus. The analogy is with the composer writing notes on a page rather than with what a novelist does. Our culture has long since reversed the Romantics' over-valuation of the written dramatic word (with the lowbrow stage never being able to living up to the lofty heights of the word); now we recognize, thanks to all the great modernist theatre practitioners, that it is the word that is a paltry thing in comparison with the semiotic density of the stage. Knowing this in your marrow is what distinguishes the playwright from the mere writer. DionysosProteus 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

