Talk:Playwright

Addition

I added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph under contemporary playwrights about theater critics and reviews. I think it is important to know how critical reviews affect the decision of the public to go see a play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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? Don't laugh bitch, I'm serious. Puneet Agarwal.chase

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)

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)

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 saviours 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)

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 encyclopaedia 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)

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)

Homophone coincidental?

The article reads "The homophone with write is in this case entirely coincidental." Is this true? The words 'write' and 'wrought' are similar in meaning. I'm not a linguist, but I wouldn't be surprised if the two words shared an origin, in which case the homophone would not be 'entirely coincidental.' Can anyone speak to this? 74.70.104.105 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Playwright vs Playwrite

Numerous other sources and dictionaries indicate that "playwrite" is in fact simply a common incorrect spelling of the word "playwright". I would therefore advise removing the second paragraph of the page introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.145.71 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence

Jonson described himself as a poet, not a playwright, since plays during that time were written in meter and so were regarded as the province of poets. Why this description? What is called 'the province of poets' is art as a whole, and there poets (those who make art for its own sake) are traditionally contrasted with craftsmen (those who try to make art for other sakes). Since art cannot be suited for any other sakes than itself and the truth of existence, the first are regarded as more noble, truthful and self-consistent. This distinction is natural, it does not belong to any particular time. - 89.110.4.172 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Global perspective

The two last sections of this article are not at all bad, but they need a more global perspective, or maybe the headlines should be changed to reflect that they're only addressing conditions in the US. Garrrick (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Play formats" section

I found the beginning of the "Play formats" section confusing, especially as to Episodic vs Classical being referred to as former and latter. I attempted a rewrite of it. Comments would be appreciated.

Full-length play: Generally, two or three acts with an act break (intermission or interval) that marks some kind of structure [Unclear. Do you mean scene change?] or time shift. Usually [acts] are divided into scenes defined by shifts in time and place. This type of structure is called episodic. Episodic plays often contain scene changes and require careful attention to transitions, [so as to] maintain flow and continuity. Classical structure entails a more causal relationship between units [What do you mean by unit?] and is often defined by the unity of time, place, and/or action. [Needs to be clearer]]

Point of Attack refers to the point in the underlying story where the play begins.[Do you mean: What has happened before the curtain goes up?] Episodic plays involve an Early Point of Attack where the story is revealed through the action of the play.[Too vague] Classical structure is often marked by a Late Point of Attack. Late point of attack plays are generally reactions to an event that has already occurred, or to an outcome that is imminent. [The difference isn't clear to me]

Short play: A more popular format recently, the short play [does not have] an intermission and generally runs for over an hour, but less than an hour-and-a-half.

CBHA (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions, within brackets, and minor changes. Hope I haven't been too ruthless? Do you plan to add citations? Rwood128 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the comments and will study them when I have more time. My intent was to try to clarify the wording. I have no plan to add citations, (and no great sources to turn to for them.) CBHA (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made some revisions but don't fully understand the term 'point of attack'. Hope you can find time to improve the wording. Rwood128 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at a couple online definitions of 'point of attack' and they are no better than the one here! I'm going to delete the section on point of attack, on the grounds that it is incoherent and erroneous.Rwood128 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is a good decision -- the issues around "point of attack" make it a distraction here, especially so since the article is "Playwright". Much of my suggested edit was to try to sort out the point of attack discussion. CBHA (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I was a little nervous about doing this. Rwood128 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A well made play: A glass of water?

How does this reveal secret information? Which plays use this device? Rwood128 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one play (so far as I know).

http://www.abebooks.com/Camille-Plays-Peculiar-Position-Glass-Water/892622688/bd

CBHA (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the glass of water used as a plot device? Unless it is a common plot device I don't think my deletion should be reverted, but edit as appropriate. Rwood128 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your edit should be reverted. I was just providing an answer to your second question above. CBHA (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll restore it but I wondered how the glass of water was used in the play, as your source doesn't explain? Really a better source is needed. I checked Eugene Scribe but that was no help.Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the script to read. CBHA (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I found something online yesterday that indicated that this was a significant plot device and amended things, citing the play. A handkerchief is used somewhere in a similar way. Rwood128 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sentence in the Aristotle's Poetics section

"The Poetics, while very brief and highly condensed, is still studied today.

I just made a minor and, I think, uncontroversial change to this sentence. While reflecting on the sentence I wondered:

Is it accurate to say the Poetics is highly condensed? "Condensed" means made denser and suggests that Aristotle wrote a longer work and then tightened it into this one. Was this the case? I think saying it is a brief work might suffice, without a need to say it is condensed.

Also the sentence as it stands suggests the work is studied today despite its brevity, as though the brevity was an obstacle.

How about "The Poetics is a brief work which is still studied today."  ? CBHA (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs cleanup in Neo-Classical theory

Quoting from the article:

"This meant that the playwright had to construct the play so that its "virtual" time would not exceed 24 hours, that it would be restricted to a single setting, and that there would b no subplots. Other terms, such as verisimilitude and decorum, circumscribed the subject matter significantly. For example, verisimilitude limits of the unities. Decorum fitted proper protocols for behavior and language on stage. In France, contained too many events and actions, thus, violating the 24-hour restriction of the unity of time."

This part seems to have several grammatical and spelling errors, and is hard to read. I didn't try to correct it because I'm not sure what the text is trying to say, but it needs cleanup. --109.189.167.133 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Theatre and Technology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jm945 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pandastmina (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)