Hey, it's Amy.
Ok, watch out b/c this might get confusing! I started talking about this in class. So in the play 6 Characters, the characters argue that they are more real than the actual actors because they remain the same throughout their existence. However, to the audience the actors are also characters in a play and are therefore just as real as the original characters, are they not?
We are all in a sense characters in our own plays. We are constantly on the stage of life as we perform in each others' lives. I play various roles in everybody's lives from friend to daughter to student. The characters in the play do this as well as they influence the lives of the actors and director. Although they claim that they remain static, we see them as they interact with the other characters in the play.
We too influence lives around us, just like the characters. Is there really any difference in reality between the two of us? One just has a different method of expressing occurences than the other. How do we measure reality? I think that we are all characters in a way and that we have similar levels of reality in relationship to what is around us. I hope this makes sense! :P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe that (as discussed in class) the main difference is free will. One can change their course of action according to the circumstances, unlike the characters who are unbending 'ideas' that MUST act in a specific way. I additionally believe that our ability to change our roles makes us different from the characters in SCSA. In the play, the stepdaughter was a constant reminder of guilt to the father; the son was a trace of remorse for the mother; and the father was a source of...something weird...for the stepdaughter. In our 'reality,' one can go from being, say, a sibling to a person to being someone adversary, but we may be both at the same time. This is radically different from that of the play because the play characters are static and have only one role with regard to their interactions with others.
Hi, it's Jasmine.
I agree with Ian - I think that we don't see the characters as real because they are static. I also think that they are seen as "unreal" because they are optional. For my book review a couple weeks ago, I read a book called Mediated, which focuses a lot on how we perceive reality and how the media influences our perception. The author of the book kept reminding his readers that the opposite of reality was optional and representational. Something that you can choose to ignore becomes unreal. So, the characters in the play aren't real because if they died or disappeared, nobody's life would change, because nobody ever really knew them. They were optional to the world - the world would be no different if they hadn't been created.
On the other hand, we see ourselves as real because our lives are connected through our actions and experiences. If one of us were to die or move away, all of us would be influenced(we might be sad, angry, confused, or maybe relieved - but no matter what our reaction is, we are forever changed in some way.)
I have to disagree with Ian that the difference between us and the characters is the idea that we are able to change. On the contrary, people frequently believe that they can, when in reality certain traits persist. We play static roles towards certain people ie our parents, teachers, friends, siblings, etc. While the role we are playing will change, the role itself will not. Similarly, the characters represent different things to each other and therefore are very multifaceted beings. For example, to the mother, the stepdaughter represents something very different than the guilt that she represents for the father. As for being able to change ourselves on whim peramanently will be be very difficult. Certain traits will always continue to exist. If you are naturally curious, that curiousity will persist in any role you play (you can suppress it temporarily, but to eradicate to such a point where it feels natural to not curious is, in my opinion, impossible). The same exists for being a leader, or an artist, ,,,,
Hey, it's Erin.
In response to what Arka and Ian have said, I think that there is always the ability to change but it depends. Thinking about Donna's example of how she changed something about herself each time she moved, proves that we can, but I think that it is easy to fall into old habits. They are reliable, both for us and for others. They trust that we will act a certain way, and we trust that they will do the same. Oftentimes, what keeps us from changing is societal (spelling?) pressure, that expectation that WE WILL act a certain way always, that need for stability in relations and interactions. Oftentimes, I think it's easier to change around people you don't know.
I think people are very fluid though. Who we are around dictates, to some extent, how we will act. I know this from experience. I am different around some friends than others. And they look at me differently, because I play a different role (as Amy said) in each of their lives. I suppose the characters' point was that they are real because they are stable and the actors are not. But I think the reason we're all struggling with that idea is because we are not stable and we know it. We think of ourselves and others as multi-faceted in a way, rounded and that is what is real to us. That makes someone "real".
Post a Comment