 Drama: February 20, 2008 Issue [#2238] |
  Drama
This week: Edited by: Elisa: Snowman Stik  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| When it comes to history, we can all agree on two things. It is a popular subject for dramatic works, and we ultimately never know every last detail about significant events. From there, the interpretation of history is up for grabs. New documents emerge, prompting historians and those writing the books to investigate what had been previously written. Likewise,there are at least two sides to a conflict, and each side sees the events differently. What does this have to do with historical drama? Plenty. |
| ASIN: B07YJZZGW4 |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
Though historical drama is one of the genres most popular offshoots, I admit I have not addressed it in my days as an editor of the drama newsletter. Truth is, I wasn't sure where to start, but, ironically, a review for a poem provided me with a much needed launching point. I'll spare you the nitty gritty details, but let's just say I wrote a poem about Harry Truman from a Revisionist point of view. The perspective just happened to clash with the mindset of someone who views American history through a more traditional lens.
So what about historical perspective? How is it formed, and how does it affect writing? Everyone remembers events in slightly different ways. There may be common details among any group of recollections. However, each memory will be a little bit different, and there are several factors that play into the development of a memory. Keep in mind not all of them will determine how a person remembers a given event.
 location
education
age
race/ethnicity/national origin
degree of involvement in the event
passage of time
There are other factors, but these six have the most influence, especially if someone wishes to write down his or her memories of a historical event. For each person, how these factors come into play will be specific. Still, there are general effects that each of these factors has on a person's memory.
 LOCATION: A popular question that gets asked after many of the biggest events in history is "Where were you...?" People ask "Where were you on 9/11?" or "Where were you when you heard about the Challenger explosion?" It is something most people will remember in light of such a big story. On the other hand, where you are when an event occurs can determine how much it stands out in your conscious memory years down the road. I remember meeting a guy who, although a US citizen, was in Malaysia on 9/11. He and I got to talking about it, and he was actually somewhat oblivious to the impact 9/11. Why's that? It took a while for the news to reach the islands, and the news coverage didn't bombard those residing in Malaysia at the time. Now in the case of the tsunami, that might have been different. If you were in the area at the time, feel free to confirm or dispute my hunch. I admit haven't done much world traveling in years. In any case, where you are can affect how you find out about the event. Learning about it a day or so after the fact is a very different feeling then watching it live or hearing about it the same day.
EDUCATION: I know I'm going to catch flack for this one. However, I think education plays the biggest role in how the memory changes over time, which is something to ponder when taking on historical writing of any sort. I minored in history while in college, so I studied history kind of hard core. I took in-depth looks at both American and European history, filling my head with more intricate details than I knew even existed. I have to say prior to college, I wasn't even aware of the Revisionist view of history. Revisionism is actually a broad name for several movements in different subsets of history, but to say they question the traditional written history best summarizes the movement. That little anecdote shows that exposure to multiple ideas of history can affect a person's memories. The flip side of the education coin is that extensive history education is not that common, and those who chose to remeber/write history (or historical works) from a non-traditional stance may fall victim to the conspiracy theorist label. So be careful if you happen to have a higher than normal amount of education in the history department. If you do not choose your words carefully or take an aggressive tone with the writing, you will encounter resistance from those who are more accepting of the traditional viewpoint. That lesson I had to learn firsthand, and it kind of smarts.
AGE: I was a baby when the Challenger exploded. I was in elementary school during the Oklahoma City bombing. I was 17 when 9/11 occurred. I had graduated college when the 35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. Besides the fact that everyone on the site now knows how old I am (or not, as the case may be), I bring up these examples to show how age can affect a person's memory of an event. Obviously, I'm not going to remember the Challenger explosion because my thought process and my awareness of such events hadn't quite developed enough for me to really have a memory of the event. With the Oklahoma City bombing, I admit my fire phobia raged on some more, but a part of me was relieved that I hadn't been in Oklahoma at the time. My cynical side, which had always been lurking, broke through after 9/11, especially when I talked about it with my friends and teachers for months afterwards. In light of the bridge collapse, let's just say Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau are not invited to my place for dinner. To me, age defines through which perspective we view historical events. As a child, safety was a concern. Approaching high school graduation, I'm starting to wonder what in the world I'm about to get into once I leave the confines of compulsory academia. In my adulthood, the bridge incident makes me a little miffed because it exposes fiscal and political irresponsibility that cost 13 innocent people their lives, and I wonder if collapsing infrastructure is a price worth paying for lower taxes. I think on some level everyone puts a personal slant on historical events, and a given age group can determine what kind of slant will temper the memory of a historical event. It all boils down to the priorities we have at different stages in our lives. Some may claim age is nothing but a number, but I'm inclined to disagree, as age does shape what we consider important.
RACE/ETHNICITY/NATIONAL ORIGIN: Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not discriminating against any group. Still, these aspects of a person can alter a person's view of history. This does tie into how different nations teach history but not completely. There's more to it than that. One of the reasons history tend to get diluted in many textbooks is because discrimination runs rampant. Racial and ethnicity based discrimination are very pervasive. With society being the way it is, the discrimination often simplified, tailored to highlight one particular group among many or (in some cases) outright ignored. Some people may argue that this is to save space in the textbooks. After having studied some of the most heinous historical events in detail (specifically the Nazi Era in Germany), I don't particularly like that such truncation takes place. Since it does, though, it is safe to acknowledge that each group will tailor history to manipulate the depiction of discrimination. I suppose a good example of this is comparing the Chinese and Japanese viewpoints of the events in Nanking. Given the brutal nature of those events, I will not elaborate on them in this newsletter. If you'd like to know more, start with Google or a search engine of your choice. While racial/ethnic discrimination remains a very sore spot, it is unavoidable in history, both in how events occur and how these events are viewed as time goes by.
(Note: Religious discrimination bears some similarities, but discussing religious discrimination throughout history requires its own series of essays on the subject. Hence I'm not going to discuss it at length in the space of a newsletter.)
DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE EVENT: This one is sort of self explanatory. I think it's obvious that how close you were to the event determines how much you remember about the event. This closeness is not restricted to physical proximity. In a lot of cases, closeness can be determined by a person's relationship to the people or even place(s) involved. For example, a pilot that was supposed to be on board Pan Am flight 1736 but was not for whatever reason would be shaken by the Tenerife crash, perhaps even going through his head what he might have done had he been in the cockpit. His memory is going to be different than that of the surviving crew members (and the Pan Am flight was the only one of have survivors in the Tenerife crash) or of Robina van Lanschot (who had disembarked the KLM flight after its first landing and did not reboard). There memory would be different from that of my grandfather, who had worked on some design modifications for Boeing 747s but otherwise had no connection to anyone personaly involved. For people, the event may have only exacerbated their fears of flying, while others may have outright apathetic to the events. For the record, I'm actually fascinated by this crash because I grew up around airplane fanatics and inherited my father's wanting to learn about airplane crashes. I already know I'm weird. 
PASSAGE OF TIME: This last factor actually has two distinct effects on memory. It can distort memory and also allow for more artifacts from an event to turn up, thus making people question how the new information relates to what is already known. I hate to admit this, but I don't really remember what I was doing when I first found out about TWA flight 800 crashing. I do remember that I was on summer vacation and had become engrossed in the Olympics coverage. I also remember that there was a Philadelphia connection (which I only remember because I was staying near the South Jersey shore). However, I can't remember if a "local" French club was on that plane or what specific group it was. For that matter, I don't even remember the time of day when I found out. Then there is the other side of the coin: the revealing of new information. This one's actually a current news story, as new documents related at least in part of JFK's death have been unveiled. Historians are still deciding the writers and degree of legitimacy of the documents. When they are made available to the public (which is the current intention), we the public will have a chance to look them over. Once we see them, it will prompt us to think about what happened on November 22, 1963. Whether it validates a conspiracy theory or further solidifies the official story will lie in the mind of the beholder, but either way, the new information will give us pause for thought.
That's nice, Stik, but what does all that have to do with writing?
Those factors affect historical writing (especially historical dramas) in two ways: point of view and the type of research the author will do prior to writing. You could almost boil it down to just point of view, but research will incur more than just understanding the circumstances leading to a character's memory development. Research will help with physical setting development, especially if you are telling the story from a point of view not addressed in most textbooks (or other books, really). It can also help you develop the character him or herself in terms of physical appearance, family, speech patterns and other traits unique to the character. All the same, some serious research will be your ticket to a convincing and effective point of view. So don't be afraid to read books that buck the conventional wisdom (Jewish officers in the Nazi military, anyone?) and go digging for some primary sources. You'll get plenty of information for your historical drama, and you might learn something, too.
Until next time,
(sig by me)
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: 197380364X |
|
Amazon's Price: $ 15.99
|
|
I'm surprised I got feedback for my last newsletter! It was a little bit more personal than usual, but that didn't seem to be a factor here. Here's what you had to say about my wishes (and other topics, as well).
From Acme  : Hey there, I thought this was a really insightful newsletter as monologues are often used in comedy writing - I've popped it in the keep and refer pile Intrigued by your planned history feather-ruffling to come, I would love you to read this story Alice entered in the History Contest. She obviously did a lot of research to add to the dramatic content and it shows 
Write on and take care,
Acme
And it was indeed an enjoyable read. Though it's a ghost story, I enjoyed the historical aspects of it as well, and the tone was deceptive in a good way. As for the newsletter, I'm glad you found it insightful. Yeah, more of us are familiar with a stand-up comics monologue. In tradition of my strangeness, however, I first heard the word "monologue" from a classmate who was taking a drama course during my middle school days (all ten years ago). Hence, monologues are a bit more ingrained in my mind as a dramatic element. Anyway, yes, here comes the feather-ruffling! Next month will be even more, shall we say, provocative.
From Kate - Writing & Reading  : Who doesn't occasionally carry on a mental monologue with a character? Thank you for showing how to bring it to life, make it more than a yawning mental rant Now, a one-act play, hmmmm. I look forward to reading this week's selections. Many thanks for an insightful newsletter ^_^ Keep Writing, Kate
I tend not to carry on monologues from my characters' perspectives, but I've written some bad monologues from my characters' perspectives. In any case, I'm glad you gleaned some useful information about monologues. When I realized that they do tell stories, I figured that some of the concepts we apply to stories can work for monologues as well. The same goes for one act plays, although those are still relatively untapped as far as writing and performance potential go.
From merlin  : Hi there, with a view to historical dramas,how about the reminder that it is the winner of a war that gets to write their version, the truth is often very different. When I'm stuck for ideas on how to move a story forward by writing from the losers pov, interesting and probably closer to the truth. Wyvernz
Merlin! Long time no see in this area! Anyway, you kind of took the words right out of my head with your comments. And I like your idea of writing from the losing side's point of view. Of course, there's always the phiolosophical question of which side is really the losing side. I guess it depends on who you ask.
The next issue will definitely provoke some controversy. Why? I'll be taking a look at the war in Iraq and how it is portrayed in the artistic sense. There will be discussion of various movies and any fiction I can find on the subject. Know a good fiction piece on the war? Have some recommendations? Think there's something I should address with covering war drama in general? Let me know, and I'll tackle it one way or another!
And if you happen to miss or misplace a newsletter, feel free to stop by "The Drama Box" [13+]. |
| ASIN: 1542722411 |
|
Amazon's Price: $ 12.99
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
This printed copy is for your personal use only. Reproduction
of this work in any other form is not allowed and does violate its copyright. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
