- 4 thoughts
- Log in to add a thought
The dramatist gives an actor an emotion. The emotion embodies the actor. The viewer knows less about his character than the emotion, and instead identified with the emotion, for he has had that emotion in a singular fashion; it has embodied himself.
I experience a compassion and sympathy for the emotion, and its character when it is often absent. Negative emotions are cheered on as if they were positive. People often don't sense compassion when experiencing hatred or jealousy, but see it up on screen, we can be free to sympathize with the emotion and feel compassion.
Drama entices an unique interplay between viewer or reader and actor or character. The dramatist gives the actor an emotion. The emotion embodies the actor. The viewer knows less about his character than the emotion so instead identifies with the emotion for he has had that emotion before in a singular fashion; it has embodied himself.
While compassion is often absent in our emotional lives, it flourishes in the audience. No matter the rage or jealousy or depression, the audience recognizes and feels in the actor, there audience are like fans at a sports event encouraging and supporting the losing team. Drama encourages the peaks in life as we do, but also values the lows, which we often forget to do.
As a writer, putting emotions and character and drama up on stage is not felt as an act of control or a desire to play God. It is an act of displaying his own drama, his own antagonism and heroism, and, like stamping a seal of approval on it, gives himself justice and wholeness, but especially a sense of compassion for himself and his readers too.
There has been lots of drama over the past couple days on the Seymour Duncan forums. I don't know why. It's mostly closed-minded people refusing to admit that there is any manner of validity in opposing viewpoints. This is internet arguing. The LAST think you want to do in an internet argument is let your emotions get the better of you. It's a little bit overwhelming.