Post 13 Three Viewings

            A common thing I found between the three monologues is the number 13. This may be a little farfetched but at the same time I think that it does have some sort of latent meaning. In the first story, Emil states that he is up to saying “I love you” 12 times. At the end of his monologue he begins saying “I love you” and starts counting again. We can guess that because he ended on twelve times, this one would be thirteen. In the second monologue, Mac’s grandmother is 103 years old. 103 contains the numbers 1 and 3 which together make 13. Again, this maybe a bit farfetched but still it is true. And of course, in the final monologue, the list contains 13 things. The number 13 is often associated with bad luck. These people are indeed haunted by bad luck and bad decisions. I wonder if that is on purpose.

These funerals all seem to take place in the winter. Winter is a literary symbol for death so this isn’t too shocking. However, it is interesting that this was taken into account. It also raises the possibility that these characters probably encountered one another physically. The funerals are taking place in a small town at the same time where everyone seems to know each other. They all probably have met before or have seen each other and are possibly reunited by these occurrences. Also, these characters seem to not know the respectively deceased as well as they think. Emil thinks he has a chance with Tessie when in fact she is in love with someone else. Mac does not know her grandmother because she is holding a grudge from her childhood. Even Virginia is surprised by her husband’s final actions and the secrets he kept. I think this may be a purposeful thing that happens in the play in order to show that we can never truly know anyone. Even when a loved one is dead, there are secrets, big or small, that will be taken to the grave. 

Comments for Blog Checkpoint III

 http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge-response.html?showComment=1367698534524#c6019925227446078207

http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/duermeyer-on-verge.html?showComment=1367698903476

http://thefancypenguin2130.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge.html?showComment=1367699307175#c198856884016257739

http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/05/drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367699608078#c8103093027679095348

http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge.html?showComment=1367700042850#c6065201288019963696

Show and Tell Post #3

This time around I chose to pick an older text for my show and tell post. The play I read is The Frogs by Aristophanes. The Frogs was first produced in 405 B.C. It was produced at the Lenaia and won first prize when it was presented in the archonship of Kallias. This play can be found in a book called Four Plays by Aristophanes. This book also contains the plays The Clouds, The Birds, and Lysistrata. The Frogs is a satirical comedy in which Aristophanes determines who the best of the deceased tragic playwrights are, namely between Aeschylus and Euripides. The play opens with the god Dionysos  in search of better playwrights, for the ones now living are not near as good as those who are dead. Dionysos decides that with the help of his slave, Xanthias he will travel to the underworld to bring back Euripides, the greatest of the tragic playwrights. In order to travel in secret, Dionysos dresses like Herakles, who has given him nothing but trouble since their most recent meeting. Dionysos and Xanthias cross the river Styx and enter the underworld where Dionysos is discovered as the god of theatre. At that point a quarrel between Euripides and Aeschylus reaches its peak. The quarrel is to determine who the best playwright and who should be the King of Tragedy in the underworld. Dionysos, as the god of theatre, decides he is to determine the fate of these playwrights, and weighs their lines to see whose writing is heaver. Aeschylus’s lines are heavier, and therefore he is crowned the king of tragedy. However, remembering his mission, Dionysos changes his mind about taking Euripides back from the underworld and takes Aeschylus instead. This play pokes fun at the gods and demigods that were admired, the government of the time, and the playwrights of the past. Aristophanes holds nothing back as he changes beliefs and inspires change in a wartime ancient civilization.

One dramaturgical choice that I found interesting was the choice Aristophanes made to have Dionysos dress as Herakles. This was clearly intended to create laughs and for me, it did just that. However, there are hidden meanings to why this occurred as it did. For one, this choice pokes fun at Dionysos. Dionysos is depicted as a fat, lazy old man with rosy cheeks and glass of wine in hand. Herakles, however, is depicted as strong and honorable. Aristophanes uses this choice to accent the fact that Dionysos is not the kind of person to make a grand and dangerous journey to the underworld. He in fact has no business being there at all. The amount of contrast between Dionysos and Herakles shows us just how ridiculous this journey is. However, it does indeed make things interesting, especially when Dionysos keeps changing costumes with his slave in hopes that he will not be blamed for Herakles mistakes, and later, in hopes that he will be admired by women as Herakles. This of course does not happen. The second dramaturgical choice that I really admired was the amount of irony in the play. Because this play is a satire, Aristophanes uses a lot of irony when dealing with the conditions of the citizens and the politicians of the time. However, he also uses a lot of irony within the text of the play. One example of irony in the play occurs when Dionysos does not return to the world of the living with Euripides. Dionysos begins his entire journey just to bring Euripides back from the underworld. He wants to find the best playwright and bring him back. However, when he weighs the lines of both Euripides and Aeschylus, he realizes that Euripides is not the best playwright, and takes Aeschylus instead. This ironic notion not only supplies fodder for comedy, but also tells us what Aristophanes really thinks about the late Euripides. More irony ensues when Aeschylus, the crowned king of tragedy in the underworld, does not get his place on the thrown because he is taken by Dionysos instead. This also tells us what Aristophanes thinks about the way the world views playwrights and that nothing is truly in the place where it belongs. This idea is persistent throughout the play, for Dionysos is wondering around the underworld when really he should be up in Olympus drinking his wine and enjoying his grapes.  

Blog Prompt 14 Drowsy Chaperone

The Drowsy Chaperone would be a different show if it was just the play within a play. Instead, the show uses the man and his retelling of the story as part of the play. It is easy to think that the man is not a part of the play, and that the things he says are not actually his opinion. In fact, his lines are as much a part of the play as everyone else’s. If we were only analyzing the play-within-the-play, Hornby’s elements would apply differently. For one, sequence would be different. The play would go from scene to scene and move in a much more linear manner. Instead, we have scenes that break away from the central plot of the play and revolve around the man and his part of the story. The sequences in this play utilize the role of the man to help bridge gaps between scenes within the main part of the play. He is as much an integral part of the play as everyone else.

Another element that would be different is the tempo. The tension levels in the play would be much different if the man were not part of the play. The man provides a relief of tension for what is happening in the play. Martin/McKellar/Lambert/Morrison use the man in order to change the pace of the show. The play has a pretty strict tension level which is somewhat broken by the songs. However, it is the man who is the real reliever of the tension. Also, the man provides a new level of tension, thus changing the tempo when appropriate. He is able to keep the story alive and bring the audience back to the world of the play-within-the-play, thus bringing up the tension level.  

                                                                                                                                  

Prompt 12 on On the Verge, or The Geography of Yearning

I believe that a good poster for On the Verge would be a poster of the different characters that the man plays. I think that a poster of just the man’s characters gives a good overview of the show. It shows the different time periods that are traveled by the different costumes that are being worn. It also says a little something about the three women, because at least one of the characters played by the man has a relationship between each of the three girls. Having just the man’s characters is ambiguous enough to capture the attention of a passerby, especially if you can tell that it is the same man dressed as different people in the poster. To me the man is the symbol of the changing times, which I think is the most important element plot wise in the story. The man represents a change in state and is a constant element in the play. This is why he is a good showman for the poster.

            The tagline I would use to go with this poster would be “Shall we saddle up?” Using this as a tagline gives whoever sees it the idea that On the Verge is an adventure tale, which it most definitely is. It is an adventure on a grand level. This tagline sums up the entire basis for the play. These three women are desperate for adventure and for travel. They come across a journey of the strangest kind, and they do not hesitate or look back. They simply “saddle up” and keep going. I think this tagline describes the play pretty perfectly. Every time something happens the team simply picks up their stuff and continues on their way, not necessarily knowing where they’re going, but enjoying the journey itself. This is much like the way a viewer of the play should not be worried about how the play ends up, but should be invested in the story as it is being told. 

Links for comments on Blog Checkpoint II

1.       http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water-response.html?showComment=1365878907836#c7001410813555463458

2.      http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/noises-off-response.html?showComment=1365879265228#c5505842358147382009

3.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful.html

4.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/damour-detroit.html?showComment=1365879991613

5.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/glass-of-water.html

6.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/noises-off.html?showComment=1365880992887#c2062639145456471388

Show and Tell Post #2

The play I chose to read is called Seminar by Theresa Rebeck. It is a comedy that premiered on November 20, 2011 at the John Golden theatre in New York City. It closed at that theatre on May 6, 2012. Seminar was well received and well liked, and received nominations as Best Play by both the Outer Critics Circle and the Drama League. Seminar is about four college students who decide to take a writing seminar with a highly praised man named Leonard. However, upon meeting Leonard, the group comes to realize that he is washed up, cruel, apathetic and insensitive to their needs. He is in fact a terrible teacher. In the meantime, Martin, the most reserved and most talented of the group, sees Leonard for who he really is, and refuses to show him his work. Throughout the play the students deal with rejection, love, hate, and many nights of complaining about Leonard. The play tells a story of dealing with emotions and pushing for success.
One dramaturgical choice that I liked was the choice to have the play almost entirely within one setting. The majority of the play takes place in Kate’s apartment, and Izzy and Martin stay there too. Even when Leonard teaches the classes, he teaches them in the apartment. I like this choice because it is a in which a person is supposed to feel comfortable. However, because there are all these other people there as well, there is no place in the apartment to be comfortable. Everyone is extremely vulnerable and unable to find the privacy they need. Even in their home. When Leonard teaches his class in the apartment, he feeling of hopelessness surrounds the setting even more. We see these characters in a place in which they should enjoy being. However, it is obvious that when Leonard is there, any feelings of safety are gone. Leonard has that ability to walk into any room and suck the life out of it. He can make a warm home into a cold ice box. I think it was important to see how the characters changed within the walls of that apartment. The place of safety became a place of regret and punishment. It changed the lives of five people. I think that is pretty powerful.
Another dramaturgical choice I liked was the choice to have Martin not present any of his work to Leonard. The other three young writers submit their work and are humiliated by Leonard. Martin, however, does not trust in Leonard, and therefore does not present anything. When I recognized this pattern, I wanted to know whether Martin was a good writer or not. We had no way of knowing because he had not turned in anything. However, at the end he finally turns in his work. Leonard praises it, which is a shock to everyone. This event changes the way Martin sees Leonard. Martin first is angry with Leonard liking it, and then he grows to understand why Leonard is such a messed up guy. The character we least expect to understand Leonard does. And it is because he likes his writing. They are bound together by their writing and that is when they understand. Rebeck’s decision to not show Martin’s writing is fuel for an even which changes how we feel about Leonard. Because Martin does not show his work right away, we side with him. We decide that Leonard does not deserve to see Martin’s work. Then, when he does show it, we see that even though he is a jerk, Leonard knows what he’s doing. Also, this shows a lot in character growth. Martin is weak because he cannot take rejection. That is why he won’t show his work. However, he is affected by this seminar group and by the teacher and so he finally shows what he’s got. It is a shift in character that fuels the rest of the play.

Prompt 10 on D'Amour, Detroit

I think there is a pretty simple explanation as to why the play is called Detroit. It’s stated by D’Amour in the description of the setting that the houses do not necessarily have to be in Detroit. They can be houses anywhere as long as they are in rundown subdivisions in the inner ring of the city. The houses are “fix me up” residences and non permanent homes. I think Detroit is more of a reference for how the play is supposed to look. It is a place that we know to be run down and no longer in its prime. It is a place of sorrow and poverty and desolation. That is what we are supposed to think of when watching this play. The sorrow and poverty of these characters stuck in a black hole of a place such as Detroit. This black hole could be anywhere. It could be anyone. Detroit is just easy for us to visualize. Also, I think there is an important allusion to the title at the end, when Mary says that the neighbors could be anyone. This is the same with the place. Just because it is called Detroit doesn’t mean it takes place in Detroit. Just because Kenny says his name is Kenny, doesn’t actually mean that’s his name. The idea is that these people could be anyone anywhere. This is the same with the title. The title simply gives a world in which to present these characters. An idea of the kind of life these people are living. By giving us something familiar to work with, like the conditions of Detroit, we are able to see these characters for who they really are. For instance, no one in Detroit would actually bring caviar to a barbeque. 

Prompt 9 on Water by the Spoonful

            I believe that a scene which shows the blending of two realities is scene 10. In this scene, Yaz and Elliot are at Mami Ginny’s funeral giving her eulogy. At the same time, we see Odessa in her home pouring out spoonfuls of water on the floor in her house. These two occurrences appear to be totally disconnected from each other.  However, they are in fact bound together not only by family, but by emotion. Odessa, for one is not attending the funeral. This is important because it shows that she does not feel comfortable in her sister’s shadow. The fact that her sister, who is seemingly perfect, is dead instead of her is unbearable for her to think about. We see Yaz and Elliot describing all the great traits about Mami Ginny and all the wonderful things she has done for her family and community. It is obvious that Odessa has not accomplished as much as her sister has. She has been a letdown to the family and will never be given the same respect as Mami Ginny. For every good quality about Mami Ginny, Odessa scoops a spoonful of water on the floor, reminding herself of all her mistakes with this one simple symbolic action. I believe this scene shows us that Odessa thinks she should have been the one who died, not Mami Ginny. As a result of this thought, she is heartbroken and depressed and regretful of her decisions. I believe this scene holds a lot of insight and importance in the play, especially in regards to how Odessa feels. This is, in fact, the first time we see regret from her past life. It is the first time the real Odessa is shown. Also, Elliot cannot get through the speech. I think this is important because it shows that Elliot considers Mami Ginny to be her real mom, which is a huge blow to Odessa. 

Prompt 7 on Noises Off

A motif that Michael Frayn uses in Noises Off is self-centered delusions. Each character in Noises Off is concerned with only his or her own desires and needs. The characters are all narcissistic and only care about what they want for themselves. Their self-centered motives cause a lot of problems in the world of the play, especially in regards to the production which they are trying to put on. The characters are so concerned with themselves and wrapped up in their own worlds that none of them are willing to go the extra mile and put in the effort necessary to make the play work. Instead, the characters impede the play’s progress by putting their individual needs first. The selfish attitudes of the characters are made obvious to the audience and seen clearly throughout the play. Selsdon is willing to miss his cue in order to continue his search for the bottle of whiskey, and in another similar instance Lloyd is more concerned with getting Brooke flowers than with helping the play run smoothly. At one point, Garry is swinging an axe at Frederick, which would clearly be detrimental to the play’s outcome. However, no one seems to actually care about the play more than their own personal problems. This continues throughout the entirety of the play, while the play within the play becomes worse and worse because of it.

A good tagline for this show would be “One moment they’re kicking you to death, next moment they expect you to come waltzing in with more sardines.” I think this line really explains the complete and utter chaos that is prominent throughout the play. To me it explains that there’s more going on than just the play that is being put on. It shows that things simply cannot be done correctly because of all the other nonsense that is going on with all the players. Even the fact that Mrs. Clackett, played by Dotty, is the one saying this ad-lib line is surprisingly appropriate. Dotty is the one who wants the show put on in the first place, and even she cannot overlook the developments that have happened between the players. All of the characters are so lost within themselves that they can’t even make the play what it is supposed to be. The entirety of the show consists of one big jumbled mess, and this line shows that quite well. 

Prompt 6 on Glass of Water

In Eugene Scribe’s The Glass of Water, many of the play’s characters are easy to identify with. All of the characters receive a significantly large amount of stage time, and in some cases, they are striving for the same things. However, I think the protagonist of this story is undoubtedly Abigail. Abigail is the character with which we can relate to the most because she never can quite get her way. In a sense, Abigail’s character is easy to sympathize with due to her underdog status throughout the show’s entirety. The audience does not expect her to achieve a reasonable position because of her rank in society, nor does the audience expect her to gain Masham’s love on account of her competitors’ status. We all want to fight for Abigail in hope of seeing her triumph.

However, I think the other characters play just as large of a role and are equally important to identify with.  The other characters assist by expanding upon the protagonist’s characteristics. Without the rest of the people in the court, Abigail would not be successful in her endeavors. One instance of this is when Bolingbroke uses what he has around him to further his needs in an attempt to attain peace, and in doing so he manages to help his friends succeed. Bolingbroke proves to be a great tool and is used to enhance the plot; he is the character that can be used as a helping hand.

Abigail’s struggle plays a crucial, central component to the plot in many ways as well. If she loses the battle for Masham, the fate of the English War would be altered exceedingly. Because the duchess is Abigail’s direct advisory, if the duchess succeeds and Abigail does not, the entire fate of the story changes. Also, Abigail receives the majority amount of stage time because she is used to bridge the gaps between the queen, the duchess, Bolingbroke, and Masham. Abigail directly affects the outcome of each of the character’s personal endeavors. Thus, she is the one who holds the play in place. The well-made play needs Abigail’s character to enhance each of the other characters on all levels. 

Show and Tell Post #1

The play The Crackwalker was written by Judith Thompson. It was first produced in 1980 and premiered at the Toronto’s Theatre Passe Muraille. It has been produced several times over the years and is quite well liked. My source for this play is The Norton Anthology of Drama Volume Two. Thompson usually allows her women character’s to be victims, which is relevant in this play.

The Crackwalker is about 4 friends who live in Kingston, Ontario and who are poor and, for the most part dumb. Theresa and Sandy are friends who are dating Alan and Joe. Joe has been known to beat and mistreat Sandy as well as disappear for days on end with no word of his whereabouts. Theresa is mentally retarded and Alan is infatuated by her. He marries her and they have a kid. However, due to the stress of being a father who loses his minimum wage job, Alan loses his mind and becomes depressed. In a fit of rage Alan strangles his baby to death. He then becomes solemn and much like the walking dead and goes to Sandy and Joe’s house. Theresa runs in afterwards holding the dead baby in a sack and begins to confess Alan’s crimes. Alan calls her a liar and throws her to the ground. He leaves with Joe chasing after him. Throughout the story there is an Indian man who is a drunk that Alan meets on the street. He is vulgar and gives Alan much angst and also insight as to what will happen.

One dramaturgical choice I liked is that of having the characters address the audience directly. It helps us to see the inner thoughts of the characters as well as to give us the back story of what is happening. We are able to build a relationship with the characters and to know what they are thinking. These are dumb people that we are dealing with, and they do not always articulate. However, when talking to the audience, we are able to see more clearly their thoughts. They share secrets they would not tell the other characters. This is seen when Sandy tells us that the baby is better off dead because the parents are not fit to take care of a child. Also it shows us how Alan feels something tearing at his brain, and how he can’t find happiness in the world. These dumb characters are hard to sympathize with, and the Soliloquies directed towards the audience help us identify with them. Another dramaturgical choice I found interesting was that of including the Indian Man in the story. The Indian Man is simply a drunk on the street that Alan meets.  I believe he is the driving force in Alan’s mind that tears at his dreams. Thompson means for him to be the symbol of the insanity that Alan feels. He is drunk, and therefore irrational, much like Alan. When they first meet his wrists are bleeding, but he asks for no help, much like Alan with his derangement. Alan is, at heart, a kind soul. However he cannot let people know this, because he will be picked on and called a queer (a serious offence in his culture). Instead, he is quite and goes mad. The Indian Man makes it clear as to what Alan is fighting. If we did not have the Indian Man, it would be harder to show what he is actually struggling with. Also in the end, the Indian Man throws up on Alan. Alan loses it. He goes mad.  

This play was interesting and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It provided good insight on a much poorer way of living. Poorer mentally, physically, and emotionally. 

Prompt 4 on Vogel

In How I Learned to Drive, Vogel uses a Greek chorus to help tell the story. The three members of the chorus play every character other than Uncle Peck and Li’l Bit. I think she chose to do this to emphasis that the only two who really matter in the play are indeed Peck and Li’l Bit. The other characters are simply helping the story along, much like a Greek chorus does in classical plays. Vogel is telling us that while these relationships between the other characters help shape the story, it is the relationship between Peck and Li’l Bit that really matters. I like the idea of there being a Greek chorus because it adds a new element and a more theatrical element to a very naturalistic story. It almost makes what’s happening in the play easier to stomach because we are reminded by the chorus that it is not real; especially when they randomly burst into song.

            Another choice Vogel makes that I found interesting occurred at the end when Li’l Bit sees Peck in the rear view mirror before the end of the play. I think it is interesting that Li’l Bit smiles at his appearance, because it shows her finding more of a comfort in him than being disgusted by him. To me, this helps the audience see that Peck is not a villain. He is a real person with a problem, and unless we are Li’l Bit, we have no idea how it really felt to go through that no matter how the story is told. I believe Vogel is telling us not to make any assumptions, even at the end. Our natural inclination is to hate Peck by the end of the play, but if Li’l Bit doesn't hate him, how can we? 

Prompt 3 on Fornes

In Conduct of Life, by Maria Irene Fornes, covers a topic that is considered a taboo by our standards. It is a story of a secret that is kept by an entire household, and one that few people know about in the world of the play. However, Leticia confides all of Orlando’s sins in one woman, Mona. One dramaturgical choice that stands out is not having Mona as a character. Leticia only talks to Mona on the phone, and we only hear Leticia’s side of things. This choice does well to show although it is a secret, anyone could know. If Mona were seen as a character, we would develop a relationship with her and then see how she is. However, because we don’t know her, we don’t trust her. She could be anyone and could tell anyone. It goes to show that no matter who actually knows nothing is being done to stop the injustice. Everyone, Mona included, is allowing this to happen to the poor girl in the cellar. I think that Fornes is also using this choice to reach out to the audience. Mona is the confidant. She is the confessional priest to which Leticia vents. Because only Mona and the audience can hear their conversations, I believe Fornes is telling us that we are Mona. We are the ones in everyday life who are not directly involved, and yet we are the ones doing nothing. We are merely bystanders to the things that happen in the world. Therefore, Mona is in a way the symbol for the audience. I believe the play is called Conduct of Life because we are expected to conduct our lives in a certain manner. We are expected to uphold a sense of pride and decency and most of all, responsibility. If we do not conduct ourselves in the right way injustices will occur. We must conduct our lives in the way that is expected.  

Prompt 2 on Trifles

I do not think this would be the best decision for a production of Trifles. It does, however, have benefits. By not giving the naturalistic visuals of what is being described in the play, the audience is forced to dedicate a lot more focus on what is being said. Without the detailed visuals, they must rely on the importance of the details of the dialogue. I believe that this enhances part of the message of the play. That is, the trifles are much more than just trifles. They are important and significant, much like the details in the dialogue. That being said, I do think that something is lost with a more theatricalized production of the show. It is a contradictory concept, because the visuals are quite important. While the details of the dialogue would be enhanced, you would lose the importance of what is being seen. The things we see on stage are the only things we know about Ms. Wright. She is never seen, so her items in the house are all that we know of her. When you take away those items, the story no longer becomes what is happening, but it becomes about the two women sitting on stage. They become the center of attention when in fact they should simply be aids to the story. While a more theatrical version with limited props and costuming could be justified on certain levels, there are flaws in the concept, for what is seen is indeed the fuel for the story. Yes an audience would have to focus more on the words, and use their imagination with the descriptions of the items, but we lose information on the most important character. Ms. Wright. This cannot happen. We must not lose what we know of this woman, because she is the changing force in the story. We must not hear what she was like, but see what she was like. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

                                                                                                         

Prompt 1: Overtones

            In Overtones, by Alice Gerstenberg, Harriet and Margaret are unable to see their counterparts, Hattie and Maggie. Hattie and Maggie represent the internal desires and thoughts of the two women. They are unable to be seen by Harriet and Margaret because it is not a physical struggle, but a mental and emotional struggle. Hattie and Maggie are the voices in the women’s heads that are often ignored. They are a voice, not an image. To Harriet and Margaret the counterparts are part of a whole, whereas the audience sees two very separate personalities. They two women acknowledge the presence of their respected inner selves, but they make great efforts to avoid them.

            While Harriet and Margaret are unable to see Hattie and Maggie, Hattie and Maggie can see each other. Hattie and Maggie are what you might call the instinctive side of Harriet and Margaret. They are the impulses and desires and hold no regard for ceremony or etiquette. Because they are more primitive, they can see each other. This shows that deep down, subconsciously even, that Margaret and Harriet both know exactly what the other is after. Because Hattie and Maggie can see each other, the audience knows that the two women are able to understand each other’s needs right from the start. However, they bury these needs and pretend to have a different aim because they are both trying to impress with the use of manners and a false sense of priority.

            The way that the four characters interact with each other is unique because of rules of the relationships that go along with the script. The author sets down a set of natural laws of who can see who and of who can talk to whom and these rules drive the play and drive the interactions. I find that the rules make the interactions more structured and less complicated. It is easier to follow which characters are real and which are a figment because of the way that they must talk and notice each other.  Essentially the rules state that Hattie and Maggie can see and talk to each other, Margaret and Harriet can talk to each of their counterparts, but they cannot see them, Hattie and Maggie cannot touch the physical world, but they can touch each other, and of course Harriet and Margaret can interact normally with one another. 

I EXIST.

hello there!