The Politics of Art & Authenticity

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q5bGq42-XmE/T3M3rYJ26iI/AAAAAAAAAYs/9KQfo2enznk/s1600/Katherine%2BVaz.jpg

After seeing Katherine read in person and after reading her works I have concluded that her words were meant to be read not to be spoken. This remark is unfair as it is not only directed at her but of all works of literature. I feel that any book being read out loud cheapens the experience and somehow waters down the literature. Even if the person reading is the author. However, this book reading did allow me to appreciate new aspects of writing and reading that I had not previously appreciated, and it was great to gain an insight and perspective from her point of view.

The main difference in reading her works or being read to was obviously that it was Katherine reading the novel. I felt strange and out of place by having literature read to me in a voice that was not my own. I am an avid reader and have grown quite accustomed to the voice in my head. Especially the way it will mimic the tones of the characters and where it will place emphasis. However when Katherine read I felt trapped in her interpretation of the characters. I was stuck with her monotone raspy voice reading me literary works that were quite complicated to follow. She did not read with any vocal variety or emphasis and it sucked the soul out of her stories. I found this to be quite ironic because I thought her reading would add to the story.  Unfortunately her voice and lack of excitement caused me to start spacing out after the first fifteen minutes.

The weirdest part of this event was that when I read her works I truly loved her writing style. I found her stories to be intriguing and even quite humorous. I could not stop reading and I enjoyed all of her elaborate and complicated metaphors. I did not find them distracting or overdone but rather interesting and it really allowed me as a reader to put myself in her shoes. It enabled me to connect to the story and relate to the situation. I felt as though I had known her better after reading one of her works as opposed to when she actually read the works.

The connection between the author and the reader is one of the most important aspects of literature. If not the most important aspect of literature. For that reason I found it necessary to read her works on your own in order to fully understand her literature and the message she was trying to convey. Reading it for yourself, allows you to internalize the information and add your own interpretation and input into the story. This helps establish the reader/writer connection because you immediately insert yourself into the story. The problem occurs when she reads her works and it made me feel as though there was only one true and correct interpretation of the story. Once that happened I felt I could not relate to it and it created a chasm between me and the story. The only way I was able to bridge that gap was by reading her novels and experiencing her stories through her amazing use of language and metaphor. It’s funny how I could have such opposite experiences of the same person but I guess that is what art and literature is all about.

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/artes/interior.aspx?content_id=1694985&seccao=Livros

Listening to Katherine Vaz read from her new novel was my first time at an author’s reading. And for most of what she read I was getting nothing of what I thought I should. When hearing an author of fiction read I want to feel motivated, inspired to do literary things, to read more or write the next great American novel. But I didn’t want to write. I wanted to leave. Vaz likes to, as she describes, “put a tassel on every sentence.” It’s fair to extend that description of her writing to her characters’ backstories. She read excerpts that went into Bronte-esque character history; I was totally lost. It was a headache to follow and made me think her five hundred-page novel would be tedious to read. Granted, it must be tough to pick short passages from a five hundred-page book that will make sense out of context, but all the details about characters I am unfamiliar with mean nothing. This first time experience was, for the first twenty minutes of a thirty-minute reading, a bust.

Then came the “Romeo and Juliet scene.” This described one of her characters, I have no idea who, climbing up to his “Juliet’s” room. Nothing I could write about this scene would do it justice. I didn’t know who the characters were; I didn’t need to; I didn’t care. This was the first time I felt something special coming out of Vaz’s mouth. Though she kept her speaking level at a disinterested storyteller’s tone, I felt everything when she said in the midst of a classically-romantic, romantic scene, “He discovered happiness is never wanting anything else.” All of Vaz’s tassels made sense and she finally delivered what I think needs to be the focal point of an author’s reading– emotion.

When I actually read some of Vaz’s work, the details and tassels made sense. I was able to appreciate the rich character histories she creates. These give meaning behind emotion delivered when two characters meet, or the reasons why something simple is affecting a character so deeply. Her writing is very rich, often times metaphoric, and is best appreciated on the page. I have found it is best to sometimes read a page a second time before moving onto the next because it is easy to miss something important betwixt all her flowing detail. But this isn’t to her discredit because every word on the page has a purpose.

There was a lot to be desired in Vaz’s reading; this does not discredit her as a writer. Her style unfortunately diminished what I got out her performance. But the last few minutes gave me an insight to her work. Ultimately reading what she wrote allowed me to understand Vaz as a writer. I don’t think one can fully appreciate the skill of a writer just by a reading. After all, novels should be read not performed. And I almost missed how great a writer Vaz is. But I would say readings are worth going to, even if its for one “Romeo and Juliet scene.”

courtesy of nytimes.com

“House/Divided” is very different from any play I have ever seen. It utilizes multi-media and a versatile set in order to draw parallels between the recent housing bubble and the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression. I should mention again this play is very versatile in all that it does. Actors play multiple roles. The house built on stage can be rearranged and is covered in a screen that can be projected on. This allows the set to be immediately transformed into a modern house from a 1930s farm.

Initially, I was annoyed that I couldn’t see everything clearly. The screen somewhat blocked what was going on inside the house, and I couldn’t always see the actors faces. But the positives outweigh the negatives in this one. When the plot switches to recent times, multiple screens light up showing stock quotes and video. And in other instances video cameras are used to project the actors’ faces on the big screen. The screens are overcrowded with video and information for the housing bubble (tech era) plot lines, while the 1930s part of the plot utilizes a much calmer screen set-up, often in black and white.

Also, the plot is very interesting. It follows a farming family that lost their home during the Great Depression. And it follows predominately two stock traders during the housing bubble. “House/Divided” is a very successful venture into experimental theatre which incorporates multi-media platforms. It has a little bit of everything in that watching the screens makes it a movie, while the singing makes it a musical, and the acting makes it a play.  Very good. Very cool. It is definitely worth seeing.

Credit: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=house+divided+bam&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1098&bih=606&tbm=isch&tbnid=ifWeNyCST5B5wM:&imgrefurl=http://www.facebook.com/BAMstage&docid=03QnE0Z4UJXjiM&imgurl=http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/267746_10151219671993713_2043479580_n.jpg&w=403&h=403&ei=L6uNUMTOAemr0AGPr4CYAw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=352&sig=115516023620644669459&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=154&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:109&tx=28&ty=49

The play that witnessed Thursday evening was, once again, a new experience for me. The way that this play was structured was diverse in the way that it went between two similar situations that were characteristic of two vastly different time periods. The concept itself is very ingenious but the medium chosen to portray it was not my cup of tea. I’ve never really been a fan of the theater or plays but I tried watching this production with an open mind. Unfortunately, my prior views on theater  this made no difference in my opinion of the show. I’ve always found the actors in plays to be very over exaggerated in the portrayal of their roles. No offense to those who love theater but it’s just not for me. Overall, I was immensely impressed by the way this seemingly farfetched story was skillfully pulled together but wish that it was conveyed through another medium.

I’ve always loved reading and disliked being read to. When reading, I can go at my own pace, and I am able to create my own image and interpret the writing without any outside influence. I just don’t enjoy listening to someone reading a book that I could just as easily read myself. It usually takes longer when others read, I get confused, and I can’t even go back to the previous page to remind myself about something or read it again. It also limits my imagination in a way, because the emotions and feelings the reader puts into the reading influences how I feel towards the subjects of the book, too.

Of course, then, it makes sense that I never attended a reading event, and that I probably wouldn’t enjoy it, if I did. So I wasn’t too excited for the reading event with Katherine Vaz either.  After attending it, I can’t say I hated it, but I surely didn’t love it as much as I enjoy reading a book.

Vaz read with emotion and feeling so I was drawn into the story of the lives of John and Mary. I sympathised with them, and felt their pain and their hope, their anger and their love. Vaz explained that her family’s background in similar to that of the characters. Because I understood the context of her writing and what inspired her to create the fictional story I was able to appreciate it more. The picture I got of the story was clearer because of I knew the framework for her writing. Therefore, I think listening to the author read a book is different from having a random person read a book. The author has a special connection to the book, and that transfers over when you hear the author read his/her book.

However, my feelings and emotions towards the story were limited by Vaz’s. The way she read influenced how I felt towards the characters and the story. When I read something, there is nothing that impacts how I feel or react towards the story and characters. I hear only my voice reading silently in my head. I love imagining how the characters look by the minor descriptions that I interpret for myself. It’s for the same reason that I’m not one to watch the film adaptations of books I read.

“Lisbon Story” wasn’t clear, fluid writing. But then, I didn’t expect it to be, after hearing Vaz read a different piece of her writing. Vaz uses many metaphors in her writing. Both when she was reading, and when I was reading, I noticed comparisons and analogies, which can be confusing in writing. When I was listening to Vaz read, I often lost her in midst of a deep metaphor. It was much easier to follow when I was reading myself because I was able to re-read certain parts I felt necessary.

Although I’m not going to resort to listening to people read, I’ve explored the concept and I’m not so opposed to it anymore. I see the benefits and how the reading experience can be so improved. Nonetheless, I am still much more content with cuddling up in my bed to a great book, reading it on my own.

I’m not sure that I enjoyed hearing Katherine Vaz speak before reading her story. Because I had some idea of her writing style from her book excerpt, I mentally prepared myself to be unsure of what was going on in the plot. While the two experiences of listening versus reading were vastly different, both stories contained the extensive metaphors and confusing personal relationships that I assume are typical of her work. The act of being passively or actively engaged in the reading however, put a different spin on the writing. I find it very hard to follow a story that someone is reading to me, while I get intensely engrossed in the books that I read.  So I found myself dozing off during the reading, while the story kept me contentedly busy on the train.

In terms of the plots of the two stories, the one that Ms. Vaz read to us has a male protagonist, while the one I read on my own has a female one. Though this is an obvious contrast, I don’t feel that it overly affected the styles of the two stories. But I applaud her for being able to do this. Also, the two were set in vastly different locations and time periods, which is something I really enjoyed. Each one is its own complete journey through the life of someone completely unique.

This is the first time that I’ve ever been to a book reading, but it was exactly as I’d pictured it. Meaning to say it was slow and a bit pointless. I really cannot understand what purpose it serves to have the author read her work. Though I appreciated the backstory of all the research that was involved, as well as the question and answer session, I did not find hearing the author read her story enjoyable. I would much rather have read the actual work myself and then, if I liked it, go to some sort of meet and greet with the author to ask her questions after I’ve read it. Are there any book readings like this? Or are they always arranged to introduce new books? Though I guess book readings are meant to be a sort of promotion technique, this is my idea for a more enjoyable experience to be had by all:
The author sends out excerpts of her book for the audience to read, and then, if the audience is intrigued, they can meet the author to ask questions and find out more about the book. I think that this would combine the best of both worlds – I could read the book myself and also get the interesting backstory.

All in all, though the book reading was a first time experience for me, I think I’d like to stick with reading books myself instead of having them read to me. I like to imagine things on my own and not have the author’s voice inflections and overall tone affect my opinions about what’s going on. The truly remarkable thing about a book is the singular form of communication it uses, which allows the reader a part in determining the characters personalities. A book reading ruins this.

I was totally blown-away by the multimedia magic that was used to make House/Divided. As a mildly ADD person, I found the continuous shifts between the different forms of entertainment to be a huge relief after our last performance involved sitting for 3 hours listening to French.

I had never before felt personally moved by the plight of those who are forced out of their homes. I knew it existed, of course, but I never gave much thought to it. I can’t even fathom having my stuff thrown out on the street and being told that the place I call home is no longer mine. Even though it seemed like this performance was villainizing the “Big Bad Banks,” I know that of course there are two sides to every story. So I’m not sure what the banks should have done if these people were simply not keeping up with their payments. Maybe they should’ve given them more time? Or helped them come up with a way to repay them more slowly and in smaller increments? In any case, I’m usually wary of anything that seems totally one-sided.

The part that I felt was most dramatic was when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were slowly going bankrupt. I knew what the outcome would be, so I was holding my breath, waiting for when they would announce their predicament. I also found the two stockbrokers to be hilarious, so I looked forward to them coming on stage.

In terms of “The Grapes of Wrath,” I thought that the olden-day scenes pretty much echoed John Steinbeck’s famous work. The modern day bits were merely a more applicable spin on the same theme. That being said, I didn’t enjoy the old parts as much as the modern ones. Maybe it’s because I can’t relate to the farming life as much, but anyway I found those parts kind of boring. Still amazing though, just not as enjoyable as the rest of it.

House/Divided is a  really cool show, and very original in how they put a new spin on John Steinbeck’s classic work. I would love to see another multimedia performance like this one!

That was my first reaction to the play. The combination of the ancient,  falling-apart look of the theatre, the fact that our seats were fifty feet above the ground, and the extremely technological multimedia play all blew me away. The technology, mainly, blew me away. I could only imagine how long it must have taken behind the scenes to create the powerful presentation we all saw. It’s one thing to see recorded movies, but seeing all of this, which I guess seems more like a live movie, gave me a new appreciation for technology.

I also read John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath in eleventh grade, and when I read it in school, I read the book as part of an American literature course, and in turn, I saw the book as a part of American history. A story about a family in the Great Depression, in the great Dustbowl. Something that could happen in the olden days, but more unheard of today. Well, this play certainly changed that view. The juxtaposition of this classic novel with today’s current issues was so interesting for me, and gave me a new outlook on this novel. This work now has more of a timeless feel for me.

In both the older and modern economies, the antagonist is nature – the nature of the unrelenting Dustbowl, the refusal of crops to grow, and the nature of the economy that all work to prevent people from making a living, and living in peace and prosperity. No matter what era people live in, there are always hardships and challenges that we inevitably face, whether it is against other human beings, or against non-humans, such as “machines” or “the bank.”

The idea of people losing something dear to them, having to move, getting kicked out, is a powerful idea, and it is something that everyone faces at some point in his or her life. These two storylines display this idea on a grand scale, but perhaps every person faces this on some kind of level. I could feel the hard work of the actors, the depression and devastation of people who were losing things. I could see myself, and some of my own losses, mirrored in this play. Maybe that is the crucial point. To truly engage the viewer in the plot.

I thought this play was fantastic. The storyline was great. I loved how it jumped back and forth between these two vastly different yet simultaneously similiar stories. The message was clear, and it was easy to follow the transitions between the two different time periods. I always wonder what the original producer of a work of literature would think if he saw his work getting redone. Sometimes when work is redone, when books are made into movies, or books are translated or abridged years later, much of the content and meaning is changed or lost. But I think Steinbeck would have liked this.

It was such a privilege to hear Katherine Vaz read excerpts from her new book last night. I am happy that it was a mandatory event, because otherwise I probably would not have gone- and I would have missed out- big time!

The experience was especially interesting to me because on the way home, I read another piece of her work, LISBON STORY.

I really dont like Vaz’s writing style. I think she sounds like she is trying too hard to be good, purposely putting in extra words that sound complicated and fancy but dont really make any sense. What was up with eating the sounds of birds, anyway?

It was easier for me to understand Lisbon Story, because I was able to re-read the parts I didn’t get the first time. And its actually a great story! I enjoyed reading it, and I liked getting to know the characters. I think Vaz developed the relationships beautifully and had a real story to tell.

When Katherine Vaz was reading, I kept finding myself thinking, wait- what did she just say????

At least with the written story, I ended up finding the story amidst all of the words. Vaz should take a page out of William Zinsser’s advice.

“Look for the clutter in your writing and prune it ruthlessly. Be grateful for everything you can throw away. Reexamine each sentence you put on paper. Is every word doing new work? Can any thought be expressed with more economy? Is anything pompous or pretentious or faddish? Are you hanging on to something useless just because you think it’s beautiful? Simplify, simplify.” (Zinsser, 16)

So, why am I grateful that I went to the reading? What would I have missed out on, you ask? A great experience. Listening to a writer give over her work is an extremely intimate experience. She is so vulnerable. All of the years she spent working on this are being handed over to a potentially ruthless audience, who may laugh in her face. I heard Vaz’s fear in her voice, and it enhanced the experience for me.

Although I may not condone her writing style, Vaz certainly has a clear one. The novel is written more abstractly and elaborately than the short story, but both gave over a certain rawness and honesty. Vaz uses countless (literally) metaphors and similes in her work, and that makes her writing understandable on many levels. Even though you might not know where the story is going, you know exactly what the mothers wrinkles look like- a musical staff. The imagery she employs is beautiful.

I truly enjoyed listening Katherine read her book. I did not understand what she was saying, but I understood what she must have felt like reading it. I truly enjoyed reading Vaz’s short story. I did understand it, and I think about the complex relationships that I got to witness. Both were enjoyable, albeit in very different ways. I wonder how i’ll feel about the movie 🙂

http://cdn.backstage.com/media/uploads/zinnia/RT_H4C0029_copy_2.JPG.644x2000_q100.jpg

I’m always a little hesitant about these events. Partly because I count down the minutes until classes are over everyday, partly because I’m sleep deprived. I had no idea how interesting these directors could make the foreclosure crisis and The Grapes of Wrath so I was also worried I’d end up falling asleep.

Well I walked in and hiking up to our seats was probably the most exercise I’ve done in a very long time. (Only slightly pathetic, mostly hilarious so I thought you all would enjoy this) Then we got to our seats and apparently I’m afraid of heights because I freaked out a little. I was like, “Great, now I can’t even doze off because if I do and lean forward I’ll plummet to my death…”

There were several things throughout the production that could have been done a little better. Sometimes I was confused by the way the actors delivered their lines. In the modern scenes, we could see the actor facing a camera and speaking into it and also see his or her image on a larger screen up above. I didn’t know why they were doing this? If the actor was supposed to be communicating with the ones already on stage then I don’t think it was necessary for the audience to physically see him onstage.

Also, in the older scenes, there were a few instances in which it looked like the family was inside the house but there was a thin screen separating them from the audience. I didn’t really know why that was there or why it was necessary. Threw me off for a little bit.  Maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention and someone else can explain this to me or I’m looking into it more than I should.

Lastly, all the wires and extra machinery hanging out behind the screens and actors were a little distracting. I didn’t know if they were supposed to be there as props in the first scene. The more I watched, I realized that they weren’t a part of the production and just extra things that possibly couldn’t be placed elsewhere? It made it look a little messy and rushed.

I must throw in here that I felt pretty smart understanding all the business related things discussed. Thanks to O’Malley and the unhealthy amount of studying I did for his midterm I actually knew what was going on for this production.

It was definitely a different theatrical performance. I thought it was interesting. They made the comparison between the two eras both evident and relevant. The transition between each time period was clear and well done. Both were captivating in their use of music, sound effects, and props. It was incredible to see the screens transform from scenery in California to a stock exchange screen. I was able to articulate the message the directors were trying to portray and I think this is the biggest challenge in any project. They succeeded, and therefore the production was a success as well. I would love to watch another one of these productions sometime in the near future.