Looking for both critical and creative minds to read and critique a play that I wrote

[The Sovereign]

@Nathrangking, I'll give this a read this weekend and let you know what I come up with mate.

[Briar King]

I don’t read plays or poems unless assigned to read them in high school or college and that’s been oh 15-20 yrs now lol. This stuff really isn’t my personal cup of tea. I also have maybe 1% knowledge of the Bible so I had no idea what your covering here. That said I do like reglious movies quite a lot. I will tell you what I liked. The Angel narrator bits as they were more book formatish, and when the 2 characters broke the 4th wall(I assume they are anyway talking to audience) but maybe I’m wrong on that. I didn’t like some of the longer dialogue portions. I would either cut it down or have more dialogue added in but broken up in shorter segments.

i could get into what your doing easily if I was watching or reading a proper book though for sure so take comfort in that.

[Orlion Blight]

First thing's first, I have yet to read it and I feel like I have a reputation to uphold, soooo...

To further clarify, the preceding gif is not actual criticism. Having to surround it with these clarifications seems to indicate that it is also a bad idea, but I got another reputation to uphold 

[Elandera]

I think you have something very interesting in works here. As has been said, the dialogue feels stiff. I understand you want it to feel like it's set in those old days when people's speech was more formal than what we use today, and I think that's a good idea. But imagine being the actor trying to recite it on stage. Say the words out loud as you write. How does it feel? Does it sound right out loud?

Something to help with that would be to get a group of people together with a bit of stage experience to just read the play together. Each person would have a part and recite those lines. That would help you pick out what sounds right and what needs to be changed.

Also, one thing I felt could be improved was the blocking. There was very little blocking overall. How would the people move on stage? What are their facial expressions? The tones of their voice? I know a lot of that is up to an actor and interpretation, but give them a place to start.

Overall, I liked it! I'm not super familiar with bible history in general (something I should honestly work on), but this sets up an interesting story.

See the spoiler tag for my edits:

Spoiler

As I told DrakenShadow, I can get a little eager with my edits. Take or leave them as you wish. Mostly they are a way to point out what I think could improve. You may find your own way to improve it. I hope this helps!

Edited July 10, 2018 by Elandera

[Darkness Ascendant]

>Jumps on the shard after almost a year

>Is pinged here and claimed to be one of the most creative people on the shard

>

Well damnation  Thanks >.> I'm genuinely honoured and feel bad for not being more active

------

I agree with the expositiony aspect of it, my first thought was honestly "Who are you Michael Bay"- cos Transformers is p similar in this aspect in the beginning...also "more than meets the eye"

Also, the entrance is unnecessary, makes assumptions and in all honesty if I were sitting in the audience watching I'd feel bored and want to leave. You've distanced yourself from the viewer and broken their suspense of disbelief, established that they are merely viewers and not a part of the play itself. Keep in mind there's a relationship there between theatregoers and the show itself. Capitalise on it.

Mordechai makes me think of a murderous cup of tea xD

Feels really pulpy and generic in all honesty- Worldbuilding is good but the way it is presented is really boring imo, it isn't grand and enthralling- as theatres should be. Instead of drawing the viewers in it alienates them in this world where everyone speaks as if they were in a middle school play and don't act naturally- as if they know people are watching  

Also add more humour into it, humour works well in plays.

---------

That's just my initial feedback, I don't have too much time I'm afraid so if you ping me in response I may be able to go into it deeper.

[hypatia]

Ooh, now I'm really baffled -if you thought of someone else - don't tell me.

But give me a little bit time - at the moment there are some problems on my behalf (fresh from a surgery) - I promise I will look at it.

[Archer]

I'm honored to have been summoned.  Thanks for the ping @Nathrangking

Overall Comments:

Spoiler

Great play. I like it. The premise is cool, adaptations are always interesting reads. The language sets the time period well. Good job developing all the characters. 

Grammar and Spelling Stuff: (for what I had time to read)

Spoiler

 

Quote

(Loud footsteps are heard and suddenly an out of breath messenger runs on stage. Annoyance and tinges his voice as he turns to the messenger.)

and what?

Quote

The last of the rebel fortresses in the area has just been conquered by Mordechai. In an hour’s time the spoils will be brought here so that it can be divided.

*they, re: spoils is plural

Quote

Let’s

*let us re: consistency  

Specific Critique:

Spoiler

Quote

Angel: The story that you are about to see is more than a melodramatic tale of intrigue. It is a tale which has far more to it than meets the eye. Soon you shall see some things which may come as a surprise. For now sit back and relax as you take a journey into the distant past and watch battles which have long since passed.

I like the premise of a narrator to get your attention, then the big reveal of the city. However, I think the angel's speech needs work. The sentences are good on their own, but don't flow into each other perfectly. The surprise line needs a rewrite, extension? 

And avoid reusing words (tale), or words that sound similar (past, passed: that one I didn't like because it sounded like a failed attempt at a rhyme). 

Quote

G1: The worst part is that the we failed to accomplish anything meaningful.

The guards are good exposition. Shakespeare would use a scene like this to interject some humor, consider adding some funny banter.

G1's line here seems out of character. Why is he motivated for the success of the campaign, when everything else indicates he's in it for the money? Upon rereading it I realized people can have multiple motivations 

It may just be the older language, but the guards seemed too formal and stilted. They don't sound like two buddies having a chat to vent their frustration. It's all very to the point, which is unrealistic. A normal conversation would have jokes (about their boss' appearance, references to things they have in common etc.), hyperbole, reactions, interjections... The way they talk is more of a 'two depressed men sitting in a bar drowning their sorrows in beer' kind of talk, rather than the discontent conversation of underappreciated employees. People can relate to disliking their job, use that to connect to the audience.  

There's a good opportunity for the guard to be rebellious when he talks to Haman. If you set up an inside joke between the guards, then have the guard make a joke about it while on the surface seeming to be defer to Haman it would be clever. Something that out of context seems like he's being respectful, but the aware audience would laugh at it. 

Quote

M: The last of the rebel fortresses in the area has just been conquered by Mordechai.

I'd put the name of the area in instead. Haman knows what it is, saying the area lessens the realism.

Quote

M: my lord

Remember the commas after or before people's names. Example text, my lord. Haman, grab that example object. etc. 

Quote

Does he think that I’m his barber? One day he’ll go too far with his orders and he’ll get cut

I like the clever wordplay you use. Lines like this are good. 

Quote

M: Haman quickly gather your troops and prepare to attack! We have the advantage. We must make sure not to waste it. If we attack the city now it can be conquered easily. They have no allies to help them defend themselves!

I don't like the no allies line. It sounds wrong. Overall, the letter is good, but I'd interject more pride/arrogance/bloodthirst/something. I'm not quite sure what it needs, but this is your first impression of the character. He sounds like an excited child (unless that's intentional, in which case, you don't need to change it)

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Archer

[Robinski]

On 20/06/2018 at 10:18 PM, Nathrangking said:

I look forward to the feedback and I hope you enjoy it.

Hey, yes, I'll happily take a look and come back you with comments. Probably tomorrow.

[Robinski]

Interesting to be critiquing a play; it’s something I’ve never done. Sure, I read various works of Shakespeare at school, but it’s been a while, and I’ve never had any kind of ability with drama, despite writing over 1M words of fiction. So, with that in mind, here we go.

Spoiler

Page 1 – Prologue

The introduction, for me, is a bit dry, but maybe that’s okay. Still, as the first words that I’m reading, in the same way as a novel, I would expect them to grip me. Perhaps this is my reaction because I’m not a huge fan of fighting in ‘narrative’, which seems to be the implication.

My first impression was that the guards were standing watching from the city, guarding against attack. Thus, I was a bit confused at first by the perspective.

Hmm. The dialogue is problematic for me. It is very formal, verging towards stilted. Put simply, in my view, people don’t actually speak that way. This gives the dialogue a very expositional tone. The last paragraph is more direct, and has some character in it. That worked better for me.

Page 2

I honestly thought it was dark. I think it was because of the direction ‘lights up’. I know that’s a direction, but it invokes darkness (to me). In a screenplay, we would get some blocking like EXT: midmorning, or whatever.

Who is D? I didn’t understand that.

Why would H be annoyed at the arrival of a messenger? It seems to me just as likely that the messenger will have better news than the guards, I would have thought.

Page 3

H’s displeasure with the guards seems illogical to me. How is it they are wasting their time when they are attending their lord and commander?

The dialogue again is quite stilted. I’ve got very little sense of character, and the sense that I do get is quite thin. I suppose however to some extent this is because I have the luxury of many words and much narrative in my SFF novels, novellas, etc. with which to colour and reveal character, whereas here, I suppose you are reliant on the actors and the director of the play to convey character that is not written on the page. The difficulty though, for a drama novice like me, is that I'm not used to reading this type of material, and I'm commenting with the eyes of an author, not a playwright. However, I think there is still a strong basis to recommend that the dialogue have more interest, more energy and be more entertaining.

I’m unclear who is in command between H and M. Are they of equal rank? How on earth does that work?

Page 4

I get the reason for the asides to the audience, but it really kills the forward momentum of the action. Surely there is a way to convey the same information in general dialogue.

I’m confused now. If the soldiers did have double rations then they would be well fed, would they not?

Why have H turn to the audience? Why not have him call the soldier a liar to his face? The chopping and changing between breaking the fourth wall and speaking ‘in context’ feels really choppy to me.

I still don’t know who the D is. Also, whose lies is H referring to, M’s? I thought that was unclear.

There’s a full riot and it is instantly quelled to the sound of cheers by one very short statement. I find this unrealistic but, again, perhaps it’s because I'm judging by the standards of narrative fiction because I don’t really have the tools with drama. Still, I think my issues remain in that events seems to lack light a shade they are very direct, simply and changes happen on the instant. Still, I’m hankering for more entertaining dialogue.

Page 5

Page 6

Wait, what? Now H is calling M ‘my lord’? I don’t think it was clear from the start who was the leader. Also, if H is a god, how is it that M is the leader of the expeditionary force.

Act I, Scene I

Page 7

Again, the dialogue is heavy with exposition, encroaching on maid-and-butler in the sense that one tells the other that the capital has moved, but the other one already knows that, so the statement is only made for the benefit of the viewer. Maybe maid-and-butler is permissible in dramatisation, but there are ways to convey the same information. For example a question “Do you think it a good idea that our capital has been moved from X to Y?”

Yeah, see Guest 2 does not need to tell Guest 1 who the king is, Guest 1 already knows this. However, Guest 2 can simply say ‘King Ak’ without telling who the king is. That would sound more natural.

Page 8

Why does Guest 2 make an aside to the audience when he could say the same thing to Guest 1? It seems unnatural to make an aside when it’s unnecessary.

‘tax break’ is a modern phrase and that dumped me right out of the setting.

Okay, the chopping and changing in the conversation between Guest 1 and Guest 2 is quite comical, and therefore entertaining.

Who warned not to come to the party and why? I’m not following that. Also, how and why were H and M demoted to being waiters? That seems bizarre given that they secured the king’s victory.

Page 10

Confused by M’s position. He seemed like the consistent thoughtful one, why would he become a hypocrite about something like this?

Page 11

Some of the language is a bit ‘off’. ‘A heavenly voice booms from the heavens’ is awkward due to the repetition of ‘heaven’.

Why would the heavenly voice use the word ‘supernatural’? That seemed odd to me.

In summary, from a personal viewpoint, I find no character here to root for, and so I’m never really invested in the events or the actions. The dialogue I found very direct and rather uninvolving. I couldn’t find any colour in it, or much character. I do explain above that this may be my inexperience with reading a dramatisation, where actors and direction would bring out character where it is not written on the page, but when I think of the drama that I have read (admittedly Shakespeare) I feel like I take away character from what I read, that I have someone to root for, and a clear antagonist to root against.

So, the material perhaps is not really for me. There is some entertaining in the sparring between the guests involving the audience too, but I found the subject matter just a bit too serious, and that I wasn’t really drawn in to feel the stakes

I hope these comments are useful. Good luck!

<R>

[Stark]

I'm honored to be listed as one of the critical minded here.  It is one of the best compliments I have received.

 

Sadly, I am not sure I am going to be able to live up to that.  I have not read script style writing, or plays, since high school.  I will give what you wrote a look when I have a chance, but I am skeptical as to the value or benefit that I will be able provide.  I will mostly be trying to earn that massive compliment you have paid me.

[Mistrunner]

Wow, you consider me to be critically minded? I'm putting that on my resume.

Edited February 6 by Mistrunner

[Nathrangking]

Just now, Mistrunner said:

Wow, you consider me to be critically minded? I'm putting that on my resume.

Honestly, I don't think I have much to say other than the Book of Esther? that's me that's my name

I'm interested in what you think of my adaptation. If you are not interested in reading though I get.

[Mistrunner]

6 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

I'm interested in what you think of my adaptation. If you are not interested in reading though I get.

Oh, I just think most things have been said already! My biggest piece of advice is just to show not tell. A lot of things can be shown via staging, acting, and implication, so sometimes the characters don't need to tell the audience exactly what's going on, if that makes sense. I think sprinkling exposition throughout or giving it to a narrator would help the dialogue flow more naturally. Dialogue is really what establishes characters' personalities, and once you get rid of the need for them to talk about the plot all the time then we'll get to see more of who they are as people.

I hope that was helpful!

[Dunkum]

I did a quick once over of it, and this thread too.  Some of my own thoughts have been said earlier and better by others, but for a couple that I didn't see much of:

 - I'm not 100% sure of the angelic narrator.  Its a bit hard to say, with just the little bit available.  He could work, though as a rule I think he should be pretty limited, maybe only to the beginning and end of the play, or at most the beginning and end of an act.  that said it is a touch that feels a bit archaic.  that isn't intended as criticism or praise, just my impression.  whether it is good or bad really depends on the vibe you are going for.  much of the language you use is pretty formal, which also tends to lend an archaic feel (approriate perhaps, for a reinterpretation of a bible story) so I tend to think it works OK in concert with that, provided that is the sort of feeling you wanted to evince.

 - I felt there were a few too many asides.  my gut says they should be used sparingly, to flesh out the characterization of a character, but that most of the time you should rely on stage direction and your hypothetical actors' abilities to convey the correct emotion - though I'm not certain, I don't recall seeing much of that sort of stage direction in the plays I had to read in school, so I am not really sure what the normal practice is for that.  We don't need to hear every instance of Haman's inner rants against perceived injustices.  it is sufficient to see one or two long ones and let the shorter ones stand as direction to the actors, maybe.

so that is my two cents' worth.  but do take it with a grain or two of salt.  my degree is in math, and plays were about my second least favorite part of Literature classes (after most poetry), so I am pretty far from an expert at this sort of thing.

[Apollyon]

Wow. I'm honored to be mentioned here. I see what you did there with swapping who you tagged. Still Tanavasted to be in the top 50-something Most Creative/Critical people on the Shard from @Nathrangking's POV.

First impressions: 

The play does a great job of sticking with the Biblical setting.

Other comments:

Overall, great stuff. I'd like to read more if you'd care to share. It left me wanting more.

[AerionBFII]

Well I can't turn down such a polite and flattering invitation 

 

First chance I get I will take a look 

[Robinski]

Hey there,

Okay, I've read Scene II, here are my comments.

Spoiler

And I'm back. Sorry about the delay, but that's life for you!

Page 1 – Scene II

‘eternal’ literally means ‘everlasting’, so this would appear to be a tautology (bad thing). If his kingdom is eternal, it will (by definition) last forever.

Who has more wealth?

One Sat married the other? I’m confused, or did one Sat perform the ceremony for the other? This is unclear.

I’m struggling to follow the dialogue. How do the king’s words dishonour him?

Page 2

“next three years of your wife’s kingdom” – I don’t understand what this phrase means.

This drunken dialogue about the women of their nations has the potential to be novel and entertaining, but it comes over quite serious, near po-faced, and I don’t think it’s as compelling as it should be. The way they speak to the king is surprisingly insolent.

Page 3

I’m surprised the queen scolds other people; I'm surprised that would be effective. I would have thought as a beautiful woman she would charm them, or as a queen she would command them. Giving them a tongue lashing seems like it would be ineffective.

The dialogue is very straightforward. It doesn’t have a great deal of complexity or nuance, which would make it more entertaining, I think.

Page 4

I don’t remember his majesty ordering the other wives to be brought before them, just the (his) queen.

The lines that Meh speaks on this page have many modern buzz words/phrases, like people person, job security and unwinnable (no-win) situation. To me, they feel very much out of context for a period story like this. Also, I’m not sure I get the premise of the statement.

Page 5

I don’t understand how this standoff comes to pass. It seems to be about nothing.

Page 6

The queen’s reaction makes no sense to me. I haven’t seen any basis for her to react this way. She must know it cannot end well, unless she knows something that the views does not.

Page 7

How is it that the queen degraded these other women? I don’t recalling seeing that, or hearing about it.

Page 8

‘Treasonous treason” – huh?!

The spelling of Meh’s name changes half way through this section. Also, the King’s attribution changes from King Ach, to Ach the King, then back again.

Page 9

I find it hard to believe that servants would have an open argument in front of the king, or that one would argue with the king. I felt that same about the satraps. It’s hard to believe and accept.

Page 10

Why on earth would all wives rebel just because the queen does?

Page 11

I’m not really sure what’s going on. We’ve had a huge argument over something that does not seem enormously significant. I can see that the king is slighted, but how did it come to this? How is it that the queen has decided to rebel at this moment? Or why has he taken this risk if she has been rebelling before? We see nothing of her motivations, so we don’t know how to feel about this. Has the queen always been antagonistic towards the king? Does this mark a change in behaviour? How have they got this far in marriage?

The whole thing seems very negative towards women, and shows no female point of view, only a lot of men arguing over what women should and should not do. I find that distasteful to be honest. And then the order is given to execute the queen with no presentation of her position, no glance even at the other side of the story, or the queen as a person.

I hope these comments are useful. I'm increasingly sure that this 'story' is not for me. But I hope there is something in a different perspective that you can use. I think it needs work, but first drafts always do. Good luck.

<R>

[Borio Singaldi]

So... I'll try not to repeat what's already been said too much, but... I like how the characters take time to sort of pause time and speak to the audience to show their thoughts before speaking to other characters. It's a nice theatrical touch.

Concerns: there were a few grammatical and narrative errors here and there that I'm sure have been pointed out, and fixing up those little bugs will help improve the look of it and the ease of reading. And yeah, it seemed a bit too wordy sometimes, and I thought the dialogue was often a bit forced-sounding as well. It didn't feel real enough.

I commend your use of the names of biblical characters to tell this story. I'm intrigued by it. I'm going to point out an issue I have with many things I've read, even some of my own works -- you have done a very good job of creating an interesting story with a very good premise, but the execution of said story is not quite living up to the story itself. Basically, it's not as well-written of a story as it could be, but the storyline itself as it is... is very good. I definitely commend you for that.

Last and least: I'm both honored that you would consider me a creative mind in general and ashamed that it took me so long in getting to the point of reading this without having many good reasons for not doing so.

[Kingsdaughter613]

I still dislike the angel’s role. I don’t think he’s needed. The guests can say something about it being three years. It also defeats the purpose of God’s role being hidden... The passage of time is better shown by the characters aging.

 If you do really feel the need for an angel please clarify whether it is a Jewish angel or a Christian one.

Also, Memuchan and Haman are the man according to many. Having them be played by the same actor would be a nice touch.

 

[kaellok]

Guess I had been away from the forums a bit longer than I remembered, but like so many others feel flattered by the mention

Also like so many others, unfortunately, plays are not so much my thing.  I do really like language and find the way that it is used to be interesting, though, so I'll comment a bit on that.

Most of the angel's dialogue I am rather fine with, to be honest, even if it is a bit long-winded.  In general, it lends itself immediately to a majestic and grand speaker in my mind.  I would recommend that future edits should try to ensure that the near-rhyme scheme going on continues, as there are a few places where it doesn't happen that it is expected (like in the 2nd scene, discussing about the 2nd festival the king is throwing; rearranging the sentence would have made the scheme work, while as-is it breaks the flow somewhat).  It's possible that the angel is not needed at all, but at least for now it serves a useful purpose.  I do think that if you keep the angel, you should remove the "Heavenly Voice'.  Leave it as a booming sound that is heard, but not understood by any humans present; the angel can simply bow his head, and then say something like, "As you command, Lord.  The sinner who is Your servant's servant shall be the instrument of Your wrath."

The guards, guests, Haman, and Mordechai all talk very similarly.  In my experience (which is legit limited to our world and US Army customs), soldiers in the field will not be so proper with their language, even if they are guarding the general or speaking directly to them.  Contractions are one way of signifying this, especially ones which clip words.  For instance, "We've been sittin' 'ere for five bloody weeks, and ain't accomplished a damnation thing.  There ain't no money, there ain't no glory, and there for damnation-sure ain't no end in sight."

I had to do a double-take with the 2nd scene, as I thought that the guests were the guards.  Changing between 'low' and 'proper' language-use can help to make it immediately clear that they are different characters if  you get someone like me who is maybe not great about reading each and every word but just sees a 'gu' and assumes it's more guards...

I'm not very familiar with the story of Esther, which I have seen others mention that this play seems to be a retelling of.  However, I can say that seeing Mordechai transformed from the honorable and conquering general to a literal servant certainly seems an intriguing development.  Could it be a more permanent change in employment status without upsetting the story?  Hearing that it's only a 6-day punishment lessens this, however. 

So far you have done very little with presenting a picture using words, allowing it to be formed by the audience's mind instead.  What you have done, though, has still left a fairly strong impression in my own head of how things look.  Plays and other scripts will usually have a bit more details added, though, especially for KEY CHARACTERISTICS or THINGS THAT STICK OUT.  Use that to give a more definite idea of how each of the characters look different than the others.  This is especially important as so far we are seeing the story unfold mostly through the eyes of people present on the outskirts of major happenings, but not central figures in them.  Haman signing the contract with Mordechai is obviously a big deal, but we're seeing it through the guards, and not through Haman or Mordechai.

All in all a fantastic start, and I hope that my suggestions are more helpful than not.