About
Three Days of Rain, Richard Greenberg states: "no gun is taken out; nobody ends up dead in the street." What, then, does Act 1 suggest is at stake? What problems are unresolved? What questions are left for Act 2 -- or the readers -- to resolve?
There are a lot of unanswered questions in act 1 because some of the characters don't mkae complete thoughts and pieces of the play are missing. One unanswered question is why was Pip's father crying when he first met Pip's mother? Another includes why does Pip inherit the house and not Walker? Why is the journal so concise? These leave the reader to wonder and/or guess what the answers are. The play asks a lot of its readers and has high expectations of the readers. As discussed in class, the characters make references and do not feel the necessity to explain to the reader what their reference means, they just assume that the reader understands. The characters also use diction such as "you know" or "As you're probably aware..." which encourages the readers to just nod along and agree. Their incomplete thoughts also ask the readers to fill in the blanks and make assumptions. In conclusion, the play asks a lot of its audience and allows them to interact with the play.
ReplyDeleteHi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteThroughout Three Days of Rain there seems to be a common theme of unanswered questions. There is always a question that needs to be answered, no matter what area of the play we are in. The quote seems to be speaking about a surprise that won't occur, which in turn the unanswered questions create. Almost as if he was saying, "Don't worry there are no more surprises coming, no one is going to pull a gun on you in the middle of the street".The irony of this play is that there are new surprises in every page and they occur once a questioned is answered. In class we debated about why Pip would get the house, what the meaning of that could be. We tried to decide why this would happen, finally we got the answer and it wasn't near any of our hypothesis'.The unanswered questions also add to the fact that Walter is unstable and he thinks too deeply into certain situations, Nan is the realistic one who takes her grief, deals with it and moves on, and Pip holds onto things and doesn't face them head on until he can't hold it in any longer and then he explodes. I think Greenberg does a really great job of giving us false information and then leaking the truth further into the play. I'm interested to see what everyone else thinks of this prompt because I'm not necessarily sure I am on the right track! Hope to hear from you all soon!
So I found it odd that Nan and Walker, while describing their parents said very similar things about them; like a summary wrapped up into 3 sentences. Also I found the closing of the first Act forshadowed something both the readers and characters are not already aware of when Nan says that now that Walker is burning the book, they will not know anything. What else is there to know I wondered? When we flipped into the 2nd act a relationship between Lina and Theo suprisingly unfolded...did Ned know about this? He seemed fine with what was going on?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristina. I thought it was really strange when it turned out that Ned and Lina had gotten a divorce, when both Nan and Walker never said anything about that. How could both of them have told the same story and left such a big piece of it out. One pattern that I began to notice was the fact that Walker can't seem to find any connection with his father, alive or dead. This is taken farther when Pip reveals that Ned used to chat with him but was silent around Walker. Is there some significant secret that Ned was trying to hide from Walker? Could it somehow be related to the secret that Nan and Pip were hiding from him for so long? Both the will and the journal did not turn out the way that Walker was expecting them to and he ends up not even wanting the house and burning the journal. What caused such a disconnect between this father and his son?
ReplyDelete~Catherine Keller
As Kristina has pointed out, Act I ends with the burning of Ned's journal. Nan exclaims that now they'll never know what was inside, what was inside Ned's mind and heart. That mystery--the cryptic journal entries, the different views Walker and Pip have of Ned--is surely what Act II will set out to resolve.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Lina go mad? Why was Ned silent? What happened during those three days of rain?
In a way, I think Walker, Nan and Pip's perceptions of their parents are what set up the stakes for Act II. What I want to find out is if they were right, or if all of their assumptions and hypotheses are just illusions. Are they living "lies"?
So many problems are unresolved. For instance, the true meaning of "Three Days of Rain" has not yet been revealed, nor the importance of the journal. Nan and Walker's relationship has not been resolved - she doesn't want to be around him, yet he needs her in his life. Nan and Pip also have unresolved feelings for each other. So, their relationships with each other are definitely at stake. Walker's way of living is at stake - Pip and Nan are his support system; if they end up having a fall out, he will have no one to check on him through his less-sane times.
ReplyDeleteWalter "knows" why his dad acted the way he did, and it seems that his father was still pretty quiet in the second part of the play. I think that this part will explain why he acts like this, or perhaps show a different man. Also, I wonder what Ned didn't write in his journal. What secrets did he keep to himself?
ReplyDeleteIn this part of the play I believe that the simple story behind both parents is at stake. The first part begins to suggest that something is awry with the situation, and we are now ready to learn what that is.
I agree with everything that has been said, but I also want to add something: While the main characters are talked about, it is not made clear exactly how happy they are. Nan, for example, is very stable and domestic, kind of the only adult in the show, but it is never said how much she loves her husband, and it is up in the air whether she still has feelings for Pip. We also know Walter is not "entirely sane", but we don't know exactly what is wrong. Even Ned: though we know how successful he was financially, there is so much we don't understand about him. Why did he never speak to anyone?
ReplyDeleteGoing with what most people have said I feel that there is a lot of unanswered questions at the end of Act 1. We still don't know the meaning of three days of rain. There is questions behind the relationships of Nan, Walker, and Pip. Do Nan and Pip still love each other? Does Walker still love Pip? Why doesn't Nan want Walker around? We don't understand Ned as a character or why he didn't speak. And we don't know why he only spoke with Pip. Also why did he take credit for the house? In act 2 I think that some of these questions will be for the most part answered. But also that we will get some insight into the true lives of the parents that Nan, pip and walker didn't really know.
ReplyDeleteAnna Veelman
I think Act 1 is the "set up" as Kevin puts it for what will be revealed in Act 2, In particular the relationships between the four adults. Because we know that the second act only includes Ned, Theo, Lina and Maureen I think that I can guess we will still have unresolved questions about Walker, Nan and Pip.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do think the second act will reveal many questions to the reader like:
-The reason Lina went crazy
-The significance and what happened during the three days of rain
-Why Pip was crying
-And also why Ned remained so quite and distant from Walker and his family
It seems like the author puts a lot of faith in the reader to guess and work through this play, but that's what makes it fun.
-Emily S.
While I was reading Act 1 of "Three days of Rain," I wondered why Pip is so much concerned about Walker even though he was, at the same time, somewhat embarrased by Walker's love for him.
ReplyDeleteDoes he feel guilty or sorry for Walker because he was dating Walker's sister Nan? Pip once said, "I assumed-do things really stay that long?"(37). It tells us that Pip thought that Walker was aware of the situation between them and Nan thoroughly. Therefore, he might have some guilt toward Walker for that. But it does not completely explain why Pip is trying to take care of Walker even more than Nan does.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Kevin, perhaps what is at stake in Act 1 is Nan, Pip, and Walker's perceptions of their parents, and in turn those perceptions continue to affect their lives. The lack of full conversations, and missing scenes (such as the lawyer scene) leaves plenty of questions:
ReplyDeleteWhat really happened during those three days of rain? Why was it so significant to Ned?
Why did Lina go insane? Is Walker insane?
and so on.
Plenty is left for the reader to interpret, almost like a mad-libs, and I feel like given what we know of act 2, it looks like the reader has to answer most of the questions from the little answers that we receive.
--Sarah Chin
I think it is really interesting to think about the parallel between all these questions and Walker burning the journal at the end of the act. Walker had all of these questions about his dad or at least he wanted to know more about him, then destroys the only thing that may have answers. So in a way the end of the act is like Richard Greenberg burning the book of answers for us. If that makes any sense at all.
ReplyDeleteAlong with that thought there are many questions that a left unanswered. So much is left out of this play but at the same time so much is hinted at. Why did Pip get the house over Walker or Nan? Is Walker insane or does he just run away from his problems and is very socially awkward? and if there are no answers in the journal what is the relevance of it?
I think when Richard Greenberg says"no gun is taken out", like most other people said, I think he relating to the fact that Nan, Walker, and Pip don't really give us the whole story about their parents and even other situations that occurred through out their lives. They are very unspecific about it; they can sum up a person's marriage in 5 words and give the audience nothing else. So in a sense, the gun was never taken out in first place, so if it's not out, no one can shot it, and no one "ends up dead in the street".
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Madeleine about Walker burning the book that could possibly have all the answer in it. Except I don't think that Greenberg was burning the answers for us, I think he burns the book for some closure for the characters and then starts to reveal the answers for us in the second act. So in a sense the book meant so much to everyone in the first act but after it burned, maybe no one really needs to know what is in it anymore.
I agree with what everyone has said so far: in act 1, Greenberg suggests that every character—maybe excluding Maureen— has a secret. However, he does not show the readers what the secret is. Lina being insane—murmuring in a language no one can understand— is “familiar” to Walker’s family. As if saying it is so natural thing, the book does not tell us why Lina has gone mad. Why didn’t Ned talk to his family? We do not know either; these facts are almost “given” to the characters.
ReplyDeleteAmong these unanswered questions, one that troubles me the most is: “What does ‘Three days of rain’ mean?” Is it supposed to have meaning? I guess. Does "rain" suggest Ned's state of mind, then? I am eager to know what caused Ned, whose journal is very succinct, to record the phrase. Even when his “best and oldest friend” (as Walker says) is dying, all he writes is “Theo is dying,” without any variation. Why did someone so reticent have to write “Three days of rain”? Will this book ever tell me why? I don’t know yet.
I think that Richard Greenberg said "no gun is taken out; nobody ends up dead in the street" to state plainly that no one was going to actually murder another character. Although, I believe that when Walker burned the book that was symbolic for a final ending with Ned and Theo, completely separating their parents' lives from their own. So I suppose I agree with Lauren in that it brings closure so that more can be revealed with the second act of the play. Because of this defined ending at the end of the act, readers and/or viewers should expect something significantly different for the second part. I think some people might have wanted to know more about the previous relationship between Nan and Pip or about Walker's isolation and various trips. From the beginning of Act II, readers are challenged to determine how closely the characters from Act I can be compared to their parents, and how similar the relationships were. As I previously said, I believe the burning of the book was intended to create a distinct line between the acts, taking the parents out of it. But instead the second act just reveals to us what the book may or may not have. Also we learn about Ned's stutter which lead him to keep quiet for his own comfort. Combined with the little he said in his diary, I really would like to know where all of his other thoughts went, or if there were any at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that other people have said so far.
ReplyDeleteBut just to add some of my own thoughts,
when I finished ACT 1 and started to read ACT 2, I also found out that the author intentionally put many unresolved facts and questions to make the readers to wonder and to be curious about the things like, the relationships between the four characters and their parents, and the materials in the diary that was burnt in the last scene of ACT 1...which will make the readers and the audience to wonder what would come next or to be curious how things will go on from ACT 2.
In my case (in the stance of a reader), I was wondering why would someone so successful and talented like Ned got married to Lina(who appear as a crazy person)? However, as I was reading the first parts of ACT 2, I figured out that Lina was not crazy from the beginning and I could see Ned's secret affections towards her from the attitude when Ned was talking to Lina. SO, I think, the readers job is now to hold on to the questions and the quriousity that they have and to resolve them as ACT 2 goes on.
I like the idea Madeleine brought up about burning the journal. It really leaves you at the edge of your seat because Walker has been dying to know all of these things about his father, and he just burns the journal. I also agree with Lauren on the fact that Greenberg most likely did this to resolve the first act so that during intermission the audience would be full of questions, and when the second act started their answers would eventually be answered. I know if I was in that audience I would DEMAND answers!
ReplyDeleteI feel that there were many questions that were not answered within the first act. It's clear that Walker does have some sort of problem, but it's never officially ANSWERED.
I think that Greenberg, with ACT 1, suggests that what's at stake is the present. Let me explain, through revealing to the audience the effect (ACT 1) before showing the cause (ACT 2) Greenberg amplifies the gravity of the situation. Not only does this make the audience skeptical and curious as to how the characters reached their current situation, but it ultimately leads us to the conclusion that things that happened in the past no matter how small (such as the journal) can have an immense impact on the present.
ReplyDeleteThis phenomenon leads the audience to come to some pretty crazy conclusions during intermission because, let's face it, Greenberg leaves a lot of room for possibilities. If, however, a gun were to have been pulled and somebody killed, I think that most of the audience would be dwelling on the present rather than on the past, as he wants us to be.
I think that Greenburg's metaphor for "Three Days of Rain" is important. It's just one more thing that we need to figure out.
ReplyDeleteThe gun that he talks about is Act 1. It is the weapon the right-now action that is happening, and Act 2 is the dead body in the street. Because we see the past in Act 2, the motives and actions that loaded the gun the first act put into place. Which means that this "murder" is personal, there is a history that we need to uncover. Everything in Act 1 is put at stake, the very history that the kids (Walker, Nan, and Pip) grew up with is quite possibly false. I mean it's a pretty big gun. I have no doubt that Greenburg intended for much of this story to be covered by big stains. He gave us all the evidence, but it's being covered up.
I believe that the reader feels as though Walker's stability is at stake. Even though it is already obvious that Walker has issues, the way events proceed will determine how the rest of his life unfolds. Nan understands this, as does Pip, so they attempt to put their emotions behind them and provide Walker with a much needed sense of stability.
ReplyDeleteThis is also a possible reason as to why Walker burns his father's journal. He potentially realizes that getting to know a person for who they are really are can be emotionally trying and he doesn't have a lot left.
The relationships between all of the characters we have been introduced to so far are all at stake. All of the unanswered questions during the first act leave the reader to think of possible conclusions, and for this reason, it is difficult to determine which path the play will follow.
When Richard Greenberg states that, “no gun is taken out; nobody ends up dead in the street”, I think he is playing to the more subtle nature of the play. Perhaps there is no physical death at stake but the discovery of truth is at stake at the end of Act 1. As the journal burns, a certain element of truth dies, as these characters may never be able to recover the information written by their father in that journal. The biggest question left for Act 2 or the reader to resolve at this time is what the journal contained, and how the information in the journal might affect Nan, Walker, and Pip.
ReplyDeleteIt is more likely than not that any of the entries in the journal might have provided them with insight into the life of Ned, who was otherwise quite reticent. In Act 1, we also learn of a previous relationship between Nan and Pip and of the tension between Walker and Pip, which may be a result of the life and relationships that Ned had while he was alive. If this is the case, it might very well have been detailed in the journal, instead the reader is only left with Act II or the reader is left only to speculate about Ned’s indirect influence in the lives of Nan, Pip, and Walker.
As many people have said before, I agree that many paralles are drawn between the two acts and that many questions are left unanswered.I also agree specifically with Kristin. I think the journal is not only significant in act I but also act II. Because the journal was burned, the reader will naturlly speculate as to what was in it and what Nan and Walker will never know. This journal was the "bridge" between Walker and his father and yet Walker still decided to burn it. This was not surprising because Walker has always had a tendancy to run away. Walker may not have wanted to know the truth in the journal and as Kristin said "a certain element of truth dies" when he burns the journal. The burning of the journal amplifies the questions left in act II which allows even more room for interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIt is not about listing the "unanswered questions" in the act one, its the fact that there are so many questions that are unanswered that keep the audience guessing. I agree with a lot of people when they say that the quote its saying that these questions aren't some sort of big event that we want to see, its not about knowing who is going to die, is someone going to die, or anything like that. It is frankly about us wanting to know everything there is to know. We, as readers, want to find out everything we can about the characters, when there are questions that are left unanswered we want to find out what the answer to those are. Its not about waiting to find out what happens, we know what happens, but WHY does that happen. Its burning desire to know, to push past the obvious, that keeps us wanting more. This is what Richard Greenberg was saying, this is not a play where we wait for something to happen, this is a play where we try and figure out what has already happened.
ReplyDeleteBy burning the book Walker, in my opinion, comes to a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude. I think that this is the same attitude Nan had about the book when she instructed Walker to leave it and not read it. Like everyone has been saying the burning of the book does burn the bridge to the past but in a way it lets the chracters in Act 1 move on from the past because through each of their personal monoluges the past did not hold very fond memories for any of them. I guess in my opinion at the end of Act 1 I was obviously left with questions but I did not feel as though from that point on anything was at stake for or any information about their parents' past would matter to Nan, Pip, and Walker.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin that the main thing at stake in the play is "the illusion" that the characters live. I think there are a few more elements that add tension to the story, though. In the first act, Walker's unstable nature creates a certain air uncertainty. In the second act so far, there is the knowledge that Theo and Lina are going to split and so their fighting causes tension. There is also the knowledge that Lina is going to go crazy. Both the relationship between Lina and Theo, and Lina's sanity are at stake in the second act. Also, there is the chance that Theo is going to die in the second act. So although there is no gun, there is still a lot at stake in the play.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam that in the second act the reader has knowledge that Theo and Lina aren't going to send up together and so it's obvious to us that they are going to split. I don't think her sanity is in question yet, at least it isn't in my mind. And in addition there's nothing obvious thats at stake either. Also back to Catherine's comment I thinks she's right about "letting sleeping dogs lie" but by burning the book in some ways have the opposite effect?
ReplyDeleteAll the questions left unanswered and lingering in their minds would stay there because he made a rash decision that might've cleared the air once and for all.
"Three Days of Rain" shares a story of two families that share a business. Each person that is part of these families is constantly experiencing a conflict. With this in mind - as the reader - I expect to have many questions answered by the end of Act I, but instead the play in a way relies on the oblivious reader to answer the questions on their own with very little momentum or evidence. For example, we are not sure why Pip got the house instead of Walker; we also do not know why Walker's mother went clinically insane. In my opinion, I do not think the story is necessarily about answering the questions but more about observing the characters. The characters in Act I and Act II share many qualities. Since the beginning there has been a tone of uncertainty thanks to Walker's lack of creating complete thoughts.
ReplyDeleteTaking Greenberg's statement with a grain of salt, I do feel that it applies to this play. His statement: "no gun is taken out; nobody ends up dead in the street," to me is similar to saying that if no one does anything, nothing will change. In this play I feel that the characters try to avoid tension (Nan keeping the journal from Walker) but because they keep themselves so sheltered, they're creating negative energy and tension within themselves.
Act 1 is in itself unanswered. All of the characters have some sort of unresolved question or piece of them that the reader never will know. Some of the questions are answered more fully in Act II, but for the most part, many questions are left hanging. The play, Three Days of Rain seems to have been designed in this manner. When questions are left hanging it makes the reader, or in the case of this play, the viewer, more fully involved in what is going to happen next. What are they going to discover in the next scene, the next minute ahead? Each unanswered question, instead of leaving us with the feeling of simply being unanswered or not thought about leaves us wanting more. The unanswered questions leave a tension that pulls throughout the rest of the play.
ReplyDeleteAct I leaves the question of who really was the great architect. At this point in Act II, I'm not sure that I can fully answer that question howver I feel it is one of the unanswered questions of Act I that will make it's way much closer to an answer than some others.
sarah w.
ReplyDeleteAs Chang said I am still questioning about Pip. To have some detail about my question, why he is still concering about Walker's love? Love for Pip. Was it because of Nan? was it because Nan is Walker's sister ? This question unswered to me after Act I ends. However, there are many questions that were unanswered and problem that were unsolved.
ReplyDeleteWe, as readers, see Walker and Nan end up burning the mysterious or private journal as the final scene of the Act 1. This unexpected action, as many other people have mentioned, raises a number of questions for the readers: How will they keep searching about their dad, Ned, without that personal and direct journal? Even if it reveals little, there seems to be no other way than to decipher it to better understand about Ned. Why did Ned have to be so taciturn both in reality and in his journal, where he could have been more opened and unfold his thoughts? What kind of relationship did Pip and Ned have? How significant was that “three days of rain” to Ned that he writes it down in his journal? What did he undergo that time?
ReplyDeleteWhile these unanswered questions remain silent, filling the readers with curiosity and powerfully drawing their attention throughout, another set of questions came to my mind: What effect does Greenberg creates by revealing the secret in the latter act? What does he tell the readers by having us see Walker and Nan burn the journal, which is one of the possibilities that might have a small clue to come nearer for further information they want; we, readers, will get more details about their parents in Act 2 than they (Walker and Nan) do by watching and experiencing the past, relationships and conflicts among them, however, Walker and Nan remain ignorant. By sharing the actors in both acts, does he create any resemblance among the characters?
As many people have said before, there are many questions that Act 1 leaves, and I am not exactly sure Act 2 will be able to answer them because Act 2 is set 35 years before Act 1. Why is the journal so brief in language yet at the same time why can it be so rich in meaning? Where's Lina? Why did Nina stay and not go back to Boston? Is Pip going to sell the house to Walker?
ReplyDeleteAs many people before have stated, I think that the burning of the journal at the end of act one really leaves the reader up to their own interpretation. Nan did not seem at all interested in the journal when Walker was carrying it around and reading from it before, but as soon as he put a flame to it, she seemed upset and concerned. This brings the questions into my mind, does Nan know something that Walker doesn't? Does Nan want to find something out from the journal that she has no chance of doing now?
ReplyDeleteThe whole situation with Pip and Nan is also inconclusive at the end. We are not sure if they had a serious relationship and if they still have feelings for each other now.
It will be interesting to see how Greenburg will end this play. Hopefully these questions and situations will be answered and resolved in act two.
I think this statement shows how devastating simplicity can be. The act does not end in huge chaos, but instead simple ambiguity. After he burns the journal, the audience is left with many unanswered questions: does Nan know more about the journal than shes letting on? will walker ever change? whats the true reason for Pip getting the house? etc.
ReplyDeleteThe play itself deals with human life and it's natural conflicts it creates. There is no need to add in anything melodramatic to make it something more than what it is. It shows us that simple human relationships and behavior are dramatic enough to sustain an audiences attention and involvement.
Obviously, just like many other students have said, there needs to be some unanswered questions since the story would not be fun if it concludes. There is a foreshadow that Ned and Lina got divorce and Nan and Walker didn’t know about it. Also Walker’s relation with his father Is bad. There are interesting stuff happening between all the characters in this story that Act 2 with reveal. It would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis play reminds me of Star Wars--
ReplyDelete(Certain things one doesn't quite get to say in class) Similar to Three Days of Rain, Star Wars series were premiered starting from episode 4-6 then 1-3; backwards. We see that Darth Vader is clearly evil. But the meaning, the drama of the story--is HOW he became evil: the revelation of the circumstances that it took to produce the guy in the black robot suit.
Although much different in circumstances, we have a unresolved present: Why is Pip so close to Ned, and how do the relationships between the three characters in Act 1 reflect their parents? Who built the Janeway House and gets credit for it, therefore who gets the inheritance?
I think it is important to note that these are stories. In other words we see a narrative in these characters; in Act 1 certain parts suggest actions in the present, but others reflect on the past in the language of the characters: Walker, Nan, and Pip. The truth, or the pure narrative, is Act 2; as readers we get to see what really went on in 1960.
What I'm very interested in is Ned. Why is he so quiet? Quiteness is a rather wonderful way Greenberg uses to bring not only character but ambiguity, complexity, and depth into the play. Input, then output; what was inserted in his life, and how does that correlate the product, which is "Janeway House," a worldly success, in 1995 with dysfunctional relationships between the children?
and "three days of rain"...I'm curious--imagine if that was this week's forecast. Rather mundane--does it bring meaning to this play?
ReplyDeleteSomething to be said about the play on perspective. As I once stated on the board, what is at stake in telling someone's story and human experience through some other party? Three Days of Rain plays exactly like the telephone game, we're told once to then be brought back and see it again for what it was. Or, what can be remembered? Like any play, or piece of writing for that matter, there's a great control of time; however. the proposal of how to look at these different time periods is what's tricky- a most wanted confusion, I figure. We are not always given a lens through which to look through. The lens of the play is set from top of show and therefore continues, even throughout the change in time and people. To play these characters by the same actors is to propose a lack of change, perhaps a comment on how cyclic our entire human experience is. Act II will answer questions, but perhaps, only by adding more detail to an already set dimension.
ReplyDeleteI think the weather forecast does play in this play. In rainy days, people remember things more than lighter forecast days and in this case, Walker, Pip and Nan looks back at their pasts and ponder what went wrong- a bit cliche?
ReplyDeleteI also thought that there is too little information on the Ned's diary. Even when his old friend and dear partner Theo died, the only thing he wrote on his diary was, "Theo dying, Theo dying, Theo dead." The diary doesn't provide any particularly necessary information through the play.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ned was succinct? Or maybe he was trying to keep something undercovered? Or someone else got rid of some information from the diary?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what a lot of the people have said already - Greenberg's statement suggests that no one is going to get hurt, at least for the length of Act 1... Also, when the journal was set aflame, Nan seemed rather concerned about it; compared to before the journal was burnt she seemed rather nonchalant - what is it that Nan knows from the journal that Pip doesn't? Why did she seem so concerned about it and yet did not try to put it out? Perhaps what is in the journal isn't so important after all??
ReplyDeleteI think the author makes readers to be curiouw about act 2 by leaving many questions in act 1.
ReplyDeleteFirst, relationship between Pip, Nan, Walker and their parents are complicated. We can't figuare out clearly how were Pip and Nan serious about their relationship and how was walker to be becoming to love Pip. One other questio is that why did Ned give the house to Pip insteda of Nan or Walker.The question made me to lead to be curious about their parents' relationship too.
we end ACT1 with many un answered questions, however i believe that this was an intentional move by greenberg, it keeps us engaged. people would not just get up and leave the theatre and go into the foyer and forget about it, i would assume that it would have casused many discussions during the intermission. once people are back in their seats they are still engaged and ready for the answers. unlike most plays they dont need the warm up period to get the cogs moving in thier head again and get them going. they are alert and ready to find the answers. thus when the second act begins it takes a little while for them to comprehend the charchter swap because they go in looking for answers and would automatically infer that we are dealing with the same charchters, this is only magnified by the same actors playing these new charachters.
ReplyDeleteallthough now we have a whole new set of charachters, they are all related and their stories are intertwined. i found myself as the reader still searching for the answers to the questions i had in act one because although this act isnt about them they or their actions could be responsible for the things that happen in the "Future".
I agree that what Act II is supposed to resolve is the journal entries that were burned at the end of Act I with a great, even textual comparison to the great Hedda Gabler. This play is much like Hedda Gabler in the grand scheme as that book is being burned and the life messages of one or more of our characters while not be revealed. That’s the feeling of the audience member at the End of Act I, a feeling of failure. Then what is Act II going to do for us as the reader and as the audience? I don’t know. Who knows? It’s got to be something or there would be no second Act!
ReplyDeleteThe characters having no clear central conflict is a frustrating thing to a reader or at least me. I hope something comes out of Act II.
Act 2 is used to answer Act 1’s questions and to expand and enjoy a story. All questions can be answered using tendencies of the past – Greenberg uses his switched chronological order to create an established question. This both makes it more fun/intriguing to watch and to deduce. The greatest question left is WHY things have ended up as they have in Act 1. It seems to be presented in Act 1 that one great ‘big-bang-esque” event occurred that ruptured pre-event circumstances to un-retainable situation. WHAT WAS THAT? Our job is to figure that out. Also guns aren’t the only thing that kills people.
ReplyDeleteJust like everyone else has been saying, Act I has unanswered problems. This leaves the audience left to think about the problems that everyone has in the play. In my opinion, I think that is a smart idea. The ways that Richard Greenberg set up both acts are brilliant. In Act I, he gives the audience a bunch of given information that the audience could eventually use, but never does (leaving them speculating). In Act II, he either slowly starts to give away some secrets that the audience always wanted to know or he completely blows the audience away with new information. Some may think that because there are so many new ideas coming again, along with characters, it would be difficult to follow. However, I believe that by doing this, the audience can relate to the play more and accept it as reality more.
ReplyDeleteGreenberg’s quote states that if the problem is not brought up, nobody will be reminded or affected by it. Although this might seem like it is an appropriate approach to avoiding conflict, it is actually only creating more conflict because the issues are not being addressed but are building up on each other. At the end of Act I, it is the last time Walker, Nan, and Pip appear in the story yet it feels as if their secrets were just revealed, however, the audience was left hanging without any insight on why their secrets do exist: Who’s going to have the house? Do Nan and Pip still have a relationship? Does Walker really have feelings for Pip? What are their relationships to their parents and how does it affect their relationship to each other? It is obvious that there are several problems unresolved in Act I and thus Greenberg suggests that there is more conflict at stake. This also proves that there was conflict that had started from the generation prior to Walker, Nan, and Pip, leaving both Act 2 AND the readers to resolve the continuing issues: Does Act 2 answer the relationship history of Walker and Nan’s relationship to their parents? Who caused Lina to go insane and why? What is the connection between Ned, Lina and Theo, Maureen?
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose of the act 1 was to make things more complicated, in order to make a 'bigger move' in the act 2. In act 1 we were given with many background details like Walker and Nan's parents, and possible affair between Walker's parent and Pip's parent. Addition to that, act 1 even gave us more 'charges' like possible homosexuality and romance between Pip and Nan, though Nan is married to someone else already.
ReplyDeleteAnd now, since we got ourselves into the act 2 and it shows even more detailed version of the story of their parents, the play is now getting ready to explode its 'charges'.