Colorstruck & Zora Neale Hurston

Colorstruck, by Zora Neale Hurston, was a fairly intriguing play and I enjoyed reading it. However, being able to read the language and the way her characters talk was a skill I can definitely say I lacked. I found myself literally having to read most of the play out loud in order to understand and process what her characters were saying. But once I overcame the whole language barrier issue, reading the play became smooth and entertaining. But as much as I found Colorstruck to be entertaining, I found learning about Zora Neale Hurston herself to be much more fun. I had heard of some of Hurston's work, like A Raisin in the Sun, which I have not read, but watched. Learning more about Hurston as an African American woman helped me to better understand piece together in Colorstruck. For example, Hurston, unlike other African American writers during her day, choose to write more about black society, instead of primarily focusing on white oppression. Acquiring this piece of information led me to better understand Emma's character, and her jealousy of lighter-skinned women, like Effie. By adding this character trait into Emma, it makes the reader able to clearly see how Hurston slyly incorporates how whites can unknowingly oppress African Americans, just based on the color of their skin. Something that I really enjoyed about Colorstruck was the character dynamic, which I find most plays lack. Emma, for example, seems real and hardcore; Hurston does little to sugarcoat this character. She is basically a single, African American mom working a dead-end job for an upper white class family all so she can support herself and her daughter. That's the way many women today are living, and although Hurston wrote this play in the early 1900s, she hits the nail on the head when it comes to bringing to life a character that female readers can relate too. The only part of Colorstruck that I would name as unrealistic is when John comes along, seemingly better off and willing to marry Emma and take care of her. That specific part of the play, although I found it to be sort of heartwarming, is rare among real life situations, so I felt like it took away from some of the substance of her writing. But overall, I would name Zora Neale Hurston one of the most brilliant writers of her time and after physically reading some of her work, its no wonder that her writing has lasted throughout the years.

Oscar Wilde & A Woman of No Importance

I was pleased that we were supposed to read A Woman of No Importance by Oscar Wilde, since although I have not previously read any of Wilde's, I had heard great reviews of his work. I had also, in class, learned much about Wilde that I did not know before, like how he engaged in love affairs with men and was convicted of gross indecency and served two years hard time. Upon learned more about the history of the author, my opinion of A Woman of No Importance remained the same. After reading the play, I can honestly say that I enjoyed it; it definitely ranks with my top plays in this class. The plot of the story was really captivating; it was pretty much like one giant, mixed up love story to me and one that was so entrancing to read. Perhaps my favorite piece of Wilde's work is his diverse something that characters and how they communicate with one another. This biggest, and most amusing, contradiction I could find was between Lady Allonby and Lady Stetfield. These woman are pretty much in the same social circle of the aristocracy, and yet their views and opinions on men and how they should treat women are completely different. Lady Allonby firmly believe that men should treat women "as children", and how women deserve such treatment. She is sort of the anti-feminist of the group and I was intrigued that her character would socialize with Lady Stetfield, who possesses a totally different belief. She could be considered the epitome of a feminist; she discusses how men persecute women and women should be equal to their male counterparts. I just thought it was highly interesting how Wilde was able to depict his characters and really master their dynamics, making each their own. My personal favorite would probably have to be Hester, the witty girl from America. She houses no scruples when it comes to dissing the British, even when she's in their homes and she accurately makes comparisons between the English and Americans. She believes that Americans are more wholesome, and the British aristocracy are only concerned with scandals and the frivolity of life. It wasn't so much her views that made Hester my favorite character, but rather the manner in which she went about expressing them. Overall, Oscar Wilde's A Woman of No Importance was an extremely well written, easy read of a play and Wilde's diverse group of characters really shaped the story.

Getting Out

Upon reading Getting Out, by Marsha Norman, I was not very intrigued or pleased with the play as a whole. Although I have read some of Norman's works, like the Secret Garden, and have heard of others like The Color Purple, I was not pulled into her writing, much like I have been in other plays that we have read throughout the semester. I found Getting Out to be initially boring, although it was not terribly written and I still enjoyed the characters she had created. Arlene strikes me as someone who is easily looked over and brushed off, even though her character possesses some strength as a woman. She grew up pretty much in an unstable home, with a mother that engaged in prostitution and an abusive father, as well as siblings that did little to try and keep Arlene on the straight and narrow. Upon reading about her past, it was pretty much a given that her character would end up going down the wrong road and getting involved with the wrong kind of people, thus landing her in prison. It was all interesting to read, but I didn't feel like Norman left much to the imagination or attempted to divert the reader from the "oh, I saw that one coming" feeling. Everything in the play, and all of its characters seemed to flow, but in a rather boring manner. However, one thing I did like about Getting Out was how Norman showed that a woman, who isn't expected to amount to much and who is seen as travelling the same path for the rest of her life, can change all that. I wouldn't really relate it to second chances, but Arlene was definitely able to move on and seemingly make peace with her past as Arlie, the troublemaker. Norman, who I would credit as an amazing writer, also was able to best depict a character that isn't like most in other plays you read. There wasn't anything grand or spectacular about Arlene, and she didn't dramatically lose anything throughout the play (the only exception I would make would be Joey, since she wanted him back so that she could keep him from falling into the same place she had) because she did not have anything to lose. Norman's characters were gritty and real; there was nothing grandiose about them. And because of that I felt that Getting Out was what it was, although I personally did not enjoy the story overall.

The Bad Seed

The Bad Seed, written in 1954 by William March, was my favorite of all the plays we have read so far, mostly because I found myself on edge during the reading, anxious to learn more about the characters and reach the end. The characters, in fact, were probably my favorite part of reading this play since each once, whether or not they possessed a large or small role, were somehow significant and interesting all the same. Of course, probably the best character in my mind, was Rhoda Penmark, as twisted as it seems. It's not often when you read a story that the most evil character happens to be a child, of which you would expect to be the most tender and innocent. I found Rhoda's character to be incredibly unique; she seemed to possess no scruples whatsoever and acted much like a manipulative adult when it came to her intelligence and ability to kill, but at the same time, her character still had some hint of childishness in her since she murdered poor Claude Daigle simply because he won the award she thought she deserved. In The Bad Seed, another character that I came to like was Rhoda's mother, Christine. Christine suspected what her young daughter was doing and was in fact capable of, and at first, I believed she tried her hardest to "right her wrongs" in raising Rhoda and change the inherited evil that had been passed down to her daughter. But in the end, she did what I think only the most extreme of mothers would do and attempted to kill her daughter before committing suicide herself. This play is perhaps the prime example when it comes to "nurture versus nature", and how no matter how hard a mother tries, she cannot change what traits were bound to show up in her daughter. For example, because Christine's mother was a heartless murderess, no matter what or how Christine attempted to raise her daughter, that sadistic trait of being able to claim another life was bound to show up in her child at some point, and that point just happened to occur at a very young age. Like the saying, it goes to show how some people are more than likely born evil, and not made that way as they grow up, although how you are raised could most certainly also contribute to what kind of person you become. Either way you look at it, The Bad Seed was indeed a captivating play with an appropriate theme, and certainly considered something different during its time.