Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

Apocalypse NOW

Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 09:37 am
crgwllms14 posts in thread
Back in July I jumped on a thread to defend a concept I thought was interesting. I'd heard about it through the director & writer in person, and assisted them to promote the as-yet-unwritten play at the Blue Room Season Launch. I then came online here to find out what it was really about, got involved in some already involved discussion, decided it really was a concept I'd be keen to see bear fruit, and put my hand up to participate. Along the way I've been fascinated and amazed by the number of people who felt entitled to post forth an opinion without feeling they needed to qualify it, and were happy to centre their argument on a stance of closed-mindedness. I've always considered theatre (actually, art in general) to thrive on the possibility of new ideas...hence my original indignation when I entered the debate. Now I don't pretend that I don't have strong views, and can exert a certain arrogance in arguing them, but I hope my history shows that I always side on the concept of open-mindedness and seeing more than two sides to any argument. (Of course there have been many others here also with open minds, who have put forth much valid and reasonable debate.) At the time of my original post, while defending the project, I made no claim to guess if the outcome would be good or bad, successful or not...simply that it was an idea that at least deserved a good go rather than being shot down. Now with the combined talents of a good dramaturg, a good director, a good cast, a good lighting designer, and a good musician, I'm prepared to pre-judge the result and announce that: it's going to be good! Whether it's successful is now partly up to you, at least in terms of attendance. I feel confident that artistically it tells an interesting story well, so by that measure it's already a success. But now it's your turn. We'd all be fascinated to discover what people think, whether we meet or exceed expectations, whether you think our blustering confidence was actually able to deliver or not, whether the style works for you, and whether we've managed to entertain. I'm sure no one's missed the coincidence that we've put ourselves right back where we started, in the position to have our show criticised and commented upon by all who see it...or who don't. I hope if nothing else it shows that theatre has many possibilities, ideas can be drawn from all kinds of interesting places, stories about human feelings can create great drama, and that creative people can achieve the unthinkable when they refuse to listen to what most people think. See you in the bar afterwards. Cheers Craig ~<8>-/======\--------

Avoiding weasel words

Thu, 23 Oct 2008, 11:29 am
Walter Plinge
Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them. For example, "Perth is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Perth is the nicest city in the world." Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative: Who says that? You? When did they say it? Now? How many people think that? How many is some? How many is most? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias might they have? Why is this of any significance? Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

Thread (14 posts)

← Back to Green Room Gossip