Each of these two formats has advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the play format of Trifles seemed to help give the reader more direction as to where things were and a better description of things used in the play. Also, when there is only dialogue between two characters, it is very easy to understand who is saying what and without having to see "he said"/"she said" after each statement. However, reading a story in play format can be difficult when there is more than two characters talking back and forth. The reader gets used to not reading the name of the part thats being spoken and if the reader is not paying attention, they will get confused as to what character's line they have just read.
The short story format of A Jury of Her Peers makes it easy to be read and told as a story as opposed to being acted out in a play. I also noticed that in the short story version, there was a bit more information given before the kitchen scene which begins the play version. The only disadvantage I saw with this story in this format was that there were a lot of parts with dialogue between the characters. This leads to the "he said"/"she said" found after nearly every statement which interrupts the flow of reading.
I think that the play version of this story lends itself more easily to cultural/historical analysis. Because it is a play, everything needed to be known to the audience/reader is described in detail, so it is almost as if you are there yourself. This, along with being able to make out key words and phrases in the play, makes it very easy to do a cultural/historical analysis through this form.
1 comment:
I found the short story easier to read as well. And of course I took into consideration the detail provided in the story, which was more than was given in the play. However, your reasons for which the play contribute more to historical/cultural connections and allow for an easier analysis, make sense as well.
Post a Comment