Thursday, November 16, 2006
Thematic Concern #1
In the play, we notice that Sharon Pollock uses character doubling. Thinking specifically of the poker players (Prologue) and Louis (the play proper), what is the effect of that doubling? (Remember that in the Prologue, the poker players say nothing, and in Acts One and Two, Louis is one of the most vocal characters)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Pollock not only uses the doubling technique to show similarities between the characters in the prologue and in the play proper, but she also uses it to contrast some characters so that some characterisitics of these characters are emphasized. For example, Louis who is a poker player in the prologue is silent nor is he mentioned by any of the other characters on stage. The reader of the play would not know of Louis' presence had Pollock not mentioned it in the stage directions before the prologue. Louis however is quite vocal in the play proper, which is more emphasized to the reader because he was silent in the prologue. This helps the reader discover insight into Louis' character such as the amount of his knowledge. When Louis speaks it is usually not irrelevant chatter. For example, Louis is useful to Walsh because of his ability to communicate with Indians, because of his knowledge of the land and of events and people of North America. So, with casting Louis as a silent character in the prologue, Pollock shows that when Louis opens his mouth in the play proper it is for a good reason.
By using character doubling which is foiling, the double which is in the prologue helps emphasis the characteristics of the other character in the play. Because pollock makes the characters louis and macleod silent in the prologue, just like what shahna said, it makes the things that the characters say in the play important.
The prologue of the play is used as a means by which Pollock can accentuate the character traits of those in the play. She takes a character with a present trait, and removes that trait in the doubled character. This brings out that trait, and gives the reader the benefit of a quick and easy understanding of the character early in the play. Being the short play that it is, this doubling helps establish the various characters’ traits in a few pages, rather than an entire act.
In response to Louis alone, his moderating role is highlighted by the lack of such in the Poker Players. In poker, each player is representative of one person, themselves. They worry about their own fortune and nothing else. This is in direct contrast to Louis, where he is split between two parties (maybe even three considering his French attitude towards the British). He has concerns for both sides, and must moderate between them both, the native side of him, and the “white” side of him.
What really strikes me as confusing is when Clarence screams “Noooooooo!” from the shadows. Does anyone know how this contrasts or is even remotely connected to the Clarence in the play proper?
(Click this if you're on your way to Wikipedia)
James, to answer your question, Clarence screaming "Nooo!" in the prologue when Walsh knocks the prospector over is the same thing he does at the end of the play proper when Walsh knocks over Sitting Bull, who had been begging Walsh to help his starving people.
To answer Ms. Fowler's question, the silence of the poker player who later becomes louis is a mirror to Louis' more vocal tendancies in the play proper. It also acts as a foil that while the poker players are completly unimportant during the prologue, Louis and Colonel MacLeod are if not pivotal, then they are extremely important to the plotline of the play. Louis is Walsh's connection to the real world, keeping him grounded and centered in reality. MacLeod represents the heierarchy that Walsh is bound by and forced to go through, which antagonizes and annoys him to no end.
The other thing that must be understood is that Walsh is a play, and is meant to be acted out and watched, not read. Because of this, when we read the play,we may forget that the poker players are there at all in the prologue. However, an audience watching would always see them on stage, ignoring everything that happens around them, focused soley on their game. So although they have no speaking roles in the prologue, they are still there, in the world of the play, still a presence.
Doubling Louis with the poker player does show the contrast of his character in the prologue with his character in the play proper. We see that his silence in the prologue makes the words spoken in the play proper more significant. Also, as Morgan pointed out, this was not intended to be read. The reader would see Louis and his lack of action to help Sitting Bull, who is the prospector. This is reflected in the play when Louis does not speak out against, or stop the treatment of Sitting Bull. This is significant of Louis because he is part native, yet does nothing to help, just as Louis did nothing to help the prospector in the prologue. So though the doubling is used to show the contrasts, it does help to refelct the inner silence of Louis.
wow justin you did your research. btw big words.
Shallanah, how can you prove that Louis' words are made more significant due to his prologial (is that a word?) silence? I wouldn't say that this contrast makes what he says more important, but only establishes his surface traits for the play proper. I think that through this establishment and highlighting of his character traits can the audience truly begin to see the similarities between the poker player and Louis. Which would be the inner silence that you brought out.
As for my (as in Justin, not James) question, Morgan, what I had meant to ask was why Pollock had done this. What purpose does the contrast or similarity between the two separate Clarences serve?
justin, his words are more significant because if Louis is silent in the prologue that means that he usually speaks for a good reason in the play proper, therefore making his words more significant.
Are you telling me that without the prologue, Louis' words would not be as significant?
Louis is not silent like the poker player, and if anything, this creates contrast between them, which would also create contrast between the importance of their words. If the poker player spoke, his words would be much more significant than that if Louis spoke once again. The two are different in this way.
And I can not see how being silent somehow makes your words more significant. Is it not an assumption or rather a generalization to say those who are quiet are much more calculated in their wording? I wouldn't even say the poker players are silent, but rather indifferent. You might as well say the poker player is white, and Louis is Metis, making Louis much less important. You're assuming way too much.
whoops sorry about that justin!
and why is your name 小不?
It's my self dubbed Chinese name. I have it because of its simplicity (I butcher 99% of characters), and because I seriously relate to the words "little no". You know what I mean?
yeah but it doesnt even make sense in chinese.
Neither does xiao gao, or even 不呀 (Booya). It's humor.
Anyways, back to the discussion... can anyone answer why Pollock doubles Clarence in the way that she does?
justin you think way too much
justin nice site, although the latin was a tad bit unnecessary. btw where did you learn latin. oh and nice video. you've got way too much time on your hands
now i'm all confused
Throughout Walsh, not only are similarities evident, but differences as well, between the characters in the prologue and those they “play” in Acts One and Two. This doubling gives the reader a look at what the characteristics of many of the individuals truly prove to be, for the duration of the play proper. Speaking of Louis specifically, we find him to be silent for the entirety of the prologue, and really, had we not been given the stage directions, many would forget that he is even present at the time of the events in the Dawson brothel. He does not act or speak once, and appears to be unaffected by the “freezes” that take place, typical of a poker player’s nature. A poker player needs to keep his wits about him, and Louis has obviously done so, not only in the prologue, but in the play proper as well. We find him to be an intelligent individual, a man of many languages and cultures.
His silence during the prologue has the reader expecting the same of him throughout the play, yet this is not so. Of all the characters in the play, Louis is found to be quite talkative, expressing some knowledge here, some knowledge there, when his character in the prologue is, ironically dead silent. Even more ironic, is the simple fact that talking plays a large role in the job Louis finds himself in more often than not, that of a mediator. Pollock could not have contrasted this more. Her use of the prologue is seemingly an ingenious way to open the reader’s eyes to the character traits of all of her characters, Louis being the most obvious at first glance.
…And on the topic of Pollock’s doubling of Clarence, I suppose you could say that Walsh seemingly pays no attention to Clarence at all during the play, and does the same during the prologue. However, once Walsh’s conscience is brought into question, Clarence seems to become all important on the making of Walsh’s decisions, yet as to why, I’m at a loss. To be honest, it would have made much more sense to me, had Pollock portrayed Clarence as a poker player, because like Louis, he becomes quite talkative during Acts One and Two. Might have been a more logical foil for Clarence…
great songs justin...
Adding more to the character foiling to emphasize the contrast or similarities of the characteristics and traits of the characters and their doubles, Sharon Pollock takes it one small step further to also foil a character's deeper problems, feelings, thoughts or beliefs. These can be shown through the character's actions throughout the prologue and the play proper (meaning the character's double's actions in the prologue and the actual character's actions in the play proper). Therefore, at a very awkward and weired angle, the conflict between the prospecter and Walsh in the prologue may be foreshadowing the event between Sitting Bull and Walsh in the play proper. Both the character's and their doubles have not only the same traits, but also the same circumstance, the prospecter/Sitting Bull asking for something reasonable and for the good of an unfortunate, and Walsh saying that he cannot, for he has nothing to give (although at a lesser scale for the situation in the prologue).
All just of the top of my head anyways.
Referring to Justin's question aboutwhy Sharon Pollock doubles Clarence in the way she does; I'm personally thinking that it had something to do with Clarence's role in both the prologue and the play proper. In the prologue, Clarence is somewhat represented as a bystander watching the events that unfold in the brothel, until he breaks away from that role as he screams "Noooooooo!". Clarence then begins to become more of an important character throughout the play proper. In other words Sharon Pollock could possibly be foiling Clarence's role, instead of just his characteristics or traits, between the prologue and the play proper.
I could be wrong about this though, and I'd also like to hear other's thoughts about this.
Damn Beecher and his smartness.
My series of tubes is running excruciatingly slow right now, so writing a comment on here is taking forever. I'll write up some stuff on the next topic tomorrow, but for now I've got to work on finishing the play before I sleep.
when sharon pollock uses doppelganger in the prolugue i think that it would help more for the audience watching the play as opposed to reading the play because then for louis we would notice that he talks alot later and none in the prologue. By reading we can only notice this becuase we read all the stuff beforehand but i think she does that more for the audience watching the play becuase its easier to get. For me i didn't remeber that louis was the piano guy so i didn't get that part of it. BUt if i had watched the play i would have.
Poluck uses doubling in the prologue to establish a contrast in the setting i think. She uses that to emphasize the change in setting from 1893 Dawson back to 1870 Fort Walsh or watever the times are(i don't remeber). It helps delinate the charcter or Walsh becuase he is diffrent in the two times even tho he does some same stuff like beating up the prospecter (sitting bull in the real play) thats all for no D. Bailey out
in responce to my own comment i meant louis is a poker player and not the piano guy
stephan, I believe louis was a poker player in the prologue, not a "piano player" as you stated... someone didn't read the prologue closely enough I think *rolls eyes* geez Louis (hahaha, get it??). That's all for now. D. Bailey. out.
srry dale but if u notice. before u even had to post ur comment to remind me i had already fixed my error. as i reread the book for the 3rd time.
I've read the book way more times that you, "engli$h4lyfe fortier" (what a loser name), and I'm pretty sure only Jag has read the book more, and he's a big nerd. So there. D. Bailey. out.
i think that the super long answer grayson provided is because he is trying to overcompensate for something
low blow anonymous.
The use of character doubling is significant in enhancing the profiles of certain characters. For example, that of Louis who is merely a poker player in the prologue. The silence in the prologue by the poker player serves as a means of highlitghting Louis as a key player. By remaining silent in th prologue we are able to better understand Louis as readers. Through silence authors are able to pay attention to other aspects scuh as action. Although the pokerplayer is kept quiet, the image of a poker player is that of being sly and intelligent, such as Louis in the play proper.
I hate stephan. He knows nothing about english. He tries to take my spotlight away all the time. I think we should have him removed from our class. He contributes nothing. He is a poor sport in all things. jayyyyyy kay
JagJot.
out.
payce.
looks like Dale the literary god can't spell either.
In the prologue the poker players are completely silent, and in the play proper Louis is extremely talkative. It is interesting that Sharon Pollock uses character doubling for the poker player and Louis because they contrast each other. The silence of the poker player is effective, because it emphasizes the knowledge of Louis. The reader does not expect Louis to be as talkative as he is in the play proper because of the definite silence of the poker player.
Good point Jag. You should get extra marks for that.
jag, that's a mean thing to say. even if you're kiddin
Yeah Jag, pretty foul play you're dishing out there. Really disappointing to see. Although I have to say you make an excellent point. Stephan seems to be dragging the class down to his standards.
In the prologue Pollock has decided to keep the poker players, MacLoed and Louis, silent. There is a significance in this silence, as in the play proper, Louis is quite a vocal character. Louis in the prologue is not even mentioned in the stage directions or by anyone else, so we can see that noone in the prologue aknowledges Louis presence, or has no reason to. But in the play proper, Louis is needed to interpret and translate things said by and to the Indians. This is shown on pages 34-35. We can see that Pollocks use of silence in Louis, and the effect of character doubling and foiling contributes to louis strong role in the play proper. His weak role in the prologue helps to emphasize this strong role.
Polluck creates dopplegangers between the prolouge and first and second act. This charachter foil creates an emphasis on certain characteristics of everyone in the play. Like Ms.Fowler's example of Louis being more vocal in the first and second act, it puts an emphasis on his speech and makes the reader think more deeply about it.
dbailey out
As mentioned before by all many of the classmates, Sharon Pollock uses doubling as an effect to contrast and deferentiate the characters through the prolougue and act one. This not only defines the characters to a greater extent ,but provides a greater point of view on what the characters really are and what the mood of the novel makes them. For instance Jennie who is Mrs. Anderson is a lovable prostitute in the prologue, set in bar full of music and a general sense of acceptance until walsh comes by. In Act one however, Mrs.Anderson is a selfish proper women, who is very prejudice of the Aboriginals considering the mood set by the "Greasy Grass". Also the most accepting person in this section is Walsh.
P.S G-RAY you watch out i'ma gonna get ya
since almost everyone already talked about Pollock's use of doubling in the play, i decided to forego that part. So i'm just going to talk about Clarence and how he acts as a double for Walsh.
Clarence is also used effectively in the play to double Walsh. In the play, Walsh does not reveal his weaknesses to his companions and always appears to be in control of the situation and is very independent. The only time the reader ever sees him admitting his weaknesses is when he "talks" to Mary, his wife, about the problems at Fort Walsh and the issues with the Indians. Clarence, unliek Walsh, is very open about his feelings and emotions. He shows that he is scared or uncertain; He is not afraid of what others might think of him by admitting his weaknesses, especially when he reminisces and talks about his mother. The reader can clearly see the contrast between Clarence and Walsh. In this play, Clarence also reveals to the readers or viewers of Walsh's inner feelings, the feelings which he oh-so carefully conceals when he is faced with a serious situation.
^^ oops, i think i may be off-topic up there.. haha, i wasn't thinking clearly. =)
Pollock uses doubling in character in the play to help the audience have a better understanding of character(s). Characters may or may not always have only one side to them, and if they have a split character personality, character foiling by another character in the play would allow the audience to follow along and understand them better. The use of doubling character is to show character foil. For example, Clarence would appear to be Walsh’s double character. The audience is able to see that because as Pollock said, Clarence never leaves his eyes off of Walsh. As well, Walsh seemed to be bold and confident, however Clarence shows a side of Walsh that the audience do not see through Walsh himself. Clarence is more of the one to worry about issues and is obviously the weaker self of Walsh. As well, Louis remained silent through the whole prologue. However later in the play, Louis appears to be knowledgeable and talks a lot more than what would have been expected from the audience. The silence of Louis allows one to pay attention to his actions while he is remained quiet, but on stage, still being included in the scene. Only through watching out for his actions, may one understand Louis’ character.
Not sure if any of that made sense, if not, please correct me :)
Pollock uses character doubling to broaden the knowledge of the reader about the play by expressing some reaction from the character’s double that cannot be express by the character. It also kind of introduces the characters to the reader.
About Louis being silent in the prologue, it kind of symbolizes that Louis in that time is thinking (and he has the "knowledge") and as shahna said when Louis opens his mouth in the play proper it is for a good reason.
As almost everyone already mentioned, Pollock uses character doubling in order to contrast the traits of certain characters with those of their doubles, placing emphasis on these traits in Acts 1 and 2 of the play. It would be fairly easy to forget the presence of the silent poker players in the prologue, strongly contrasting with the strong presence you get from Louis in the play proper because of his vocal nature. Like discussed, the role Louis plays of mediator in the play proper is completely different in comparison to a poker player, one who keeps to himself. This initial silence would allow an audience watching to pay special attention to Louis when he does speak in Acts 1 and 2.
Pollock uses the techinique of doubling in the prologue in order to contrast the characters characteristics in the play proper wich emphasizes these chracters. Louis in the prologue is silent, this emphasizes what Louis has to say in the play proper and shows the depth of his knowledge. Whenever Louis speaks in the play, he always says something important that has a pupose. For example, he is able to communicate well with the NWMP and the Sioux. This quality is emphisized with the contrast of Louis in the prologue, and Louis in the play proper.
@@ so much already talked about D: heh anyways the doubling between the poker players and Louis, hmm... all can do is agree O.o;; cause nothing I think I can say will be new here... =.=;;; but yes i'll just try to expand I suppose... as said several times before, Louis is a middle man between the Sioux and the NWMP, thus allowing him to see things others don't. In ways this makes him the "wise man". Within the Prologue the Poker Players play the role of Louis, and as people said countless times... they are foil characters. The Poker Players contrast Louis because they tend to care about themselves as the conflict in the Prologue grows. As you can see through out the book, Louis acts as the person who does tend to jump in and take control. Like how Walsh would leave his red coat on the floor on page 64 or page 109 where Walsh refuses to see Sitting bull, but rather run away from the problem. Louis forcefully sends Sitting Bull in, and Walsh gives in. Both of these events tend to show that Louis trys to make things right. Thus support the foil character statement almost eveyrone has made.
Sharon Pollock uses character doubling, which is found in the prologue and in the play to enhance the character's characteristics. For example in the prologue louis, who is a poker player, is silent and is not mentoined on stage by any of the other characters. (He is an observer). However louis says the most in the play. this contrast makes what louis say in the play important.
Post a Comment