Wednesday, January 25, 2012
"For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls" by Christopher Durang
Please remember to discuss with others. Do not merely post your own opinions. Also, after each response, please include your full name and period. *This blog will close on Friday evening (posts after 12am Friday will not be counted for credit).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does anyone else realize that Laura's glass collection was pointless? Using a glass collection as her way to not get involved in the world makes it seem folly and A waste of time. After I read the parody, it made me realize how pointless her collection was. How Durang mocks her collection by turning it into glass swizzle sticks, shows how meaningless the glass world she lives in.
ReplyDeleteWell it's because the original Laura's glass was a symbol for Laura and how fragile she is. And it's because Laura was so different and special is why she felt that she had to devote herself to something like the glass. I feel the glass was actually a good escape. For a parody perspective, I would think that swizzle sticks would be a good comedic escape for Lawrence. Because like Lawrence, swizzle sticks are ironic and very peculiar.
ReplyDeleteBut in the glass menagerie, her difficulties and problems weren't as exaggerated as Lawrence, like how he complains about his excema, asthma, and his crippled leg an how it's hard for him to go on with his life. It shows how Laura's insecurities about her leg caused her to stop living a life. Durang created Lawrence and made him in into an insecure and shy person to ridicule Laura's extent of insecurities. I do realize that Laura does have a social problem and that's why she's unable to face the world, but Durang showed Laura's insecurities are rediciculous.
DeleteWell didn't the actual play's writer have a sister with mental issues? So maybe he based his character off of his real life sister so it's not completely pointless that Laura is so insecure with herself. Maybe she just can't help it. I'm sure if Laura was not "different" she wouldn't be living in a world of her own. Yes, she had insecurities but they were made worse by the fact that she was terribly shy and she was an unusual person. But I didn't think they should've been seen by Durang as ridiculous. It could've gotten annoying, and since it's a play I guess it's ok to make fun of it.
DeleteI agree with Angelica in that the original glass menagerie was symbolic but I also agree with you in that the collection was a waste of time. Although the menagerie was pretty, it could have been sold for money so the family was more financially stable. Laura's love of glass also could have been used for a purpose, she could have gotten a job polishing glass for a living at jewelry stores. The swizzle sticks are meant to be ludicrous in that they aren't pretty and are actually kind of disgusting to collect in that they have been USED by another person, this is almost like hoarding. In the original play Laura understood that it was inappropriate for an adult to play with glass figurines; in the parody Lawrence doesn't see that the collection is (for lack of better words) stupid. Amanda doesn't seem as resentful about the collection either, she even suggests Lawrence show Ginny the collection. The two even wish on a newspaper for MORE swizzle sticks, to further ridicule the collection
DeleteWas Ginny trying to provoke Amanda when she had her hearing problems or was it genuine? And why did Amanda feel the need to mock Ginny for her supposed hearing problems near the end of the parody?
ReplyDeleteI think that Ginny was not necessarily provoking Amanda. In class, the idea of Ginny's "selective hearing" came up. Selective hearing is when somone pays attention only to the part of the conversation that interests him or her. Ginny was simply not interested and did not care about relating to Amanda or Lawrence.
DeleteAs for Amanda feeling the need to mock Ginny, I think that Durang does this to point out how disappointed and upset Amanda truly was when she learned about Betty. In contrast to the original play in which Amanda even wishes Jim "luck-and happiness-and sucess,"(pg. 334) the parody reveals Amanda's true frustrations about how all her hard work in the preparations was put to waste. Amanda mocks Ginny when she realizes that the situation was a "little joke"(pg. 23).
I thought Ginny was interested in Lawrence though? And why do you think Ginny was uninterested in the whole situation anyway?
DeleteAnd actually with the real play I believe Amanda only wished Jim his "happiness" to be polite because everyone could sense how awkward the situation became after realizing Jim was engaged. Especially because in the real play Amanda was shown to be wearing a "grimace." But I do agree that is what the parody was trying to show how frustrated Amanda was.
Ginny said "Lawrence and I are getting on just fine." And then Amanda replied, "I'm glad you like Lawrence." Ginny herself did not admit that she was interested in Lawrence in a romantic way, right?
DeleteOh yes that is correct, I do agree that Amanda was truly upset in the original play and that she just wished Jim hapiness to be polite. Durang exaggerates Amanda's blunt personality in the parody, that's why he makes her mock Ginny. He portrays Amanda's frustrations in a more straightforward manner.
Why do you guys think the dinner scene was deleted from the parody? Was it just unnecessary or do you think the author did it purposely to shorten up the play to make it more effective?
ReplyDeleteI think having the dinner scene would have made the parody more normal in relation to the actual, and some of the comedic elements would have been lost. And the focus of the parody was mainly how irritating Laura's personality is. And because the dinner in the actual play didn't consist of Laura's presence, the parody would just skip it.
DeleteIf we view the deletion of the dinner scene in the parody in a symbolic way, I think it reinforces the impossibility of Ginny forming a nice and solid relationship with Amanda and Lawrence. If we recall that sharing a meal truly means "communion" from How To Read Literature, eating together means forming a "special bond" among the characters. In the parody, they do not eat dinner together because Durang wants to point out how Ginny and Lawrence were never meant to be.
Delete-Andrea Laserna Per. 5
Speaking of the dinner scene, why do you think that they were going to serve roasted pigs feet? Why did Durang mean to be that specific? In the original play they had fish. Is there a deeper meaning behind this?
Delete-Andrea Laserna Per. 5
I think it is used for multiple things. Perhaps the most reasonable explanation is to show how poor the family is. Pigs feet are the pork scraps that typically cost less than a rack of ribs or cut of chops would. This shows the family's desperation into attracting someone for Lawrence. They'd rather serve some kind of meet than go without it to appear like a perfectly normal family. I also think that Durang used pigs feet as another way to make the dinner a disaster. If she is like her original counterpart, Ginny should be Irish-Catholic, and wouldn't be able to enjoy the meal as it would go against her religious beliefs. Looking back to How to Read Literature I remember reading that communion is only included if it is an important plot point, I too fell that the dinner was a crucial scene in the play, but for simplicity/humors sake it had to be greatly abridged so it could be properly mocked.
DeleteI have noticed that in the parody, Ginny ridicules Lawrence about his "great big noisy leg brace" back in high school(pg. 18) while in the original play, Jim comforts and reassures Laura that her limp was really unseen. Why do you think Durang makes this change in Jim's character?
ReplyDelete-Andrea Laserna Per. 5
I think that Durang's characters are just the actual story's characters, but much more rude and blunt. Like how Tom and Amanda still wanted the same things in the parody as they did in the play, they came off rude because it was more comedic. And it probably is just to show how irritating Laura was to Durang. Because Ginny did say that she liked Lawrence and she still tried to help him come out of his shell, just like how Jim was to Laura, Ginny came off way more aggressive. And it did make the parody funnier.
DeleteI think Durang exaggerated Ginny's actions to show how he felt annoying about Laura in the atual play. Jim was too nice in the original play that he comforts Laura. However, Ginny expresses her feelings straightforward, which seems to have Durang's feelings in it too. And it seems that Ginny really felt that the spectacle Lawrence made with his great big noisy leg brace was funny.
DeleteClara Kwon P6
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also think Durang made it that way to show his annoyance with Laura. In the author's note he mentions that at first he actually felt bad for Laura but as he kept reading the play he felt more annoyed than pity. The characters in the parody are not afraid to say how they feel, good or bad. Ginny was a way for the author to let his feelings out, in a way
DeleteArianna Montano Per.6
I think Jim's character was changed to make Lawrence seem more pathetic. If Ginny & Jim had the same characteristics, there would be no way to ridicule Lawrence.It would would make no sense to follow the original play.The whole purpose of the parody was to make fun of Laura's character,so if Ginny was sensitive and compassionate the parody would not have the same effect.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you guys think Durang made Tom and Lawrence's relationship so different from the original play?
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
DeleteIn the author's note, Durang explains that, "sweet, sensitive Laura seems to have gotten on my nerves". In the original play Laura had so much potential but was limited by the incredible hold her inferiority complex had on her; tragically in some ways Laura brought down her family with her as she was a dependent that relied on her mother and brother for financial/emotional security. Laura could have attempted to find work but she preferred to spend her days winding the vitrola and playing with the glass menagerie. Durang most likely changed the relationship to prove that Laura was actually a selfish character. This is done by Laurence's conceited behavior and Tom's complete frustration and bellicose attitude towards Laurence (what Tom probably felt about Laura but never exposed).
I think that Tom and Lawrence's relationship shows how Durang felt annoyed about Laura in the actual play. In the parody, Tom shows his frustration toward Lawrence. For instance, Tom says "Old four eyes bored her to death, huh?"(p22) and this shows that Durang was annoyed about how boring Laura was in the original play. Tom expresses how he feels about Lawrence's actions straightforward, which is being the total opposite from the original play. It seems like Tom's words in the parody are what Durang wants to say to Laura.
DeleteDo you believe that Durang's usage of profanity in the character's speech is meant to be used as a comical device or is it part of the character's characterization? Durang's characters aren't as passive and have NO filter when it comes to speaking their minds.
ReplyDeleteCameron, I think the usage of profanity is more of a comical device than it serves as characterization. Durang, in his whole parody, exaggerates, ridicules, and humiliates the characters. I think the profanity is just part of the satire, so that it would capture the attention of the audience even more. Somehow swearing and cursing strike people as hilarious especially in foolish situations that involve foolish things such as Lawrence's collection of swizzle sticks. Profanity serves as one of Durang's tools in ridiculing his characters in the parody.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Laserna Per. 5
I also think that the usage of profanity was more of a comical device. The usage of profanity exaggerated each character's feelings. And it seems that there were a lot of profanity used by Amanda and Tom to Lawrence. And I think Durang wanted to show how he was annoyed by Laura by the usage of profanity toward Lawrence.
DeleteClara Kwon P6
In Durang's parody Lawrence's gift of Thermometer to Ginny is originally rejected. Ginny also breaks Thermometer shortly after accepting the gift. Does this detract from Williams original meaning of the gift in The Glass Menagerie? Laura's gift was in some ways symbolic of letting go of her past, and the breaking of the unicorn symbolized that Laura wasn't that different from everyone else. Why would Durang choose to omit this promise of change/letting go of the past in Lawrence?
ReplyDeleteI do think this detracts from the meaning of the original gift. I think maybe it's Durang's way of showing that letting the past go is not as easy as Jim made it for Laura. Ginny didn't do much to help Lawrence let go of his past.
DeleteArianna Montano Per. 6
I think that Durang was just making fun of how Laura in the original play was so conscious about her glass menageries. It seems like that Durang thinks that the glass menageries are not actually a big deal in real life. And Durang uses Ginny breaking the swizzle stick to show that.
DeleteClara Kwon P6
I believe that Durang made Ginny reject Lawrence's "Thermometer" to mock the hopelessness Laura suffers from in the original play. It could also possibly mean that the world is not as accepting as it once was. Durang mocks the the theme of not being able to let go of the past. Since Lawrence attempted to "let go" and was rejected, it apppears as though the message being conveyed is that it is truly hopeless for Laura to move on and face reality.
Delete-Andrea Laserna Per. 5
Hey Jesse i hav question :)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the auther's purpose for Ginny's hearing problem?
Youmi Pang from p.6
In the author's note, Durang explains that, "sweet, sensitive Laura seems to have gotten on my nerves". In the original play Laura had so much potential but was limited by the incredible hold her inferiority complex had on her; tragically in some ways Laura brought down her family with her as she was a dependent that relied on her mother and brother for financial/emotional security. Laura could have attempted to find work but she preferred to spend her days winding the vitrola and playing with the glass menagerie. Durang most likely changed the relationship to prove that Laura was actually a selfish character. This is done by Laurence's conceited behavior and Tom's complete frustration and bellicose attitude towards Laurence (what Tom probably felt about Laura but never exposed).
ReplyDeletealso the reason the auther deleted the dinner scene is that it reinforces the impossibility of Ginny forming a nice and solid relationship with Amanda and Lawrence. If we recall that sharing a meal truly means "communion" from How To Read Literature, eating together means forming a "special bond" among the characters. In the parody, they do not eat dinner together because Durang wants to point out how Ginny and Lawrence were never meant to be.
DeleteYoumi Pang p.6
I think the reason Durang exaggerated Ginny's actions is to show how he felt annoying about Laura in the atual play. Jim was too nice in the original play that he comforts Laura. However, Ginny expresses her feelings straightforward, which seems to have Durang's feelings in it too. And it seems that Ginny really felt that the spectacle Lawrence made with his great big noisy leg brace was funny.
DeleteYoumi Pang P.6
Being a parody, "For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls" exaggerates Lawrence's character and reveals his whiny annoying personality. Also, in this version, Amanda seems to say outright what the reader feels, that is, annoyance at Lawrence. The story here parallels the plot in The Glass Menagerie in that Lawrence's friend or acquaintance from high school, Ginny, comes to, what he and his mother think is call on him. Ginny is gay and is extremely masculine-"butch." Lawrence is crushed when he learns of her sexual preference and that she has a significant other. In this story, the reader feels no remorse for Lawrence who is made out to be a blubbering idiot.
DeleteYoumi Pang p.6
For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls" also offers a new perspective on Laura's collection of tiny glass animals. The glass animals, symbolic of her delicate nature, are broken with the slightest jostle. Lawrence collects glass swizzle sticks which could be a symbol for his uncreativeness. Lawrence names his swizzle sticks the most unabstract names such as "blue" for the blue swizzle sticks. Durang, in this way, pokes fun at the Lawrence character for living in a meaningless glass world. Once the reader has seen the stupidity of his glass collection, they can look back and get a new perspective on Laura's glass collection as lacking cuteness and simply being a waste of time, folly and an excuse for not getting involved in the world outside of herself.
DeleteYoumi Pang p.6