Reading Trifles and A Jury of Peers was interesting. It was cool to see the different aspects of this story through a play and a short story. Obviously, reading the play version there was more to look at because it gives the reader insight to the actions of the characters, as well as expressions seeing as how it is a play.Knowing this, it helps the reader to get insight and picture what is going on mentally in their head better than when reading stories and not knowing things such as facial expressions, body language, etc. However, I enjoyed reading the story form more so than the play. Obviously, had I actually seen the play instead of just reading it, it would have been different. The story was easier to understand because it was actually told, instead of explained, as I feel the play was.
I think the play version lends itself more towards Historical Analysis. When I read the play version of this story, I felt as if the play was set back in the olden days. The way they spoke of the house and described the setting and how they spoke reminded me of something that would have taken place many many years ago. Given that, thinking that the story is set in a certain time period, it would be easier to relate things in the story to what is going on in the world at the time. Also, looking at what is going on Culturally could help to determine why such things are happening and get a closer look into the scenario.
I agree with you about the short story being an easier read. The understanding of the play would certainly be different if it was seen with different actors for each part. I do think that the play allows for more insight through facial expressions and body language.
ReplyDeleteI found the play easier to read. I thought that it was easier to keep up with the dialog in the play.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I felt that the play was easier to read, but I understand where you are coming from.
ReplyDelete