Well my brain is at bursting point, but a happy bursting point. If that makes any sense......

I have been skilfully guided through some of the practicals of how Sharon goes about what she does. Learning about the various elements that you need to carefully weight and balance in order to produce a piece of writing.

Roughly speaking they covered; Types of narrative drive, e.g. Plot vs Character. How the drama of a piece of narrative will often come from obstacle and objective and the way in which a protagonist overcomes one to reach the other. The narrative arc. That the protagonist is the eyes of audience on the world you are creating.

This all followed onto subjects like pace and drive and a wonderful example that Sharon uses of a depth charge and how its timing drives the audience forward on their path through the narrative. That tone of voice seemed to me be actually in someway indicative of the tremendous amount of yourself that inevitably goes into writing a piece. This lead on to style and structure where I realised I should probably go back and re-watch some Tarantino to appreciate the way in which he plays around with it. But also that Sharon has a preference, that seemed to me like a choice of tool or colour. I'm not sure but I wonder if this is instinctive?

This all got my mind whizzing about structural forms in the narrative, how we can map them. I guess thats the programmer in me wanting to see the patterns.

Along with all this I really felt like I got an insight into the mindset. It's a very instinctive and implicit creative process. Sure inspiration comes from things around you but...You have to inhabit the world you create in order to tap into that instinctive story telling that we all understand, that the audience will follow in their imagination. A bit like I'm guessing the way someone will compose a piece of music.

I guess I found that fascinating coming from a discipline when so much requires an instinctive but never the less much more explicit understanding. Where the struggle is often with not killing the creative side of things.

Sharon seems to really want the audience to be on the edge of what they think they understand to entertain through contrast and subversion. I think she has an almost mischievous intent when it comes to her audience. e.g. dropping people into the middle of a conversation, switching expectations just at the right point, slapping them with their own expectations. Revelation.

As Sharon pointed out this all leads to some interesting challenges in terms of what she is used to. Like dialog or lack of it. In terms of collaboration when this is normally a solitary practice. How the lack of actors will effect things (or the fact the technology takes their place).

But I think so long as it extends off the page, the screen, the performance and into the minds of people and away into their discussion the result is good.

Session Recordings

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14904267/Stick%20House/familiarisation-session1.mp3

Posted by tomburton