TO, Chapters 2 & 3

I feel like Boal's writing style fluctuates between being matter-of-fact and being jargon-heavy. I feel as though I frequently frown and squint at pages and pages only to have a concept explained very simply shortly afterwards. Maybe it's just how I'm perceiving things, though.

Boal gives one of the clearest definitions I've ever heard for Romanticism, which I found wonderfully useful. It's a movement/genre I've never quite been able to wrap my head around no matter who taught it to me. What struck me most was the phrasing and generalizing. Typically, I think generalizations are not in a student's best interests, but sometimes they complete a learning web--especially when they fall right into the center of one. He says, "It was an attempt to solve in the field of the spirit the problems facing men in society. Everyone, without distinction, could aspire to spiritual perfection, even if he were poor like Jean Valjean, deformed like Rigoletto, or a pariah like Hernani. Men, even though hungry, must preserve that marvelous thing called spiritual freedom."

I mean, what a concise and brilliant definition. I've been shown examples of Romanticism, but have never been quite able to get at the source or feel honestly confident about the aesthetic elements of using Romanticism on stage. Though perhaps not the most TO-ish realization, this was very helpful to me.

Another instance in which Boal makes himself very clear after unpacking jargon-laden concepts is when he describes the difference between epic poetry and dramatic poetry. He says, "Epic poetry 'recalls'; dramatic poetry 'relives'." Genius. Seriously. Honestly. Genius. It's like there are little nuggets of information spread throughout this discussion of large-scope storytelling. He not only concerns himself with works of theatre but also of literature and film. At one point, he even discusses Sesame Street. So while his scope is seriously intimidating, he also has some wicked insightful tidbits!

Brecht's theatre hinges on greater forces acting on individual characters. I don't think this means that a particular character "stands for" or "is representative of" a certain type of evil or ill-intent. I think that it approaches its characters rather as people battling their own separate oppressive forces, which is contrary to everything I've been taught about "epic theatre," I think. I feel like I've always been told that the characters are shallow and symbolic, but I think now--after reading all Boal has to say--that they are characters who are helpless (more or less) against their oppressors or the larger systems that oppress them.