Please complete your reading of No Exit.
To turn in: For each character, identify their major goal or motivation in the play. For each character, determine whether or not the character obtains that particular goal.
Then, please post a short personal response to the play.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Murky Middle (Even More Advice)
Aristotle wrote that stories should have a beginning, middle, and end. Middles can be difficult. You might have a smashing opening to a stor...
10 comments:
I really liked how the play was developed. I believe the playwright built up the characterization and setting in a wonderful way. I like how it takes place in hell and how there are three main characters with distinct reason for why ech of them has gone to hell. I find it a bit funny. So overall all it was put together very well.
Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit is a play that really explores one version of hell, and what it really consists of. According to Sartre, hell is other people. This is certainly a valid point--in life, humans are constantly upset by themselves and others. If you think about it, humans are only miserable because of other human's actions and effects. I think that Jean-Paul Sartre's play was very clever and interesting to read on several different levels. Not only did it go into what was going on specifically with Inez, Estelle, and Garcin, but it showed the reader the general idea of what would happen to anyone if stuck in a room with two strangers for eternity.
I really enjoyed the play. I loved the theme and I feel that characters would have a lot of fun playing each character. It'd be interesting to watch the characters move about the stage also. Man, I really want to see it performed!
NO Exit was really interesting. The charactres where well developed and the meaning of the play was also interesting. I thought that the character estelle was the most interesting to me because she seemed to only think about herself and about getting what she wanted. I also think that her character was the most developed. Overall the play was good
The play was very intersting and made me want to read it again. It was well writen and ggod plot and charcters. I love Inez and her evil ways. She reminds me of someone I know.lol I found the play funny and there were alot of jokes people didnt get. Craddock get another play like this. Please!
I really like the concept of this play- being locked in hell is just a room with two other people. "People are hell" and all the time we think that hell is physical pain and suffereing. Hell permeates our everyday lives, we're just to dull to realise it. Intriguing thought. I'm not sure I agree, people can also bring each other joy and love: people aren't entirely scum.
I thought that Jean Paul Sartre and the existentialist thought on hell was interesting in that they believe that hell is other people. it was fascinating to me how Estelle, Inez, and Garcin work against each other to create their own personal hell. I also admire the thought that went into their character development -- a very, very important aspect of not just this play, but all plays. I liked how the format of hell wasn't the classical pitchforks and fire routine, but a living room with second empire furniture because it seemed more realistic to me.
-zoe c
I found the depiction of hell as, well, other people, to be particularly compelling. As was addressed in the play, we think of hell as a torture-chamber, with little devils who poke people with pitch-forks, but I have to agree with Sartre--it is a much more effective form of torture to surround people with others that they have a natural conflict with. Furthermore, I enjoyed this play. The characters were interesting, got across the theme very effectively, and, like we talked about on Monday, all of them are clearly both protagonists and antagonists at different times within the play.
This play really picked up at the end. I thought at first that it was a little dense and vaigue, but eventually it became clear what Sartre was trying to say about human kind. That all humans are the cause of all other humans' sorrow. (Of course this is not entirely true, as sometimes animals can be physically hurtful to humans). I was thinking about existentialism earlier, and I was wondering... is existentialism the idea that humans exist for no reason? That there is no afterlife (in which case, Sartre is NOT being existentialist because he sets his play IN the afterlife -- Hell)? That human's are the real hell on earth to one another?
I wasn't so sure what existentialism was by the end of this play. Upon thinking about it further, I realize that Sartre would argue that all human beings go to hell, because all human beings cause one another sorrow. How bleak. What's the point of living if you will only end up in Hell, torturing and being tortured by others?
Another depressing play from Craddock to contemplate...
No Exit was rather... interesting. The characters were kinetic, changing with the course of events, with the exception of Inez. She just wanted to make other people miserable. The characters were also very emotional and expressive, making it an entertaining play to view, act in, or direct.
Post a Comment