Through the Hourglass: New Play Development at Tarragon and Nightswimming
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study proposes and tests a model for play development analysis, which offers a framework and a vocabulary for cataloguing the working parts of play development initiatives. When scholars analyze a completed play text, there are several useful categories available with which to organize observations, including space and time, character, dialogue, plot and story, genre, and spectacle. Such basic categories have been lacking in the analysis of play development and dramaturgy practice. In order to create a framework for analysis, the hourglass model for play development analysis proposes the basic categories of source, perspective, leadership, company modelling, choice of form, conditions of creation (including assumed theatrical conventions), design, given and anticipated consequences, and reception. The three case studies included in this project demonstrate the uses and limitations of the analysis model for new play development and its categories. The Whispering Pines play development process at Nightswimming and the processes experienced by the participants in the 2011 Tarragon Playwright’s Unit both fit easily into the hourglass, largely because they employ traditional roles in the play development process without challenging established hierarchies and because both resulted in play texts; Nightswimming’s Rough House, as a devised piece, challenges the model and demonstrates its flexibility in dealing with non-traditional forms of theatre-making. By providing grounds for comparison between these three markedly different models, the hourglass teases out a number of productive contrasts between text-based and devised theatre. The model which I propose and test in this study has been designed to introduce a formal, pragmatic methodology to the heretofore anecdotal field of scholarship on English-Canadian dramaturgy and new play development. Its formation is indebted to and embedded within the scholarship which has come before. The pragmatic model is proposed as a methodological framework for analysis that has yet to be employed in scholarship on dramaturgy practice and new play development in particular. In my analysis of three play development initiatives, I identify the common elements inherent in each development setting and, by using the same methodology to understand each process I uncover the formative elements unique to each process. The uniquely structured analysis contributes to existing scholarship by illustrating how new play development serves or does not serve the playwright, how the relationship between dramaturg and writer affect the process, and to what extent the realities of each development model in question do or do not serve the needs of each project. The thorough analysis afforded by the model tests the three tenets of play development identified by scholarship on development dramaturgy and illuminates the inner workings of the development initiatives which are particular to each case study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».