All About Books discussion

Are we starting this piece of theatre? Shall we start it next monday?
Someone else is interested?

Me!

E Una!

Read it whenever you like. It is very short and so I have no problems to take a break from Journey to the End of the Night.

It shouldn't take too long.
I was thinking of starting it next week ...

I will join in. Monday will probably work OK for me.

Let it be monday then: the play is not too long, we should read it in a day or two...

Started?
A bit ... confused...

Just briefly. My plan is to read it tonight..why is to confusing?

Read it first and then we'll discuss it tomorrow!

LOL! I suspect you don't want to discourage me from reading it.

No no! Just I don't know how to esplain without enetring in details!

I have finished it right now.

I liked it a lot, for me it's a four star book, nearly five.
It is wonderful how Pirandello depicts the game of the masks (though not very deep like in his other work "One, no one and one houndred thousand") and, above all, the theater in the theater and the disagreements among the author, the actors and the characters but also the difference among what is true and what is real. All in all, it is a play about the theater.

Will wait to read your opinions to add more.

Half way through; I'll finish hopefully today and then I'll write what I think ...

LauraT wrote: "Half way through; I'll finish hopefully today and then I'll write what I think ..."

Still confused?

Why has your edition nearly 300 pages? A long introduction?

Yap! But I've not read it through!!!!

Just finished.
I, as usual, find it difficoult, to READ what was ment to be acted on a stage. Certain authors are better - Shakespeare find extremely enjoyable also on a book - but some others I think loose a lot from the writetn words on a page.
This is one of this istance: I've never seen it acted at the theatre, but I suppose I'd like it much better.
This as an introductio.
AS for the themes ... there are many: the contrast between reality and "fiction", the dependence of the author from his characters - here they act for themselvesm but in the end they reiterate what was written for them in the first place - the relationship between actors and the role they act ...
And of course the "metatheatre", the theatre looking at itself.

Me too, I would like to see it performed on the stage!

Why does the author depend from his characters? The author has given them birth thanks to his imagination but then he left them aside never writing the play. The characters depend from the author, not the opposite (at least in my opinion).

They don't act for themselves, it is their part, their only life, the one they have because they were born in this way in the imagination of the author; they can't have another life. They don't need to act, they need someone that plays their lives.
It is a game of role (gioco di ruolo): the author must write, the actors must play, the characters must live (indeed, they are already alive but they reach their fulfillment) thanks to both these things. Pirandello wanted also to underline that once a character is born, it has his one life but this life will be understood in a way by the actor and then it will be understood in another way by the audience.
Here's the quote (in Italian) where I understood this part:
(view spoiler)[Il Padre: Ma se è tutto qui il male! Nelle parole! Abbiamo tutti dentro un mondo di cose; ciascuno un suo mondo di cose! E come possiamo intenderci, signore, se nelle parole ch'io dico metto il senso e il valore delle cose come sono dentro di me; mentre chi le ascolta, inevitabilmente le assume col senso e col valore che hanno per sé, del mondo com'egli l'ha dentro? (hide spoiler)]


They can't reiterate what was written because nothing has ever been written about them. The problem is that they need that someone writes their drammas, so their lifes have a meaning. It's because of this that they are looking for an author: they need that someone writes their dramma. Till now the author has only had thoughts about them but this was enough to give them life; now their drammas must be written and must be put on a stage. This for their fulfillment, it gives a reason to their being "born" in the imagination of the author.

I agree that I would like to see a performance (I actually said that in my review) - I might see if I can find one on YouTube.

I knew nothing about this play before I started, other than it was highly regarded, so like Laura I was a bit confused at the beginning. I ended up feeling that the unusual structure works well to enhance the theme.

Off the top of my head, having just finished the play, one major theme is how character (of literary or actual kind) is so multi-faceted that it is difficult to say what is the 'true' or 'real' version. This variability is more easily seen with the characters but Pirandello clearly extends it to others in the scene between the Father and the Manager ((view spoiler)[when the Father asks the Manager who he is & discusses how past selves become illusion (hide spoiler)]).

So I agree with what Dely has said but would widen it. People play roles (consciously or unconsciously), and these depend upon the people we are with at the time, much like the role varies with the actor and director.

Leslie wrote: "So I agree with what Dely has said but would widen it. People play roles (consciously or unconsciously), and these depend upon the people we are with at the time, much like the role varies with the actor and director. "


Yes, the masks we wear or the roles we play. This theme should be explained better in One, No One, and One Hundred Thousand. I have never read it so, if you want another readalong, I will be in.

The difference among "true" and "real" isn't easy to explain. People are real but not always true (because of the roles); the characters are "true" but not real until someone writes their drammas and acts them on the stage.

Among the quotes on GR I have found the quote written in English, the one I wrote to Laura in message 18.
Here it is (view spoiler)[“THE FATHER: But don't you see that the whole trouble lies here? In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.” (hide spoiler)]

Leslie wrote: "So I agree with what Dely has said but would widen it. People play roles (consciously or unconsciously), and these depend upon the people we are with at the time, much like the role varies with the actor and director.


The "role playing of everybody" is I think one of the main issue here: There's not a big difference between actors and Characters...
And of course the we are all "in" this: also the spectator as Dely pointed out, "changes" the meaning of things, or at least understad what he thinks attending with values and mental organization which is of course different for everyone of us ...

LauraT wrote: "The "role playing of everybody" is I think one of the main issue here: There's not a big difference between actors and Characters..."

I don't agree with you, there is a huge difference among actors and characters, the difference that exists among "true" and "real". The actors are real but not true because they are human beings and so they always act, in life and on the stage; the characters are "true" because they have only one role and this is made of their emotions, their drama. In this way they are much more "true" than actors because they have only one role, only one mask but they aren't "real" because they live only on the stage when someone performs their drama or when the author writes the screenplay.

Sorry if I write always to say the opposite! :D

I looked on Youtube and could not find the full play. If anyone finds a link, could you please post? Initially, I was lukewarm on this play but as I finished a few days ago, it has grown on me. It made me think. There were times it was quite humorous and really disturbing. The ending bothers me. Has everyone who wants to read it finished? I'd like to discuss but don't want to spoil it.

I found a performance (in English) on YouTube, broken into 7 parts. Here is a link the the first part:

http://youtu.be/WvWCfIYPZK0

I only watched a few minutes but it seems to be a film version and they changed the beginning a bit, so I might continue looking for a stage production...

I did find a full length production in Italian (wish I could understand it!)

http://youtu.be/cEhP2a8I4Ok

I finished this today, is a 3 star for me. I might raise this up at a later time!
This was my introduction to Pirandello and I liked the way the play is written and structured. Some dialogues are amusing and really witty, but felt more of the distress and anguish of the Characters. Brilliantly written reality and illusion of reality - at various levels: theatre/drama, actors/Characters, individual's actions and outcomes ..

Yes Poornima: the anguish of the characters was one of the feature which storke me as well! ANd I think that it was what Pirandello wanted to convey: the anguish of life ...

Enjoyed reading the discussion, especially the last 10 or 15 comments.

Recently Terri had completed reading this play and wrote a simple but thought provoking review. I thought I will share it here in this discussion.

Here is her review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...