KISSING COMPANIONS

Very short, and only linked to avoid formatting in the forum. A snippet of a yet-to-be-realized play. Inspired by a real event. Names are random, and are very much open to suggestions, although a fantasy-ish name is intended.

I'm not sure the language is working out for you so well. There are points where you either mix contemporary with archaic or seem to be forcing it too much. Revisions will probably iron that out, though.

It's awfully preachy.

I intended the language to be a hodgepodge. I like the style that came from it.

It's not long at all

The language is rough. I know you said you like the hodgepodgeness of it, but you're attempting a kinda archaic dialect that you don't really know, and it comes out sounding a bit more like a failed attempt than as a new style.

The story itself is fine, though.

Aarrrgh your play is formatted appallingly. Use standard stage play format!

I dunno if you're going to write any more plays, but if you plan on doing so, you should consider buying Final Draft, because it does all the formatting properly for you.

Pommy, that format you linked to is a horror to read. Having the character names centered makes everything run together incomprehensibly. I'd hate to have to read that script. Also, isn't the scene number usually represented with a lower case roman numeral?

I didn't format it for an actual play yet. This is just how I format my plays before I put them into readable format IE: Not the one you linked. That's a HORRIBLE format.

And I've done playwriting before. This is just a new little fun way of writing that I'm playing with. My normal stage plays have done pretty well around here. Granted, they're for small children.

For you guys who are saying it's a "HORRIBLE" format -- well, live with it, because that's the STANDARD format and it's pretty much expected by ANY respectable production company that your play will be formatted like that.

It's not like it's just a "suggested" format by some random company. That's THE format. EVERYONE who knows what they're doing uses that format. EVERY piece of playwrighting software (e.g. Final Draft, which is also THE software used), handbook, guide, etc. will follow that format. It's the format that's been developed over quite a few hundred of years.

But you say -- oh, what about all these books and such of plays that don't use that format? The books are formatted like that because they're BOOKS. Are books published in the manuscript format that authors submit to publishers? No. But you sure as hell wouldn't format a manuscript in landscape double-column and submit it to a publisher.

If you really want more reasons, go back to the site and read their little thing.

[note: I just realized that I came off a little absolute. Let me clarify: you don't have to follow the EXACT format that THAT link provides -- the example pages on THAT page are not the universal standard for everywhere. BUT, you DO have to follow the "rules" that are followed by that format -- the most BASIC of which in playwrighting is the APPROXIMATE CENTERING OF CHARACTER NAMES and DIALOG RUNNING ACROSS THE PAGE. ]


[edit two: Here's MORE information.

http://www.playwriting101.com/chapter05





http://www.playwriting101.com/chapter06



On dialogue:
http://www.playwriting101.com/chapter11
http://www.playwriting101.com/chapter12

And another source:

http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/artweb/playwriting/format.html



http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/artweb/playwriting/formatpage.html

[edit: And one more:
http://www.nohoartsdistrict.com/literary_arts/how_to_stagepaly.htm

Just because it's the standard doesn't mean it's good. I certainly would reprint my script in a more readable format were I acting in a play that had a script formatted like that. It doesn't make any sense at all. At least, to me.

Ironically, it's the standard because at least to production companies and anyone who has to read the play, think about it, and deal with it, it's easier to read.

The play's interesting enough, but the faux high prose is indeed rather off-putting. I could envision successfully weaving archaic diction with the vernacular, but in its current form it just comes off as long-winded and pretentious.

I think the correct summary of the style would be Victorian, arguably the most verbose writing style ever, mixed with modern English and a bit of old English thrown in. Try going for Elizabethan.