Shakespeare's Rehearsal Conditions

Right now, I'm on the travel portion of a Shakespeare-related travel course. We've been studying the theatrical context of Shakespeare's writing - what it took to write and stage a show in Elizabethan England. The theater we're visiting is a replica of an Elizabethan stage (yes, they had closed-roof theaters back then). During their Renaissance season, they stage shows similar to how Shakespeare's actors would have done it.
What does that mean for the actors?

1. Instead of getting full scripts of the whole show, the actors only get "cue scripts."  This means that the 12 members of the company get books with their lines and 1-3 words of the line before.
2. The actors have about 48 hours to do group rehearsals before the show goes up. If a show is supposed to open on Friday, this does not mean the actors put in 8 hours a day from Sunday to Friday. This means that they start rehearsing in group for Friday's show on Wednesday. (I assume the actors DO have their lines at least 80% committed when they walk in for rehearsal on Wednesday, though.)
3. The actors direct themselves. When we sat in for part of a rehearsal on Friday, one of the actors mentioned bringing in a bed, since the scene was in a bedroom, and her character "probably wouldn't sit on the floor" for one of her scene partners. The actors in the scene, after some discussion of How To Get The Bed Onstage, took the note and ran with it. (This resulted in an action-movie-style dive over the bed to aim a gun at someone.) The staging, the props, the blocking, the costumes - everything is up to the actors.

Obviously, this is a really intense process, and the theater we're visiting only invites actors who are experienced with the company to work in the Renaissance season. There's a lot of trust involved in the process of staging a show without a director; someone with my level of acting experience (i.e. have barely done acting since high school) just isn't cut out for doing this level of rehearsal intensity. (I was once called upon to be in a show with a few days rehearsal time; however, I had a director, I was in three or four bit parts, and everything was pretty much already staged, I just had to be told where to stand.)

In all, our stay here has been really cool, and I've enjoyed it immensely.

How to Defeat a Dragon

I've discovered something that can be kind of interesting if used right.

My play for FYEC is going to involve dragons and people who contemplate suicide.  I know that much for certain.  However, I making my main character, who attempted suicide multiple times, also fluent in Old Draconic (like Old English for dragons), which brings up the interesting point: will she kill the dragon, negotiate with the dragon, or talk to the dragon in Old Draconic and win it over?  (I'm not telling you this.  I already know.  I've already written that part).

But this proposes an interesting alternative to dragon-slaying.

Yes, yes, I know, fantasy is supposed to teach us that dragons can be beaten.  But 'beaten' does not mean 'killed.'  'Beaten' means foiled, quashed, clobbered - not killed.

As the (modified) saying goes, there's more than one way to clobber a dragon.  Just some of the ways are more difficult than others.  The easy way out is just to kill it (though, considering it's twelve times your size and can breathe fire, might not be that easy); the more difficult way is to talk it out with the dragon; this may be only more difficult because the dragon is older and larger and smarter than you, and a battle of the wits is one of many situations where a Dragon of Old benefits from having a larger brain than you (it means it has plenty of room to think about gold and also clobbering humans).

Of course, talking to the dragon is dumb, according to every movie and fairy tale ever.   Who talks to dragons?  Who gets along with dragons?  WHO CARES ABOUT THE DRAGON'S OPINION?
The dragons care about their opinion, thanks very much.

On writing things

I'm pretty sure I'm brain-dead for ideas right now, and it's not fun.  I have to write a script for my First-Year course, as I mentioned, and five pages are due later this week.
The five pages aren't the problem.  The problem lies in the fact that I'm not really sure where I want to go from those five pages.  I have a general idea of where I want to go, but I keep wanting to change it and fix it and make it not suck as much as I sometimes think it does.
This, I believe, is what is called the 'creative process.'  Or, rather, 'procrastinating on the creative process.'  Once you get the idea, go for it, I'd say.  If you stop, you start to doubt yourself.

So, as a piece of advice for all those who are undertaking any sort of major writing project in the immediate future: start, don't stop, and keep going at all costs.  Your muse will thank you later.  Even though your sleep cycle may be messed up (as mine currently is, thanks to a Greek test), and your writing might suck, it's easier to work on continuity and such if you have everything there.

On that note, I need to go to the library and study some Greek and write a play.

On Shakespeare

I have just finished reading The Taming of the Shrew, which is my least favorite of the Shakespearean plays that I have read so far.  In Othello, I was really irritated by Emilia's death, sure, but at least Othello had a compelling (albeit depressing) plot.  In Midsummer Night's Dream, even though the females acted stereotypically, everyone was being rather ridiculous, so the result was a lot of lunacy.  In Romeo and Juliet, there are fights and a lot of tension; that's enough to keep me happy.
In The Taming of the Shrew, however, the entire plot is about how Bianca wants to get married and how Petruchio wants to tame Katherine, just because he wants to see if he can do it.  And then he does. Then he shows off how he's tamed Katherine.  THAT IRRITATES ME SO MUCH.

I think my irritation mainly stems from the taming of strong female characters.  Bianca and Katherine make an interesting contrast, sure, but everyone likes Bianca because she's pretty and nice and sweet and submissive, whereas Kate frequently resorts to smacking people when she's mad at them.  At least Kate dares to get mad, though.  That can't be said for Bianca.
Additionally, I feel like it should have been either mostly Kate's story with a bit of Bianca's, or mostly Bianca's story with a little bit of Kate's.  Not both, evenly split.  That irritates me a lot, too.

Still, in all, I'm kind of glad it's happened.  It's introduced me to a story I can rage at.

I mean, really.  Why can't Katherine tame Petruchio?  Why can't they tame each other?  Why can't Petruchio get fed up with Katherine's crap and go off to hit on Bianca?