Given I've spent almost as much time being an editor for others in recent years as I have doing my own writing, your words about wanting to improve works resonate with me. Those avoidable mistakes really can be avoided! Listen to us on this, folks! And even though I don't work on musical theatre specifically, I find your points about storytelling methods pretty applicable to novels in most cases.
Just the other week I saw Come From Away for the first time—had never heard the songs before, only knew the premise of the story, and thought before going in, "I don't know, can they really make a good musical about that?" Well, turns out they could. I was impressed. An ensemble cast, a faithful adherence to things that actually happened in real life (which often are hard to make interesting in terms of pacing), and a setting that sounds like it would be boring—those are all challenging features, but they pulled it off. Or such is my takeaway from my one and only viewing of it so far. Curious if you have thoughts on that musical!
Come From Away probably merits its own blog post (*adds that one to list*) but in synopsis I'll say that I thought it was a great example of what I call a "documentary musical" — essentially showing the most effective way that kind of show can be done. It had a number of moving vignettes, though it lacked the focus of a main character. It was arguably more of a revue than a book musical.
That's true, it probably fits "documentary" best of all the main genres! They did a good job of showcasing a lot of diverse angles on one event, and of interweaving the individuals' experiences just enough so that it didn't feel disjointed—the camaraderie of the big unplanned group being the point and all that. When I'm writing, I feel like I do best if I have a main character (in fact, I'm not sure I've ever done it any other way), but I'm impressed when people can pull off an ensemble cast in a compelling fashion and always kind of wish I could do that.
I think that's something that's much more possible in literature than musical theater, which is short-form and demands that we empathize (in some way) with anyone who sings. Audiences sit down in a theater with a limited supply of I Care and the show has short time in which to earn it. Multiple characters usually means that the audience has to distribute their supply amongst them.
Hah, I'm going to borrow that notion of "a limited supply of I Care." It's a more realistic way of saying the usual stock phrase, "willingness to suspend disbelief." I have run across novels that can do a good ensemble cast, but even then I think it's tricky. People usually end up having favorites and get restless when we're in a long section about one of the other characters. Probably also an issue related to limited supply of I Care.
Given I've spent almost as much time being an editor for others in recent years as I have doing my own writing, your words about wanting to improve works resonate with me. Those avoidable mistakes really can be avoided! Listen to us on this, folks! And even though I don't work on musical theatre specifically, I find your points about storytelling methods pretty applicable to novels in most cases.
Just the other week I saw Come From Away for the first time—had never heard the songs before, only knew the premise of the story, and thought before going in, "I don't know, can they really make a good musical about that?" Well, turns out they could. I was impressed. An ensemble cast, a faithful adherence to things that actually happened in real life (which often are hard to make interesting in terms of pacing), and a setting that sounds like it would be boring—those are all challenging features, but they pulled it off. Or such is my takeaway from my one and only viewing of it so far. Curious if you have thoughts on that musical!
Happy New Year!
(And needless to say, Happy Impending New Year as well!)
Come From Away probably merits its own blog post (*adds that one to list*) but in synopsis I'll say that I thought it was a great example of what I call a "documentary musical" — essentially showing the most effective way that kind of show can be done. It had a number of moving vignettes, though it lacked the focus of a main character. It was arguably more of a revue than a book musical.
That's true, it probably fits "documentary" best of all the main genres! They did a good job of showcasing a lot of diverse angles on one event, and of interweaving the individuals' experiences just enough so that it didn't feel disjointed—the camaraderie of the big unplanned group being the point and all that. When I'm writing, I feel like I do best if I have a main character (in fact, I'm not sure I've ever done it any other way), but I'm impressed when people can pull off an ensemble cast in a compelling fashion and always kind of wish I could do that.
I think that's something that's much more possible in literature than musical theater, which is short-form and demands that we empathize (in some way) with anyone who sings. Audiences sit down in a theater with a limited supply of I Care and the show has short time in which to earn it. Multiple characters usually means that the audience has to distribute their supply amongst them.
Hah, I'm going to borrow that notion of "a limited supply of I Care." It's a more realistic way of saying the usual stock phrase, "willingness to suspend disbelief." I have run across novels that can do a good ensemble cast, but even then I think it's tricky. People usually end up having favorites and get restless when we're in a long section about one of the other characters. Probably also an issue related to limited supply of I Care.