okay, what kind of narrative?

[shando]

I play on one end of that spectrum and not the other, so I don't think it's unreasonable of me to want a way to distinguish the two ends for clarity's sake.

I guess I'm not sure if this is for the sake of clarity or continued barriers. Not trying to be a dick, authentically asking this question. Or put it this way. I agree that what TJ and Dave does is different than what 3 For All does, but I'd rather think about the work directly rather than chalking those differences up to a label and then not think about it any further.

If I can walk this back a little, this new definition we're trying to find is so that you don't get your dander up when talking with someone who calls Dasariski a narrative show, right? Someone just kidnap Ratliff and brainwash him to not object to the word narrative and I think we'll all be ok. THIS IS HYPERBOLE!!!!!!!!!

[Roy Janik]

One thing I have been really into lately is trying to take each show and troupe on its own merits, so that labeling has less appeal for me. Over the past year or so I've made a conscious effort to stop saying shortform and longform, and that's worked out pretty well.

But I'm definitely interested in blurring the lines as much as possible, because the lines are arbitrary. I want each show to be what it needs to be, as discovered through the rehearsal process, most likely.

For instance, Manhattan Stories some weeks is more a slice of life, in-depth character-centric show, and some weeks it has more of a plot.

Austin Secrets obviously delves into character, but hell, it's also a "shortform" show.

The Black Vault will tell three narratives wrapped up in a frame story, but due to the fact that it's Lovecraft-inspired each narrative will ultimately be a close-up examination (and probable destruction) of one character's mental state... even at the expense of the story making complete sense.

I guess all this is to say that I personally don't find labels that useful. When I describe the Hideout's style to people or students, I'll say "The Hideout is grounded in a love of story, so our shows will tend to tell one long story from start to finish, but that's by no means all we do."

When talking with other improvisers, it doesn't seem that hard to briefly describe a show or troupe in those kind of human, easily understandable terms.

[shando]

One thing I have been really into lately is trying to take each show and troupe on its own merits, so that labeling has less appeal for me. Over the past year or so I've made a conscious effort to stop saying shortform and longform, and that's worked out pretty well.

But I'm definitely interested in blurring the lines as much as possible, because the lines are arbitrary. I want each show to be what it needs to be, as discovered through the rehearsal process, most likely.

For instance, Manhattan Stories some weeks is more a slice of life, in-depth character-centric show, and some weeks it has more of a plot.

Austin Secrets obviously delves into character, but hell, it's also a "shortform" show.

The Black Vault will tell three narratives wrapped up in a frame story, but due to the fact that it's Lovecraft-inspired each narrative will ultimately be a close-up examination (and probable destruction) of one character's mental state... even at the expense of the story making complete sense.

I guess all this is to say that I personally don't find labels that useful. When I describe the Hideout's style to people or students, I'll say "The Hideout is grounded in a love of story, so our shows will tend to tell one long story from start to finish, but that's by no means all we do."

When talking with other improvisers, it doesn't seem that hard to briefly describe a show or troupe in those kind of human, easily understandable terms.

yes, this

[zyrain]

If you really want to dive deep, here are some interesting links:

First, we're talking about an area of real study, called Morphology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(folkloristics)

Next, people have tried to classify types of stories before:
This one is an attempt to classify every folk tale. This list ranges from the not really story arc narrative stories, through the very formulaic hero's journey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne%E2%8 ... ion_system

I ran across this, and thought it was fun. The claim of this author is that there are ONLY 36 dramatic situations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty ... Situations

Finally, in terms of "What to call it?" Consider the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure

So, I would say it's a "Narrative with classical dramatic structure"

[shando]

A tangential thought. I think I appreciate the extreme looseness of TJ and Dave's and Dasariski's quasi-narrative, character-led approach because all of those guys are fantastic actors. I really believe the characters they make, and am willing to follow them wherever they go. I am less inclined to enjoy a loose charter-led show if the acting is poor, 'cause I'm not buying what's being sold; I'm much more forgiving of broad acting in something with some plot payoffs, 'cause I can get my jollies there. One size does not fit all.

[Roy Janik]

Way to go Neal for busting out actual research. Gonna look at all this. Thanks.

[happywaffle]

let's just call it a Kevin from now on.

YAY

[ratliff]

A tangential thought. I think I appreciate the extreme looseness of TJ and Dave's and Dasariski's quasi-narrative, character-led approach because all of those guys are fantastic actors. I really believe the characters they make, and am willing to follow them wherever they go. I am less inclined to enjoy a loose charter-led show if the acting is poor, 'cause I'm not buying what's being sold; I'm much more forgiving of broad acting in something with some plot payoffs, 'cause I can get my jollies there. One size does not fit all.

I couldn't agree more with this.

As far as labels being barriers: Maybe. But good fences make good neighbors.

If you're doing a plot-driven show in which some choices are better than others, I probably don't want to play in it, because I will almost certainly make the "wrong" choice. This doesn't mean I think this show is bad or shouldn't exist; it's just not my thing. It will stress me out and disappoint you. Who wants that?

If you want to play a monoscene with me and are okay with just exploring the last thing that happened and supporting each other no matter what, even if that means we never get a good story arc going, I would like to do that. I would enjoy doing that with pretty much anyone.

All I want is a way to distinguish one from the other. I guess to a certain extent it requires people to be honest about how they really play, but if it's okay to distinguish between shortform and longform and grounded and silly, I don't understand why it's not okay to differentiate between these, if only so we can both determine whether it's a good idea for me to play in your show.

If you insist that everything's narrative, I'm probably not going to play in your show, for fear that it's the former kind of show and I'll fuck everything up and/or resent you driving us into plot when (in my opinion) it's not necessary. Which would be sad if you were talking about the other kind of show and we could have had a good time together.

I am, I swear, only trying to clarify things not so that we can all discriminate against each other but so that we can all play more of the kind of shows we want to play.

Anyhow, this has been fun. I have to go rehearse a Kevin now.

[valetoile]

I'm intrigued by the "pulling the lights" point: Ratliff, as I understand it, part of the difference in the two types of shows as you see it is that a classic dramatic structure narrative has a question or questions that need to be answered for the show to feel satisfying at the end; something needs to be wrapped up, and if the show ends before that wrap up, we will feel like we've been cheated of our climax. Shows of the Kevin variety, however, do not have that open question that needs to be answered. What then makes for a satisfying show? Obviously the lights couldn't be pulled at -any- arbitrary point. We all agree that when the show (or scene) ends matters for every improv show. So, for example in the TJ and Dave show where it felt like an ending, and then went on, what made the show feel satisfying and complete in that moment? What made it feel satisfying and complete when it did end? Maybe the answers to these questions will help us understand the differences in the ends of the spectrum.

My feeling at the moment is that the audience almost always has an unanswered question in mind, whether it's "Will he ever learn to truly love himself?" or "How's she going to react to what her mother just said?" Sometimes the questions are answered quickly, sometimes they are answered over the course of the show. Sometimes the point of a show is to leave the audience with an unanswered question. I would say that a show can feel complete and satisfying right after a question has been answered and before a new and important one has had time to arise. It can also feel finished when it becomes clear that the show will not answer the question, and the question has been in some way turned over to the audience. I think sometimes a show feels complete when we realize we've found an answer to a question we hadn't even consciously asked.

This is all so interesting! Thank you for inciting such a great discussion. I would also like to say, though I know this may frustrate you and you will probably find a way to distinguish the point that I am trying to very hard to blend, that a good story-driven narrative should always be people "exploring the last thing that happened and supporting each other no matter what" and that if there's any show "in which some choices are better than others, I probably don't want to play in it, because I will almost certainly make the "wrong" choice." If we're doing improv "right" then there's no way to get it wrong. We give ourselves limits and challenges and structures to build skills and stretch ourselves, but when we're on stage, whatever happens happens and it's beautiful and right and the best thing that could have happened. Doing a genre or a classic dramatic arc or a harold or anything else is just about learning a language together. If you don't know the language, you'll feel uncomfortable and you'll feel like you're messing up. Learning new languages is fun and lets you communicate with more people. But of course, you don't need to learn every language. There is always an infinite richness of experience and communication to explore within the language you already know and feel fluent in.

[shando]

As far as labels being barriers: Maybe. But good fences make good neighbors.

Lit points! Like a lot of Frost, even that phrase cuts both ways, right?

If you're doing a plot-driven show in which some choices are better than others, I probably don't want to play in it, because I will almost certainly make the "wrong" choice. This doesn't mean I think this show is bad or shouldn't exist; it's just not my thing. It will stress me out and disappoint you. Who wants that?

If you want to play a monoscene with me and are okay with just exploring the last thing that happened and supporting each other no matter what, even if that means we never get a good story arc going, I would like to do that. I would enjoy doing that with pretty much anyone.

All I want is a way to distinguish one from the other. I guess to a certain extent it requires people to be honest about how they really play, but if it's okay to distinguish between shortform and longform and grounded and silly, I don't understand why it's not okay to differentiate between these, if only so we can both determine whether it's a good idea for me to play in your show.

If you insist that everything's narrative, I'm probably not going to play in your show, for fear that it's the former kind of show and I'll fuck everything up and/or resent you driving us into plot when (in my opinion) it's not necessary. Which would be sad if you were talking about the other kind of show and we could have had a good time together.

I am, I swear, only trying to clarify things not so that we can all discriminate against each other but so that we can all play more of the kind of shows we want to play.

This is all eminently reasonable. I guess for some of us, that continuum between TJ and Dave and Pgraph is hard to pin down. I don't have the vocab for it, seriously. Loose vs. tight narrative? I think the language you need to describe it completely would be almost as long at what you just wrote, so let's just have those conversations out loud and face to face, right? I feel TJ and Dave are closer to someone like Pgraph, in certain lights, than they are to say Switchboard or a Harold team, but all of those get lumped under the rubric Chicago-style, a term I find way more lacking in specifics than narrative. And let's do a show! I think you would find our approaches are not nearly as incompatible as you might expect. If I'm not playing in a show that has a preset genre box around it, I walk into shows knowing they could fall anywhere on the loose to tight spectrum and am fine with that. I've gotten to the point that I'm cool if Get Up goes out and has a real loose, meandering show. It sounds like, based on what you said earlier about your Glamping Trip experiences, that maybe you need to get over your anxiety that you might, through being open and in the moment, find yourself accidentally doing a set that has all the trappings of a tightly plotted narrative.

[ratliff]

Val: Beautifully said.

Kareem and I have discussed this at length and you're right, I absolutely do NOT feel the questions need to be answered.

Possibly the best two-man show I ever saw was Dave Pasquesi and Tracy Letts, and one of the reasons I loved it was that even though the protagonist -- yes, there was a protagonist and a story line, however slim -- even though the protagonist got the girl and "won," I left the show with the very distinct feeling that he was going to blow it and wind up a loser in the end. Why? Because they had created such a rich character that it was possible to see him get everything he wanted and still intuit at least a fifty-fifty chance it wouldn't last. There was no broad wink or overt foreshadowing of failure; I just couldn't shake the idea that he'd screw it up.

And I agree completely that a narrative can be as free and immediately responsive to the moment as a non-narrative. Certainly I've seen many Pgraph shows that accomplished this with style to burn.

But I repeat my earlier point: everyone in this thread is acting like whenever there's a show that is completely plot-driven and lacks believable characters, it's some kind of unfortunate accident or anomaly. I don't think that's true. I think there are shows that really are about plot lines, in which certain things are supposed to happen and it's therefore possible to make a wrong choice, and I think some of those shows are like that because the people in them want them to be like that.

To return to the ColdTowne analogy, it's as though someone commented that a ColdTowne show seemed pretty gamey and premise-oriented, and instead of saying, "Yeah, that's definitely one facet of the ColdTowne style," I say, "Well, what they really meant to be doing was being completely in the moment and committing to their characters' inner lives." Maybe they did, but it seems a little odd to suggest that whenever that kind of show happens, it's only because the people involved were doing a lesser version of what they actually intended.

[Roy Janik]

I would also like to state that I did 43 shows in a row with Ratliff, and they ran the full range of whatever spectrum you care to come up with. Never once did I feel like he got anything "wrong". Now, naturally, I'm sure he was in his head or held back more in some shows... but from an external standpoint, and as a scene partner... spot on. 43 times.

[ratliff]

Shannon: Good point(s). Now that you mention it, I don't think I screw up narrative so much as I screw up "tropes." So yeah, maybe there's hope for me.

[Roy Janik]

But I repeat my earlier point: everyone in this thread is acting like whenever there's a show that is completely plot-driven and lacks believable characters, it's some kind of unfortunate accident or anomaly. I don't think that's true.

RIGHT. And I'm totally at fault for some of that. I've been thinking about this lately too. I think often in discussing improv with other people, I'm willing to throw plot under the bus for the sake of getting along.

But the fact of the matter is, sometimes I do like improvising plot... coming up with the perfect thing to wrap up the story. And it's not always from my character's motivation or with any of the characters' internal struggle in mind. It's just me relying on my instincts and following my inspiration to move the story along. And I do think it's a separate skill from digging into character to a certain degree.

So yeah, totally.

The point I was trying to make was that I don't think telling stories or doing a narrative has to be at odds with or at a detriment to exploring a character.

[ratliff]

Roy: You were hardly an objective judge ... but thank you. I feel the same way about you, except for when you fell asleep. That was WRONG.

But really, I don't think the people in this discussion play that way. I can't imagine you coming offstage and asking me, "Why did you do that?"