HowlRound: Exactly eight days after Donald Trump was elected president, Oxford Dictionaries selected “post-truth”—defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”—as 2016’s international word of the year, citing a 2000 percent increase in usage compared with 2015.
2 comments:
I'm a bit confused by these power plays. Their purpose is to start conversations and create a more informed democratic public; however, they're allowed to be historical fiction. While there is nothing wrong with taking an artistic license, depending on how far the playwright takes the fictional elements, I could see this being more detrimental than helpful in this post truth era. A lot of people who read and watch things that are grounded in a lot of truth and a lot of history don't often bother to check which parts are true and which are added for the sake of the story. While these elements can be helpful in creating conversation points, they might also confuse and obscure the story in the wrong hands. If misunderstood, a started conversation could devolve into an argument about the facts rather than a productive discussion on the principles. I support this idea very very much; I feel that starting these kinds of discussions about society and politics is one of the most important things we can do these days, but I just think we need to be careful. In a time where truth can be obscured simply because one has a strong belief in it, we need to be cautious of how much we alter a story.
I found this article absolutely fascinating. I think the concept of taking history and slightly changing things could have a powerful effect on people. For example, if you wrote a play about World War 2 but placed a woman on the front line with the men, it would greatly change the purpose of the show. It would raise many questions that could make the audience look at a different perspective. What if women didn't just stay home during the war? I think by slightly changing history, we are forced to ask the questions of where would we be now if. I am never opposed to another show driven with political statements, but this concept seems like it could really go far. I also think this would give the chance for the dramaturgs of the theatre world to go crazy. They would have to make sure that the audience knows what is accurate versus what is not accurate to get the full force of the show. I would love to see a show like this, because I would love to see what could have been and how that could change things.
Post a Comment