RAT nature of the play...

["Lyle Smith" <el.smith@worldnet.att.net>]

    I've been listening in on the list for some time now and have not
contributed much to this point, but I happened across a pair of comments I
received in response to script submissions not too long ago that suddenly
have me a bit puzzled. Thought I'd share... (the source of the critiques
shall remain nameless except to say they address two very different plays)
            "... you make the damaging decision to replace individualized
people, place and situation with what some would call universals--no
particular time, place or people. Experience tells us that leads to no
particular audience impact. Art is specific; philosophy is general."
    [side note: my disagreement with this was that yes, there was no
specific time or place, however, the characters were quite specific.]
    Also...
            "You overdo long monologues when you should be working toward
developing tension between characters in scenes that move the play forward
through conflict."
    Without addressing points about these specific plays (which as it
happens, do have some fundamental problems), I wonder if anyone has any
thoughts on these ideas. Isn't it possible to 
a) illicit a response - even a strong response by using generalities (call
them archetypes if you wish) in conjunction with or opposition to very
specific central characters or situations or moments... and 
b) communicate an inherently dramatic experience through monologue - or
storytelling, if you prefer?
    At the time, these comments seemed simply a difference of opinion
regarding just what constitutes a "play."
    Any thoughts out there in RATland?

Lyle Smith