Theatrical Worlds
The book includes three sections: Creating a World, Theatrical Production, and Special Topics. As one might expect in an intro text for non-majors, part two is the most comprehensive, probably because it best reflects the authors' primary interests. Nonetheless, the authors rarely move beyond canon practices (i.e. Stanislavskii) and productions. Part one wanders through theatre history, backstage myth, audience etiquette, and cliches like "the magic of theatre --part history, part myth, part spectator etiquette--wanders. Despite a nod to "world theatre," part three, "Special Topics," is the least comprehensive and least satisfactory. The lack of original thinking (reflected in the prominent place given to Shakespeare and the American Musical) is particularly troubling.
In parts one and two, I noted many unsupported claims and occasional inaccuracies (for example, the characterization of Aristotle as a "drama critic"). Theatre and performance seem to be interchangeable (they're not). "Decorum" is mischaracterized. "Performativity," not a concept for an intro text, is mentioned in passing, but never defined. Somehow the author of the chapter on acting connects Quintilian (rhetoric) to Delsarte (reflexology) through signifying gesture. Few theatre practitioners and scholars still think of the director as a translator for the playwright. And so on. Bias reveals itself in the text's Anglo American focus and in what too many of the authors omit--gender, race, class, ethnicity, and many, many genres of theatrical theory, history, and practice.
As long as white men dominate the profession and the academy and graduate students teach intro to theatre, this text will remain relevant.
See my comment above on "performativity." While this kind of oversight isn't constant, it occurs often enough to cause concern.
Yes and no. This book is an edited volume rather than a unified text written by a single-author. The very choice of genre compromises its consistency, but I expect that from an edited volume. The authors don't contradict each other, but each has her or his own topic.
Yes, I think that the language above describes the text accurately.
Part one is a stand alone unit that tries to cover too much ground. Too often logical segues from one topic to the next are missing. The topics in part two are presented in a logical fashion. Part three is random.
I didn't have problems, but I downloaded it to my iBooks where it behaved like all of other texts.
As former editor of a prominent theatre journal, I was astonished at the number of typographical errors. The volume editor needs a good copy editor.
See my comments above. One chapter on "world theatre" does not = relevance. Insensitivity to gender certainly mars the text and again, the authors focus primarily on Anglo American plays and production practices.
I have been very hard on this book because I strongly believe that intro texts targeted primarily to non-majors should draw new audiences to live theatre. With its rather tedious emphasis on canon texts and production practices, I don't think this book accomplishes that. That's not to say that it doesn't have good moments. I'm sure it would work in a standard, large lecture intro to theatre class taught by practitioners (rather than scholars) and advanced graduate students.