Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 350 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by 10pm on the day PRIOR to our discussion of the required reading.
“Trash Anthem” was so strange to me when I first read it. This also took me a few tries to fully grasp what was going on deeper in the dialogue then just a scorned woman. This piece is written in present time in comparison to “Trifles.” It was interesting how Dietz wrote. It was almost poetic. Even the way he sets the scene. “Little house. Big South.” He is setting it up, but without intense description. As a reader from the South, “Big South” takes on a whole new meaning for me. It is tying in the society we are to see, and the characteristics our actors will portray. The backgrounds they will be coming from, and the dialogue we will hear. Dietz does however throw in huge contrasts to this understanding developed with the gay lover and the woman dressed in professional clothing. Both characters are fighting against the standards of the “Big South.” Dietz plays on poetry with the constant singing of the Woman (or Genevieve/Jenny). She could monologue more on her determination to be in control and to fight her insecurity, but instead he wraps it up in a little bow with her song, “I am earthy, I am raw, my man’s in pieces Down in the soggy soggy.” Even the way Dietz has her stomp the ground with her shovel and her feet, keeping time with her own song, keeping control. It’s almost like something you would hear and see in the middle of a poetry reading at a jazz club underground somewhere. Then at the end with both the boots and the woman singing their pieces in unison, but still conflicting and complete opposites, it continues to play on a poetry reading. Dietz ties it in though with the boots (the dead lover’s) inability to satisfy the woman. He is like salt-water, he cannot quench her thirst, and he cannot answer her questions or give her what she wants, while the woman struggles for sanity and control. He shows her struggle with her sudden outbursts of screams that she is unable to govern. This parallels with her inability to control herself and her actions. Which is what resulted in her murdering her lover.
ReplyDeleteClaria Buddle
“Trash Anthem” by Dan Dietz was a bit difficult for me to read, something that I am not used to, I found in this play to be strange yet symbolic toward the woman’s mind. There is so much going on with her at this point. Clearly, throughout this play we can see that this woman is mentally disturbed due to the fact that her husband cheated on her so it drove her across the edge to murder him. In the Boots character represents the woman’s husband and I feel like in her mind that the man who is dead is talking to her outside of his burial. Inside the woman’s head it is hard to wrap her mind around the fact that the man she loved would do such a thing. What I liked about this play I wanted to know what was going to happen next and Dietz reveals a big twist in this play finding out that the woman’s husband was caught with the neighbor that turns out to be a man!! To me that was a huge low blow to the stomach, to the woman she couldn’t accept that she was cheated, it drove her insane internally. Who else wouldn’t go insane over this,right? Throughout the play I am sensing her enraged actions towards the whole play, all she really wanted was answers to why was she cheated on and why was she used? That’s basically what the answers she was looking for. In the dialogue the answers that “Boots” is giving her is not good enough for her. The one thing I personally didn’t really get and threw me off as a reader was the whole peanut reference, maybe someone in class can classify that? I didn’t really understand where the whole peanut reference was going on, I felt like it was just thrown in the play. The reason why Dietz included these two characters is that he wanted to give two different perspectives from their side of the story. Which I appreciated. This play was suppose to be comical? I personally did not find this play to be funny, I saw it more as a murder type of play not comical whatsoever. Dientz tries to make this play funny to the audience and that’s another thing that Starkey mentions when it comes to playwriting. Towards the end, I felt very sorry for this woman, how do you even cope with that? She has every God damn right to be upset at this man. But other than that I did find this play to be quite interesting and Dientz did a great job expressing the realistic representations of couples which some can relate with us today.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Espericueta
In Dan Dietz’s ten-minute play titled “Trash Anthem,” the playwright presents a model on how a drama should develop. The use of voice in the drama is outstanding as the boots are personified as another character in the play. The diction was unique to bring alive a country setting in the “little south” (wherever that may be). The conflict is clear, the main character, Jenny had caught her husband cheating on her with another man. A theme developed through this conflict is the use of vengeance. Because of her husband’s infidelity, Jenny shoots her husband and she’s left only with a talking pair of boots. Additionally, Dietz touches a peculiar theme of acceptance when Jenny’s husband used her only to cover his secret. Dietz uses a whole lot of dialogue in his play as a means to develop the characterization of Jenny. Interestingly, the boots are another character, and not the diseased man. It was a little strange for me to read such a play because of the unique plot.
ReplyDeleteWhat was unclear as I read through this ten minute play was the reason behind the three new starts. The reader is left to interpret these as a humorous beginning, but as the drama develops, there is a stronger conflict clashing with the humor. The title, too, seemed a bit unconventional and the reader anticipates a negative vibe. What was even more uneasy to grasp was the reason behind the man’s murder because Jenny still questions the live boots about his infidelity. Clearly, Jenny’s turmoil is expressed as she aggravates. Diaz’s endeavors to build the drama’s climax are successful as the sirens, the boots, and Jenny’s volume raise simultaneously. It is a way of enticing the reader in the conflict.
Despite the awkwardness in the play, I think Starkey included this piece as an example of how a playwright can really “play” on the use of characters. Diaz is creative in the way he used a pair of boots, by far the strangest character I have studied in this class.
The nostalgic memories that Jenny speaks about with the boots are very peculiar because the audience is left to picture the romance between Jenny and her now dead man. Moreover, I think the singing in the beginning and the end of the play ties the drama together as Jenny longs the romance of her beloved but is left dirty, miserable, and confused while the police is after her. Overall, this was an interesting piece, and if anything, I would like to use all the ten-minutes to my advantage to create a unique piece like Diaz did in “Trash Anthem.”
- Julio C. Manzano
Yeah I thought Trash Anthem was a pretty good, pretty funky play, but I didn't like the ending. Nonetheless it’s great: you’ve got these two characters both of which are simply items, Woman and Boots. The woman is that, a woman, and perhaps the author used ambiguous terms for her as she is any woman, or maybe he did this because it doesn’t really matter since the only two characters in the play are entirely different things which we cannot possibly confuse, one is a human being and the other a pair of cowboy boots.
ReplyDeleteIt’s some kind of resurrection story except the guy who was shot is resurrected solely as his pair of boots, which talk, and they respond to his murderer. Having a pair of boots that fill the role of, say, a ghost if certainly original and clever, and, as far as I’m concerned, it is that which makes the play. Further, the pair of boots escapes his theatrical role by actually addressing the audience, directly, and asks a member of the audience to come up and change its position on the stage, and although there are no stage directions saying something to the effect that an audience member does this, I imagine that one in fact does. This occurs at the beginning of the play and is a kind of fun twist that should, at a minimum, awaken the audience to the novelty of the play that they are about to watch. Not soon thereafter the woman addresses the audience as well and actually apologizes for a lack of originality in the play’s contents. This too adds a playful factor to the play but such breaks in the separation between stage and audience need be done with caution is they can be gimmickry.
Eventually the boots, perhaps truly the conscience of the woman who just murdered her boyfriend, let her know that she cannot get away with it, that the police will eventually get her. Sure enough police lights flash onto the stage, but instead of the police walking in and snapping both the woman and the audience back into reality (e.g. that’s just a pair of boots, that’s her conscience speaking, etc.), Dietz goes on step forward into the netherworld he’s created: both the pair of boots and the woman begin singing in unison.
The police do get closer and we can assume the jig is up, but still the land of talking boots exists there on the stage and even ends this way as well. The woman ambiguously stomps a shovel down onto the stage and that’s it, the stage directions simply say, “Blackout”. Will the woman ever snap out of it? Is it a netherworld? Is it Jane’s conscience? Or are they really talking boots?
They really are talking boots, remember? The pair of boots actually spoke to the audience and someone in the audience assumedly got up and obeyed the pair of boot’s request. The police may be showing up but where is the climax? There isn’t one; it was just a pair of boots and a woman singing in unison with cops banging on the door.
This is how I would have ended it: the police would bust in and all the lights on the stage would light up. The police say something to the effect of, “those are his boots!” and put handcuffs on the woman. The woman addresses the boots saying something like, “tell them what you told me!” but the boots don’t respond, and Jane realizes that they’re just a pair of boots. They lead her away, dim the lights with the spotlight on the boots that do and say nothing. Then they drop the lights completely. Fin.
Elizabeth Barham
Bizarre seems like the appropriate word to describe "Trash Anthem." It saw so strange because I had never read anything like it. Stylistically it was very different and thus very interesting. I had never seen something like this done in a play and I was expecting to read something with the same format that the previous plays were written in and since that wasn't the case, I was caught of guard. But it proved to be very intriguing and appealing. The way that Dietz orders the play is very different first off it is impossible to notice the fact that it is told in the present tense. This element, I felt, really helped change the way we as readers identify with the characters in the play. In a sense, because of the tense it is written in, the characters are drawn closer to us and they become more alive and realistic, as they should be. The singing was also something new that I had not seen and it really complimented the play in a way I hand't seen before. I loved the end when they sing in unison and it felt so strange because the lyrics were awkward but they still felt well together. Also there was an abundant amount of actions going on at the beginning that I felt was a good thing because it left space for a lot of dialogue and imagination. Furthermore, the plot behind the story is very gripping and extraordinarily twisted as we learn that the reason the man is dead was due to infidelity with not anther woman but a man. And of course, the grandness of this play was also attributed to the literary elements. The boots literally played a character, they withheld the body of a dead man and "spoke" for the man. In all honesty, it was so bizarre and surreal and the woman seemed at the brink of insanity but nonetheless it astounded me by showing me that there are indeed so many ways in which I can write a play.
ReplyDeleteMayra Lopez
Trash Anthem by Dan Dietz is a murder play with a very different twist than most other plays. The twist of the boots actually having a speaking role is surprising. Even if the boots are listed as a character in the opening of the play, you don’t happen to think that the boots are actually going to be involved in this type of way. It’s a strange surprise but a pleasant one to show how the woman’s mind is starting to run after committing the murder. The boots take on the character of the dead husband but really the boots are taking the character of the woman’s mind of her dead husband. So it seems that the murderous act she committed is starting to play tricks in her mind and the fact that she doesn’t want to reveal that he cheated with another man instead of woman. All these factors play in her head as they would in anybody’s head. Wanting to know why and every single detail once an irrational decision has been made. After re-reading you see that the boots is the dead the dead husband but it would be very interesting to see how the pair of boots is staged in live. The theme of murder is always a good catch to bring attention to the play and the use of dialogue is very quick and easy to follow. Each of the characters is questioning each other back and forth which speeds the way it is read and also might speed the action within the play. The use of action within the play is also subtle and flowing. Which does distract a tad from the actual dialogue of the play but those small cues of action is what is going to make for a better play and smoother scene for the actors that will play this characters. The police at the end of the play come out of nowhere in the play, there isn’t a sense of who called the cops. Could the boots called the cops if so when did it happen. The police sirens just come into the play and finally arrive but what causes that action to happen. Overall it’s an entertaining twist on a classic theme.
ReplyDelete-Victor Vasquez
Dan Dietz’s “Trash Anthem” was an entertaining short play that I enjoyed reading. Although there is a hint of morbidity within, such as the implied murder of the husband, it was refreshing to read dialogue which involved a pair of boots, much more so when I picture how this play is meant to be performed as I can see a woman arguing on-stage with a prop of boots, yet it is also “speaking” with her, even singing and screaming. That being said, it may be possible that the boots as a character is representative of the woman’s grief and guilt fighting inside her, making her come up with a reality in which she and the boots are speaking to each other, yet she is simply talking to herself, attempting to give herself a “reason” for doing what she has. What I also found interesting is that the characters are simply called “Boots” and “Woman” despite Boots referring to the Woman as “Genevieve”. Even after the audience hears her name, the script itself does not make the change and continues to refer to her as “Woman”, almost as if ignoring what the boots just said. I believe that this may be further proof of the theory that the boots aren’t really speaking to her, but rather it is the woman speaking to herself, otherwise, why ignore what the other said in the script? Surely it must have some significance, it is hard to believe such a detail isn’t intentional, of little significance, or a simple mistake in the script. Overall, I really enjoyed reading (and picturing) this play for its clever and funny usage of character, as it is a play on the usage of “character”. Most think of a living, breathing person when referring to a character, but Dietz showcases how this is not writing on stone, and reminds the audience that characters refer to pivotal roles given to a concept. Even if we find out at the end that the woman is simply delusional and “Boots” does not really exist, it does not mean that Boots is not a character.
ReplyDelete-Pedro Conchas
The play Trash Anthem was an interesting read, but had me confused in a few parts. I liked that Dan Dietz had the audience involved with the play, by having the characters talk to the audience. Having the audience feel involved is the key when writing a play. When reading the beginning of this play, I saw characters labeled with woman and Boots, which confused me. How can a pair of boots be a character, they do not have a beating heart, they are more like a prop. I would have never thought to have boots talk in a play. It is like they say, you do not know how someone lives until you put yourself in their shoes. I am glad Dietz had the boots talk because the play would not have made sense without it. Every pair of shoes has a story behind it.
ReplyDeleteDietz gave the audience clues that the woman was going crazy by having her sing a random song, and having the woman talk to boots. Dietz structured the play in a way that made the read a mystery and made it challenging. The song was what confused me at first because I did not see how it related to the story. Once I read the play as a whole, the song made sense, since she was singing about the murder she had done. Having the song in italics is a good way to structure the song because if it were in regular format I would have not read it without a rhythmic tune.
I have read and heard about stories familiar to this one about a woman killing there significant other for cheating, but Dietz added creativity to his peace. When the woman was talking about cowboys and ranting about her husband I am assuming, it confused me (p.306). That paragraph on the top of the page could have been organized better. Now that I’m thinking about it maybe Dietz made the piece confusing on purpose because she was going insane from the guilt she had. What made this piece original was having the victims boots speak for themselves because characters are usually not items.
Bianca Salinas
Trash Anthems, seven short plays assigned to us this week were nothing short of high pitched perfection from the opening moments of a man slumped in his hotel room in Las Vegas and holds out a letter, “Suicide Note” in a very animated way. Apparently he is, the most unlucky man in the world, and he has the idea of ending it all on that fateful evening. However, hilarity ensues when two people from the other side of the spectrum are introduced, a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteBreaking the fourth wall is something I think has been around for ages as seen here, but now is being overly popularized by a man in a black and red suit. It’s cool and all and having your audience partake makes you feel like you’re part of the decision engine driving the story, but I’m here to be entertained, I don’t want to be called upon, I want to enjoy the performance for what it is.
However, there’s a lot to like about the particular drive behind this story, in that significant others are out there to get each other on account of being unfaithful. I thought it was intriguing the way our author gave our character a sense of insanity, that she would converse with an inanimate object in a pair of boots, as we the audience see it, she’s talking to herself.
I think that if there’s something to take away from this particular play, it’s how realistic the situation can be and is. Ideally I get the sense that this woman, is not a professional killer. It’s not in her blood, nor does she condone her own actions once the play comes full circle. I likewise would feel the same and feel the weight of committing such a heinous crime.
Still, while it is something that’s been seemingly done to death in media both realistic and fiction, giving the boot speaking lines, twists things just enough to make this piece stand out from the rest. I think if there’s yet another something to be taken from this it’s that while originality may be far off in the distance of the past, additions such as the one aforementioned are essential in making a piece your own.
- Lucas Zamora
Trash Anthem, by Dan Dietz, ran the danger of “Iiv[ing] the stereotype” as said by the women. The title itself plays on humor and is sarcastic in that it is anything but “that same old white trash anthem (Starkey, 307).” It fitted the mold of a cheated spouse wanting to take revenge, however Dietz breaks the mold through the objective correlatives that are developed as the story is unfolded.
ReplyDeleteThe character, boots, plays the centerpiece as the other objective correlatives revolve around it. It serves as a connection to the husband of the woman who she has already killed. Without him, the story could no longer be exposed and, it could be argued the story would have fallen within the “trash anthem” stereotype. It represents the feeling of incomplete love as the women was not able to build a deeper relationship past the husband’s boots and hands. It also represents the feeling of longing as even after her husband’s death the women has not been able to let her husband rest in peace. The women asks “when you said you loved me, what did that mean (Starkey 308)?” The boot is a means for her to come to terms with her husband having cheated on her with another man.
Through the character development of boots and the women, the reader encounters other objective correlatives that create a further divide. They are seen culminating in the final verses of each character. Boots’ song alludes to the difference between them as the husband’s body is described as “sea water,” as are the other descriptions such as “salt-fingers touching to your lips (Starkey, 309).” On the other hand, the women describes herself as “I am earthy, I am raw (Starkey, 309).” Both characters agree to “still we danced.”
Depending on the interpretation, the women could be seen as grounded, been earthy, actually is well grounded as her character is well dressed and is a paralegal. The husband, on the contrary, is described as fluid and liquid, easily manageable, water. Yet he is sea water, which is not able to satisfy the thirst of his wife leaving her thirsty. Their difference ultimately lead boots to live a second life.
The one literary tool I did not understand was the replying of the beginning of the play as seen in “Sure Thing”
-Alejandro Sanchez
This play was rather much easier to read than the previous one (Trifles), had me wondering throughout the play whether or not “Boots” was an actual character or just a pair of boots, until I carefully read the setting over again. “A pair of men’s cowboy boots. Woman stands dressed in cheap but professional clothing… then turns to the boots and approaches them in a slow march.” For some reason I am getting a Tim Burton meets “Southern Pride” feel to this play while reading it over again, just because of the language used, words and phrases like “pity”, “genital-wise”, “’Cept”, “More ways’n one”, and just way Dan Dietz writes this play. Like a real gritty, classic southern language, and just simple life style vibe with some sense of modern knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSince it is so short, I personally would not want to see this as a play, but I would rather have it expanded and it be turned into a short story or novel. I do love the way Dietz describes the motions that is in the parenthesis. At one point she starts interrogating the boots, which is really done well might I add, because the boots response is “I don’t talk, you know that.” Throughout the play I feel as if she did something wrong, but isn’t in the right state of mind since she is talking to a pair of boots. In the beginning there was a mention of a shovel and also towards the end, also the police do go to her door pounding at it, but also on page 308 there was mentioning of sirens in the distance and getting closer.
This woman does sing this song throughout the play, which apparently means something since it is being repeated. “I am earthy, I am raw, My man’s in pieces, Down in the soggy soggy”, I will try to break down this short verse. “I am earthy”, could mean, “I am natural”, “I am raw”, first thing that comes to mind is raw meat, My man’s in pieces”, my man is chopped into pieces, lastly, “Down in the soggy soggy”, which could describe where the body of the man is. So with this clue you can see that she killed her man, chopped him like an onion, body is still fresh, and that wherever she hid the body it is either very wet because of water, or because of the blood. After really analyzing this play even further, it is very dark, which is probably why I had a very Tim Burton vibe to it. Either way, great story, I would love to read this more into detail, and probably not want to see this as a play but read this as a novel or watch this as a movie. This is a great piece nonetheless.
-Roberto Rodriguez
“Trash Anthem” is a very interesting, yet fascinating title for a play. It made me wonder what it could possibly be about. As I read the first page, the first thing that popped out to me is the lack of names for the characters. They’re just labeled WOMAN and BOOTS which makes me curious on why such a thing is happening. Dietz already struck me in excitement on why he would do such a thing. It could be a way to make the audience pay more attention to the actual plot or create a distance from the characters. I do like the detail put into the setting alone, I can almost hear the woman move around the stage with her shovel and I pretty much envisioned the cowboy boots sitting in the corner.
ReplyDeleteThe song she sings makes me question if they belonged to someone close to her since they don’t belong to her. It also makes me curious of why she’s carrying around a shovel while saying “my man’s in pieces…” which is a rather peculiar phrase to sing loudly. It feels like a foreshadowing that will lead up to the reveal of what happened to the owner of the boots. The suspense is something that I appreciate very much and was rather caught by surprise by when the boots started talking all of a sudden. Personification is not often seen in any kind of genre, so when it is written I happen to fall in love with it. The conversation between the woman and the boots almost seems like a married couple arguing a lot, she even takes the fact that the boots are alive very well. I was astounded of the reveal of the woman’s lover being caught with another person, quite funny when it was revealed to be another man. Then, I realized that Boots became a person and is no longer just an inanimate object. I wasn’t expecting for the boots to come alive and be an actual human being, it was a rather pleasant twist.
All in all, it was a wonderful play that had some comedy and funky elements. I really enjoyed it!
-Alexa Rodriguez
'Trash Anthem' to me was interesting in that I can picture it being alot more impactful while being performed. I like how at first glance the boots appear to be personified and later we learn it's actually her husband being buried. It made me wonder what else happened after the curtain was closed and what interpretation the actress playing the woman would have for the word 'defiantly' in the directions the screenwriter provided at the end. It reminded me of Stephen King's '1922' in that a murder occurs on an isolated farm, away from anyone who might miss the victim in time for the murderer to be caught. It's haunting, in a way, as such isolation is maybe what caused the couple's disfunction, as it did in '1922.' Both women appear to have a longing for the city although the victims in the works are reversed. The woman was murdered in '1922' while the husband was in 'Trash Anthem.' I'm definitely going to look up this play being performed as I'm also curious as to whether it is humorous. I found the idea of the boots/husband talking amusing although I don't know if that is what the playwright intended. I also wonder how different playwrights would interpret the songs the characters sing as I didn't see any indication, such as sheet music, as to how they should be played/sung. I suppose it is another liberty the playwright afforded the director and performers that affect how the play comes across to different audiences and whether they choose to be serious or lean more toward the comedic side. Reading this play made me consider incorporating music into mine to experiment with more aspects of the play such as song, background music, and props. Usually when writing a short story or non-fiction piece I don't really think about how these parts of the setting will affect the story as usually my pieces don't rely heavily on it but plays are different in that they are often defined by where they take place and object are more often symbolic or simply take a greater role in how the piece plays out.
ReplyDeleteJessica Rodriguez
Trash Anthem is a play about how someone tries to get away with a murder of passion. It expresses how a woman is trying to get away with the murder of someone she loved and wants answers. Despite the victim being dead, she talks to the boots that belonged to the victim. This is something that is going on in her mind instead of actually happening and in the play, by reading the actions, it helps the audience recognize the character of the woman.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the play myself, it does have the pausing which was getting on my nerves but it does help me see what is going on and how the woman is someone that may be losing her mind and may be struggling with the guilt of what is going on. Despite murdering the man she loved, she wanted to justify what was going on through her mind when killing him. The playwright of the play wanted to have the audience see what was going on through her head. When she was having the conversation with the boots, she was having the conversation with the man she loved. She was trying to see what right thing she did for herself. She wanted to be sure that her actions were justified about what was going on the situation between him and her.
This play gives an example of what plays should actually be. To me, this plays shows a real person that is going through a believable situation. When someone murders someone, a guilt will sometimes overtake that person and when it does, they want to justify their own actions. The person that committed the murder wants to know that what they did was the right thing. So the woman wanted to justify her own actions and be able to see that she did the right thing. The playwright was able to bring out a believable character in the woman to show how many people go through this situation. She was then turned in afterwards. This is believable. Not everyone does get away with murder and this play created a situation and character that shows believable characters.
- Andrea Serrano
I thought that the play Trash Anthem by Dan Dietz was interesting. The dialogue was my favorite part because of how the characters talked. It was actually written as if they were from the South (except I am not sure which part "Big South".) Through the conversation with the woman and the boots, which is a figment of the distraught woman's imagination, it is revealed that the woman has murdered her husband and just finished burying the body. The speech of the characters is written in the way that real people would talk, and their feelings of anger and betrayal and madness therefore feel legitimate and not just approximations of these emotions. The madness of the woman and her distress is shown onstage through her conversation with the boots. She has turned to the boots, which are a part of her happy memories with her husband, and is speaking to them as if they are sentient, attempting to question and rationalize her husband's infidelity and their failed marriage. The things that she could not ask her husband because she had killed him (and also, because it seems that they had never spoken to one another about their personal issues), she now asks of the boots - though, because obviously the boots are inanimate objects, this is only projection on her part. She does not actually receive answers. It was very sad. Does this count as a monologue, then? Because it is actually the woman's mind filling in the words for the boots? Boots do not actually talk.
ReplyDeleteThere were some parts of the play that I was confused by. For example, why did the woman and the boots both scream when she put her hands in the boots? Was it painful? Was it a metaphor for something? What does the title mean? Is the trash the husband's body, that the woman has thrown away in a sense? Would these parts of the play have made more sense to me if, instead of reading the play, I had seen the play? Reading a play is only one element of the experience, I think - maybe it would be incomplete without actually viewing the play.
Doris Tolar
I read Trash Anthem, and the singing caught my attention. I carried on, and found the play somewhat confusing, but carried on. It seems the boots are playing different voices, one of which could be of the now deceased, and an independent person in separate moments throughout the play. These persons could be the her deceased husband, and just the boots themselves, or as if the boots had a personality, that actually shared with the couple. The woman is going through some shock, by what the conversation with the boots sounds, also, she seems she’s under the influence of a drug, and or drunk. She seemed to have committed a crime which most likely just did, or did some time recently(obviously, the murder). It is mentioned she had buried him, which is why I thought it could had happened some time recently. She is a having regrets, but she is speaking to an imaginary person. She is speaking to the boots, however she seem to choose what she wants to hear. It was just a matter of time until the police showed up by what it sounds on background, the sirens which are closer by the minute. As I had mentioned before, the song caught my attention, and I looked it up. I was interested in knowing the song. I thought through the music, one would be able to find any other details. Find out more about the age, setting, music, likes, etc. Perhaps it was the typical troublesome couple you would find at a motorcycle bar. At first I thought the play was a comedy with a dark twist of humor. But when the conversation gives the details of the affair, and the burial, it was clear she had just killed him. I was not able to find the specific song, however I found the writers bibliography, and he happens to be a very well respected and recognized playwright and Academic. In addition, he is also a writer of other famous material and plays, but he happens to be the writer of the TV show Person of Interest.
ReplyDelete-Francisco J. Aboytes
"Trash Anthem" was so confusing for me at first. I thought I was going to enjoy this play but I feel like I was just able to picture the setting and nothing more. One thing that I understood was that there was some type of love affair going on and all through out the piece I kept questioning myself if the person she was talking to was a male or if she was just a weird lady and talking to a pair of boots.. I don't know. So because of my weird accusations of reading this piece for the first time I had to re-read it again.
ReplyDeleteI came to the conclusion that the protagonist was dwelling on something she was not able to let go, it reads on page 309 that she had been used and that demonstrated to me some type of hurt she had within her and her relationship. She was trying to hold on to something that was already gone.
I was able to picture the setting very clearly. My favorite part was the way Dietz used a lot of imagery and diction to illustrate the feelings the "woman" had for 'boots'.
I feel like this woman did something that was out of her nature, she kept going at it to get some type of answers. One thing that I did not like was how the character BOOTS bluntly told her that she was used and how Dietz was so vulgar with the words in the play I feel like he was making it seem like women were just some type of sex toys. I continued to read that BOOTS demonstrated the way men are "known to be". Another thing i disliked was the way Dietz showed this love situation, he portrayed a woman and the actions she took because of the fact that she could not get over the past and men were easily able to. One thing I was curious about and I didn't quite catch was how that I read a few times in the piece of it repeatedly revealed that BOOTS was dead, he wasn't a live person. After reading it a few times I can honestly say I did not like this play not because of the way it was written, I liked the way he used the characters and wasn't to absolute to easily show the meaning of the play with them, but I just didnt like it because of the stereotype it had on women.
"Trash Anthem" was so confusing for me at first. I thought I was going to enjoy this play but I feel like I was just able to picture the setting and nothing more. One thing that I understood was that there was some type of love affair going on and all through out the piece I kept questioning myself if the person she was talking to was a male or if she was just a weird lady and talking to a pair of boots.. I don't know. So because of my weird accusations of reading this piece for the first time I had to re-read it again.
ReplyDeleteI came to the conclusion that the protagonist was dwelling on something she was not able to let go, it reads on page 309 that she had been used and that demonstrated to me some type of hurt she had within her and her relationship. She was trying to hold on to something that was already gone.
I was able to picture the setting very clearly. My favorite part was the way Dietz used a lot of imagery and diction to illustrate the feelings the "woman" had for 'boots'.
I feel like this woman did something that was out of her nature, she kept going at it. One thing that I did not like was how BOOTS bluntly told her that she was used and how Dietz was so vulgar with the words in the play I feel like he was making it seem like women were just some type of sex toys and I continued to read that BOOTS some what demonstrated the way men are "known to be". Another thing i disliked was the way Dietz showed this love situation, he portrayed a woman and the actions she took because of the fact that she could not get over the past and men were easily able to. One thing I was curious about and I didn't quite catch was how that I read a few times in the piece of it repeatedly revealed that BOOTS was dead, he wasn't a live person. After reading it a few times I can honestly say I did not like this play not because of the way it was written but because of the stereotype it had on women.
-Aliza Longoria
This play was interesting to me in a few different ways. The way that Dietz used inanimate objects to represent a person was so creative and I think worked well throughout this play. Usually inanimate object can play a very symbolic role in plays and the boots did in this play as well. However, the genius behind this is the fact that Dietz made them literally come to life. It wasn’t even something that vaguely was a symbol in the play. The boots were something that the woman could talk to and argue with. We see her struggle with guilt and grief in a very real way because she is able to communicate with essentially someone who is dead through this object. It serves the purpose of both letting the audience see her internal struggle and question her sanity. Even though there were some serious themes addressed throughout the play, he was able to keep some humor throughout it as well. There were points where the characters even broke the fourth wall and interacted with the audience. If I am being completely honest, this is usually something that I don’t like in plays. I find that it takes away from the story most of the time, but for some reason I didn’t mind it in this play because I think the things that were happening throughout with the singing and the woman talking to boots and the humor that was thrown in, interacting with the audience is something that really didn’t seem all that out of place. Dietz shows incredible skill in the writing of this play. I think if someone else tried to do this it would come off as all over the place and weird but there is a certain lining of composure that keeps the story going and kept me invested while reading it. It took me a few times reading through it to really get a grasp on what was going on but I think seeing the play performed would really enhance the humor and also underlying grief of this play. Dietz did a great job taking something that must have been incredibly difficult to write and make it seem effortless.
ReplyDelete- Erin Valdez
When reading the title, the first thought that came to mind was a trash novel. Trash novels are either rauchy story that has features of sex or does not have so much of a storyline. Reading the play, it contains some dirty language and sexual references; this could be a way that it can be seen as trashy.
ReplyDeleteTrashy Anthem is a play, many can agree on, is not like most. The play also dealt with the senses, but does a sort or synesthesia like, “My man ain’t a cowboy. ’Cept at his feet. My man ain’t a talker. ’Cept with his hands.” (pg,306). At one point the woman says she wants for him to communicate with his hands, and he says that he communicates with peanuts (pg. 306).
Readers are also aware that the woman’s name is Genevieve, because the boots mention it, but the woman is known as “Woman”. This could be a way that the play can be compared to a trashy novel, like how novels that do not have much of a storyline can be seen as trashy, this play can be seen that way, because the characters have no names. As if even the characters do not have a lot to them. Which is what it seems, because the owner of the boots seems to only be distinguished by the cowboy boots (the woman even says she could not stop staring and fell in love with the boots), and the woman is known for her love for the cheating boots.
Whereas the usual anthem would be to find the man with another woman, the boots says that the twist is that he was with a man. It contradicts the trashy anthem, but it fits along with the story, and how it can be seen as different. The boots and the woman talk to the audience. It is as if since the mind of the woman is already mad, she killed her man and now the boots are talking, this makes her able break the fourth wall and talk to viewers. The boots is also able to feel physical pain.
Sandra Villarreal
“Trash Anthem” was so weird. I’m only glad that it was entertaining enough to be enjoyed but the ridiculous nature of what is going in in the play would seem be hard to translate in front of an audience. I mean, I don’t even know what to say about it. I was certainly…interesting to say the least. While reading it all I could think about was the set change and how it would translate IRL. I appreciated the author for giving subtle enough bits of information to provide a picture of who the characters are and the actual conflict they faced. A problem for me was deciphering if the women was actually mad or if the play is a take on modern magical realism. Towards the end when she gets on her hands and knees and starts dancing with the boots on her hands was probably the best and most strange thing I have ever read. I’m actually really excited to see this play out. Maybe the way I envision it is totally different than what the author had in mind. I was deeply fascinated by both characters since the way the author wrote them, I came to care for them and didn’t feel animosity or blame towards either one of them. Yes, Boots did cheat on her but through his dialogue I didn’t think he resented her for what she did. Maybe that’s proof that it is going on through her head, she’s trying to rationalize her actions, excusing the crime she committed, and make herself feel better by having Boots tell her what she wants to hear? I enjoyed this play far more than what I can express in words. The whole situation is ridiculous and extravagant.
ReplyDeleteMaria Fajardo
"Trash Anthem" was a fun read. I thought that maybe the title could have been better as it does not give the story justice. I greatly enjoyed the dialogue between the woman and the boots. That is totally not what I would expect a serious writer to do. But it really goes to show how a good writer can capture the nuances of everyday language and use it well within the context of a piece of work. It was effective in communicating a good story. I especially enjoyed the prose. I really got the sense that a real southerner was being portrayed. The personification of the boots was entertaining and funny but the dynamic between the woman and the boots was a little too silly for my taste. I figured the woman killed her husband (pretty dark) and the boots almost had a mind of their own just because they did not want to suffer the same fate as the late husband. The pair represented who he was and what he was like. I thought it was kind of weird that she did not just destroy the boots first rather than her husband. What would be cool would be if there was a rewrite where the husband and the boots are trying to convince an enraged wife from not hurting both of them. Maybe the husband could blame his faults on the boots and vice versa. That would be fun to read.
ReplyDelete-Abran Garcia