Sic Semper Adverbia
Written by TMS Director of Creative Development & Mentor, Eric Webb
Hello, TheaterMakers!
File this one under “A” for “Another Missive Inspired by the TMS Mentorship Members.”
Pretty nifty filing system I have, huh?
Historians will have a field day going through my records when I pass…
Aaaaanyway.
I’m here to ask you a question. How much do you love adding adverbs to your stage directions? You know, those descriptive little add-ons to the beginning of a line to give the actor the flavor that you’re looking for…
For example:
ERIC
(derisively) Something like that, there… that thing in parentheses that is supposed to help.
I say “supposed to,” however they ARE helpful, aren’t they? That line actually could be read a myriad different ways, all with different inflections and emotional shading that could greatly impact the course of a conversation. An actor sees that and their work is done for them. They now know that, no matter what has happened thus far or what happens next, this particular line is meant to be delivered “derisively.”
Great, super clear, thanks playwright!
Here’s the thing, though. That little parenthetical? That little helpful nugget for the actor? That right there… is a crutch.
It’s an indication that you don’t trust your characterization and language enough for someone to read it and immediately understand the emotional nuance.
Or (slightly better or worse, depending on where you stand) you don’t trust your director or actor to be savvy enough to understand your intention. So now you’re directing from the page, telling them how to do their jobs…
Either way - it’s not a great look.
We lean on these kinds of crutches because we hope they will ensure that what comes out on stage directly mirrors what we see and hear in our heads. And that alone is not a bad thing. We are the generators of these ideas and have every right to want to see them actualized with the intent and impact that we imagined.
The challenge for these moments where one distinct choice is desired, though, is to construct dialogue and circumstances where there is no other possible interpretation. We need to strive to build characters and moments where it’s obvious that someone would discuss adverbial stage directions with derision and let the line speak for itself. Load every line with all the ammunition that is necessary to have the impact that is needed. Don’t rely on addendums that 99% of people will ignore anyway.
And don’t hear what I’m not saying: this is not a call for writing that is so specific and pointed that it removes all ambiguity. In fact, what I’m hoping is that you’ll be moving your writing to a place where intentionality becomes so specific that when you choose to be ambiguous it pricks up the ears of both your audience and your collaborators.
“Wait… they’ve been super clear about their intentions until just this moment where they became rather vague. What’s that about? What’s behind that?”
We’ve now been clued into the fact that something has shifted, something is being hidden, something is amiss. You’ve built tension and suspense simply via word choice.
That’s f*#cking cool.
And if you have lines where there are multiple interpretations and you’re okay with the dealer’s choice? That’s great! Actors and directors LOVE that! However, you obviously just need to then be okay when the occasional choice is made that raises an eyebrow or two…
So this month, I want you to take a piece of yours and scan it for parenthetical adverbs. If you find any, delete them. Then read your script without them. Do those lines feel like they are interpretation-proof? Like they are undeniable in their intentionality? If so, you’re good - trust yourself and everyone else around you. If not, you’ve got some work to do.
