A Woman's Work Is Never Done
(Revised version)
ONE OF THE earliest classic American TV sitcoms was The Honeymooners (1955), a weekly half-hour series that featured Jackie Gleason as a bus driver, Ralph Kramden, with Audrey Meadows as his patient wife, Alice. The show co-starred Art Carney as Ralph's simple-minded neighbor, Ed Norton, with Joyce Randolph as Ed's wife, Trixie. (Revised version)
I brainstormed for ideas. I selected ideas I could use coherently, dropping them if they didn't fit in my draft, or else changing my draft (rough organization) if I thought the ideas were important enough to keep in. I found an introductory point of view in which to situate my discussion of a single episode in the series, then I found a concluding paragraph based on higher levels of generality.
In the main body of my brief review, I had to get to lower levels of generality, referring to dialogue and specific incidents of the show, "A Woman's Work Is Never Done." Note how I refer to the show on subsequent occasions in shortened form as "A Woman's Work."
My second paragraph summarized the salient (main, important) parts of the story. But notice that I left out other parts for the sake of coherence, so I could refer to them later in the review (Ralph's apology and admission that housework is hard).
Note too my variety of diction (choice of words). My choice of simple strong words like "hard" was deliberate, so I could mix up simple and more complex words (that is, words derived from Anglo-Saxon sources like "hard" and words derived from Latin roots, such as "riposte"). One always has to consider one's readers. Too many Latin-derived words clutter one's diction; too many Anglo-Saxon derived words limits one's expressive ability.
I started out with higher levels of generality in my first paragraph, used lower levels in my second, then returned to higher levels of generality in my third paragraph, talking about general traits of character. Then in my fourth and fifth paragraphs I became specific again, referring to dialogue and incidents in the single show under discussion.
I used comparison (with classical tragedy) in my sixth paragraph to sum up the effect of the series in the next paragraph, returning to a specific reference to "A Woman's Work" at the end of the paragraph, so the reader doesn't lose focus. Notice that now I can return to the summary of the plot given previously, mentioning Ralph's apology. Otherwise, I would have had to repeat this detail twice in this brief review, which would have seemed awkward. So I removed this reference to Ralph's apology in the earlier paragraph and coherently included it in the later paragraph, precisely when I referred to the general idea of Ralph's weekly apologies.
In my final paragraph I went to higher levels of generality again, and summed up the entire series with a general evalution. This is called "contextualization," or putting a smaller matter into the context of a larger scheme (in this case, a single show in the context of the annual series of shows). This neatly rounds off my review.
Notice that I dropped reference to the incident about the bureau and replaced it with the incident of Ed ringing for the maid after she quits. That's because, first, I felt it was too difficult to rehearse (retell) the story in just a few words; I would need too many words and so telling it would be disproportionate to the size of the review, losing the focus of the whole just to tell one incident. So I replaced it with the incident of Ed ringing for the maid, which I could tell in one sentence and link it coherently in my review. In fact, as often happens in writing, once I chose to include that reference to Ed ringing for the maid, I needed a transition to it, which forced me to change my draft in a new direction. That's how genuine revision works, which is not the same as merely "doing it again." Real revision, as the word implies, means to be in a continuous dialogue with what one has already written and "seeing it again," more clearly, thus able to make the best changes in it.
In the main body of my brief review, I had to get to lower levels of generality, referring to dialogue and specific incidents of the show, "A Woman's Work Is Never Done." Note how I refer to the show on subsequent occasions in shortened form as "A Woman's Work."
My second paragraph summarized the salient (main, important) parts of the story. But notice that I left out other parts for the sake of coherence, so I could refer to them later in the review (Ralph's apology and admission that housework is hard).
Note too my variety of diction (choice of words). My choice of simple strong words like "hard" was deliberate, so I could mix up simple and more complex words (that is, words derived from Anglo-Saxon sources like "hard" and words derived from Latin roots, such as "riposte"). One always has to consider one's readers. Too many Latin-derived words clutter one's diction; too many Anglo-Saxon derived words limits one's expressive ability.
I started out with higher levels of generality in my first paragraph, used lower levels in my second, then returned to higher levels of generality in my third paragraph, talking about general traits of character. Then in my fourth and fifth paragraphs I became specific again, referring to dialogue and incidents in the single show under discussion.
I used comparison (with classical tragedy) in my sixth paragraph to sum up the effect of the series in the next paragraph, returning to a specific reference to "A Woman's Work" at the end of the paragraph, so the reader doesn't lose focus. Notice that now I can return to the summary of the plot given previously, mentioning Ralph's apology. Otherwise, I would have had to repeat this detail twice in this brief review, which would have seemed awkward. So I removed this reference to Ralph's apology in the earlier paragraph and coherently included it in the later paragraph, precisely when I referred to the general idea of Ralph's weekly apologies.
In my final paragraph I went to higher levels of generality again, and summed up the entire series with a general evalution. This is called "contextualization," or putting a smaller matter into the context of a larger scheme (in this case, a single show in the context of the annual series of shows). This neatly rounds off my review.
Notice that I dropped reference to the incident about the bureau and replaced it with the incident of Ed ringing for the maid after she quits. That's because, first, I felt it was too difficult to rehearse (retell) the story in just a few words; I would need too many words and so telling it would be disproportionate to the size of the review, losing the focus of the whole just to tell one incident. So I replaced it with the incident of Ed ringing for the maid, which I could tell in one sentence and link it coherently in my review. In fact, as often happens in writing, once I chose to include that reference to Ed ringing for the maid, I needed a transition to it, which forced me to change my draft in a new direction. That's how genuine revision works, which is not the same as merely "doing it again." Real revision, as the word implies, means to be in a continuous dialogue with what one has already written and "seeing it again," more clearly, thus able to make the best changes in it.
<> "A Woman's Work Is Never Done" was a typical episode. Ralph hires a maid when, following an argument, Alice refuses to do the housework. When the maid quits over Ralph's demanding behavior, Ralph has to do the housework himself.
As in the best comedy, the plot was only a peg on which to hang the characters' reactions. In a good series, viewers enjoy rounded characters behaving in expected ways in new situations.
Predictably, Ralph bellowed while Alice responded with sarcastic ripostes. In "A Woman's Work," for example, he asks Alice to get his bowling shirt with his team's name, Hurricanes, on it. "How are they going to know I am a Hurricane?" he bellows. Alice responds, "Just open your mouth."
The relationship between Ralph and Ed was similarly predictable, with Ralph hatching harebrained schemes that Ed went along with. But it was Ed's naive actions that got the bigger laughs, as when, in "A Woman's Work," he jingles a bell to call the maid back after she has already quit and walked out the door.
As in classical tragedy, the plots revolved around the deflation of Ralph's unrealistic schemes, followed by his heartfelt apology to Alice. In "A Woman's Work," for example, he is forced to admit how hard housework is before Alice can forgive him.
Apart from its lower-class characters (a novelty at the time and still rare in sitcoms today), it is this blend of comic and dramatic moments that made The Honeymooners unique and still popular in syndicated reruns across America.
No comments:
Post a Comment