Q. How far do you think hyperdrama recreates the more traditional dramatic narrative, or is it just an extension of the accepted form of a play?

Hyperdrama is a radical redefinition of many dramaturgical parameters. For example, consider what Chateau de Mort might look like as a traditional play. The Dr-Mrs Brodey story probably would be central; most of the cast, then, would be "minor characters" involved in "subplots."

But in hyperdrama, this makes no sense! ALL characters are ON stage at ALL times - and what makes Dr Brodey's story more important than a maid's? To say so sounds elitist. Just as "Upstairs/Downstairs" had fun with different "class" stories, hyperdrama is a levelling force - but much more so. Main character and main plot do not make sense in hyperdrama. There are characters and plots, interwoven in a single theatrical fabric, none more important than the other dramaturgically, though particular audience members may have preferences.

Q. While on the surface the reader is being given choice isn't it ultimately an illusion? To maintain a coherent framework doesn't the author have to guide the reader through the play?

Coherence itself may be being redefined in hyperdrama. In this transition period, most audience members make sense out of hyperdrama by following a single character or single storyline thread through the theatrical fabric. That models traditional coherence. But perhaps the form invites redefinition of this as well. The audience does NOT sit in the dark and get spoon fed, as in traditional theatre. At many points, the audience member must decide what to look at (or read), and the author has no control over or interest in these choices.

Q. Do you think hyperdrama will eventually dominate the traditional linear form of drama?

The heyday of hyperdrama was probably centuries ago (!) when "theatre" was a religious spectacle and festival, with many performances happening throughout an environment at once. I don't think hyperdrama will dominate theatre in my lifetime.

Q. Would you add images to your work if you convert it to HTML for the web or do you feel it is more effective to let the readers imagination evoke their own pictures?

The question is the equivalent of asking whether or not photos should be included in a published book of a script. It doesn't particularly matter to me one way or the other. However, what I would like to see on the Web is hyperdrama in video form: story-branching video plays that work the same way hyperdrama works live. I hope to produce some of these in my lifetime.

Q. While hyperdrama will become more popular isn't it impractical for actual performances?

It is very difficult to perform because so much depends on the environmental space. On the one hand, it is much cheaper to produce: in contemporary stories, the need for costumes, lights, sets is gone because you perform in a real environment. But spaces are still hard to find.

I hope to solve this problem to make hyperdrama more accessible.

Charles Deemer cdeemer@teleport.com
Home Page: http://www.teleport.com/~cdeemer/index.html
Screenwriters: http://www.teleport.com/~cdeemer/scrwriter.html

If that has wetted your appetite why not read Charles Deemer's essay on Hyperdrama which can be found at his home page

If you wish to make any comments why not E-Mail me at leo@innotts.co.uk