What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Reckonings in Little Rooms
"...On the Phenomenology of Theatre" ... very thoughtful series of essays on the live performance space and it's relationship to the outside world. Lots of useful insights for actors and directors, and audiences, as well.
213 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1985
5 people are currently reading
158 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 16, 2011
2007: A must read for any theatre nerd.
2011: "Above all, in the theater, as in any art, there is always the need to defamiliarize all of the old familiar defamiliarizations." (p. 43) How do I add this as a BOS quote? I must add this as a quote!
2011: "Above all, in the theater, as in any art, there is always the need to defamiliarize all of the old familiar defamiliarizations." (p. 43) How do I add this as a BOS quote? I must add this as a quote!
September 5, 2023
Honestly, I think we should all be citing this book more.
August 17, 2010
Can't say I loved this, but I sure did read all of it...I think I like semiotics more than phenominology, I have to say. But there were a couple useful things and things worth thinking about.
Why doesn't a working clock work on stage? Or animals?
What does it mean when we speak straight to the audience?
How do scenic elements become dated?
That said, I have 8 pages of notes on this book, so I'm not writing in all in here again.
Why doesn't a working clock work on stage? Or animals?
What does it mean when we speak straight to the audience?
How do scenic elements become dated?
That said, I have 8 pages of notes on this book, so I'm not writing in all in here again.
December 1, 2021
storygraph rating: 3.25
beyond noting that i really liked this book, which was an interesting exploration of theatre on the level of critical theory, i want to provide a little bit in the way of explanation of my rating. though, as is given below, my rubric designates a 3.25 star book as one which has “significant flaws” that i nevertheless “REALLY” liked, i want to say here (before god, man, and the internet) that i do not believe this book was “significantly” flawed. however, my enjoyment was at times significantly impaired during portions discussing theatre with which i have little to no familiarity, despite Bert States’ best attempts to explain (without over-explaining). essentially, this book assumes a baseline knowledge of theatrical history and Literary Theory which i simply do not possess. if anything, it is impressive that i was able to enjoy and understand as much as i did – but, if i were to rate all books which went over my head as being 5 stars while noting that the rating would be accurate for someone in the book’s intended audience, all my best books would be books i didn’t enjoy but simply respected in a hypothetical sense. as such, it gets a 3.25 – though it was not “significantly” flawed, the level of enjoyment i experienced must take precedence in rating.
i would say that this book might be for you if you have a detailed knowledge of theatrical history but only a basic familiarity with critical theory (especially semiotics or phenomenology), or if you have a detailed knowledge of critical theory (especially semiotics or phenomenology) but only a basic familiarity with theatrical history. if you have a detailed knowledge of both, this book is certainly perfect for you. if your familiarity is limited with both, as was mine, then you will struggle.
if you are entirely unfamiliar with either critical theory or theatrical history, this book will be a waste of your time and i would recommend avoiding it altogether.
———————————————————————————
Guide to my Rating Scale, based on the Storygraph Rating:
* 5 Stars: This book was more or less flawless. One of the best things I’ve ever read.
* 4.75 through 4.25 Stars: This book had slight flaws, but I REALLY loved it. Marked as 4 stars on Goodreads.
* 4 Stars: This book had slight flaws, but I loved it.
* 3.75 through 3.25 Stars: This book had significant flaws, but I REALLY liked it. Marked as 3 stars on Goodreads.
* 3 Stars: This book had significant flaws, but I liked it just fine.
* 2.75 through 2.25 Stars: This book was extremely flawed, but I thought it had some merit. Marked as 2 stars on Goodreads.
* 2 Stars: This book was extremely flawed, but I didn’t actively dislike it. It was a waste of my time but not odious.
* 1.75 through 1.25 Stars: This book was irreparably flawed, and I actively disliked it. Marked as 1 star on Goodreads.
* 1 Star: This book was irreparably flawed. I actively hated this book and am worse off for having read it.
————————————————————————-
beyond noting that i really liked this book, which was an interesting exploration of theatre on the level of critical theory, i want to provide a little bit in the way of explanation of my rating. though, as is given below, my rubric designates a 3.25 star book as one which has “significant flaws” that i nevertheless “REALLY” liked, i want to say here (before god, man, and the internet) that i do not believe this book was “significantly” flawed. however, my enjoyment was at times significantly impaired during portions discussing theatre with which i have little to no familiarity, despite Bert States’ best attempts to explain (without over-explaining). essentially, this book assumes a baseline knowledge of theatrical history and Literary Theory which i simply do not possess. if anything, it is impressive that i was able to enjoy and understand as much as i did – but, if i were to rate all books which went over my head as being 5 stars while noting that the rating would be accurate for someone in the book’s intended audience, all my best books would be books i didn’t enjoy but simply respected in a hypothetical sense. as such, it gets a 3.25 – though it was not “significantly” flawed, the level of enjoyment i experienced must take precedence in rating.
i would say that this book might be for you if you have a detailed knowledge of theatrical history but only a basic familiarity with critical theory (especially semiotics or phenomenology), or if you have a detailed knowledge of critical theory (especially semiotics or phenomenology) but only a basic familiarity with theatrical history. if you have a detailed knowledge of both, this book is certainly perfect for you. if your familiarity is limited with both, as was mine, then you will struggle.
if you are entirely unfamiliar with either critical theory or theatrical history, this book will be a waste of your time and i would recommend avoiding it altogether.
———————————————————————————
Guide to my Rating Scale, based on the Storygraph Rating:
* 5 Stars: This book was more or less flawless. One of the best things I’ve ever read.
* 4.75 through 4.25 Stars: This book had slight flaws, but I REALLY loved it. Marked as 4 stars on Goodreads.
* 4 Stars: This book had slight flaws, but I loved it.
* 3.75 through 3.25 Stars: This book had significant flaws, but I REALLY liked it. Marked as 3 stars on Goodreads.
* 3 Stars: This book had significant flaws, but I liked it just fine.
* 2.75 through 2.25 Stars: This book was extremely flawed, but I thought it had some merit. Marked as 2 stars on Goodreads.
* 2 Stars: This book was extremely flawed, but I didn’t actively dislike it. It was a waste of my time but not odious.
* 1.75 through 1.25 Stars: This book was irreparably flawed, and I actively disliked it. Marked as 1 star on Goodreads.
* 1 Star: This book was irreparably flawed. I actively hated this book and am worse off for having read it.
————————————————————————-
April 6, 2021
An incredibly brilliant book about the nature of acting and theatre. So celebratory and mystical yet concrete in all the best ways.
May 27, 2015
It is a very good book that combines philosophy and theatre. It has its strongest points as a general introduction to this particular mix. However, I don't quite agree with some of States' ideas. I still find it somewhat rigid concerning the limits of theatre, specially when it comes to defining some categories of acting. Very interesting though, both for actors and philosophers.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews