Essay, Pages 3 (504 words)
This Paper seeks to discuss some of the literary tools employed in the play “Sure Thing,” together with other matters that the playwright seem to impart with this particular play. One of the more apparent or obvious literary tools employed by the playwright in the case of this play is irony. It is ironic that the play is entitled “Sure Thing” when each and every statement made by the characters result to different outcomes; and ironically, the outcomes are really not sure things.
The whole play provides for a complicated and intricate web of events that depend on each and every response of Betty to Bill’s question or of Bill’s response to Betty’s question. Thus, the chain of events of the lack of it largely depends on the response of one character to another. Thus, there really is no sure thing, so to speak in this play. There are a lot of unsure of things as they largely depend on how the characters decide and express this decision.
And ironically, the only sure thing is that the play will come to an end, with whichever and with whatever decision the characters make.
The playwright also uses the literary term “act. ” An act is major division in the action of a play. Normally, this is done through the use of a curtain in order to signal the audience that there is already a change in scene and circumstance. In this particular case, as there is only one setting for the play, no curtain is used.
Instead a bell is used to trigger or indicate that there is a change in the circumstance. The bell also triggers that it is no longer Betty1 and Bill1 talking but Betty2 and Bill2 or Betty3 and Bill3. This particular play is anti-climactic.
This means that it has no climax. The emotion and the tone of the play remain constant all throughout. Normally, the audience is engaged to the play with the fact or through a very complicated and emotional climax and a denouement. In this particular case, the very substance of the play engages the audience. There was no need to place a climax in the discussion as each and every conversation is already engaging as the audience is unsure of what can and will happen next. There is no climax in the sense that there really is no conflict that has to be resolved.
The whole play merely conveys an idea – an idea triggered by the question “What if? ” I think the author wrote this play out of wonder or out of the common question “What if? ” What if in this particular situation or incident in my life, instead of doing A, I did B, would C still have happened? or could this give rise to E? What if in a dilemma that I used to have, I decided in this manner which led to a particular negative consequence, what if I decided in another manner which could have led to a positive outcome?