I would like to take a moment to reflect upon the stylistic elements that Theresa May incorporates into her play Salmon is Everything. She uses several different methods of interpreting her claims, and I feel that all are useful to convey a well-rounded story.
Personally, I thought the opening scene was well put together and did a fabulous job at conveying the message of the play. May wanted people to be aware of the population changes in Salmon and the importance that they play into Native American tribes, and she did this through poetic discourse. You have all these characters stating who they are and, at times, what tribes they are apart of. The list includes Karuk, Yurok, Nu-Tini-Xwe—Hupa, and many others. Some people chose to identify themselves by their profession such as farmers, basket weavers, dancers, biologists, etc..
This element metaphorically represented the relationship that people have with the salmon. They don’t simply use the fish for economic or fiscal gain, but have adopted the salmon as a part of their culture. It’s phenomenal to me that animals have such an influence on a single culture.
She also does an excellent job at using elements of theater to convey the injustice presented before us. Theater, especially play-writing, allows a person to be creative and create metaphors and representations that are not normally presented before us. Instead of using obscure objects, she decided to use real people, and show us that the people being affected are very similar to you and I. I feel this personifies this relationship and allows readers to easily comprehend the injustice that is occurring.
May also does something that I find extremely interesting because I study media on a daily basis. In scene 5-Media Wars, she shows a reporter standing on location with a cameraman, and allows her to report on the factual information behind the scene. I think this was a great choice stylistically because readers are more likely to believe an argument if there is factual information involved. It’s very rare that people will take one side of the argument without seeing hardcore, factual information to support that claim.
By allowing the reporter the do the “story”, she is providing readers with a more analytical representation of the claims, while still being creative and fictional. As a reader, I thought this really tied the argument of the piece together and added a nice stylistic approach.
Overall, May is trying to convince us that there is social injustice occurring among the salmon of this region, and instead of purely depicting this claim though fantasy, i.e. theater, she adds elements of reality that truly help the reader understand the main purpose of the play.
Great post — I enjoyed reading your analysis of the play and specifically your discussion of the Media Wars scene. You suggest that incorporating more “factual” information into the play is really helpful to get the audience to buy into the argument. One question I have about this play is about how it speaks to the differences and similarities between different forms of representation, and specifically the differences between engaging with an issue through theatre versus engaging with it through something like a traditional news story. Do you think theatre might be able to do things that media coverage or even a stakeholder’s meeting doesn’t do or can’t do?
I absolutely think that theater can do things media coverage cannot. The primary emphasis of media is to provide people with information objectively- or without inserting your own opinion. Theater allows for complete creativity, which gives a whole new perspective. Media cannot present arguments, only factual information. The use of aesthetics though visual representation allows a director, like Dr. May, to convey her message through her own means. She has no “official” agenda in which she must adhere to, but instead has complete freedom over her choices.