Why did Reginald Rose decide not to give the jurors names? Another way to ask that question is: How does the fact that we identify each juror only by his juror number help convey the main idea(s) of the play?
Reginald Rose has decided not to give the jurors names because a name creates identity. Reginald wanted to create generalness, and not specificity that identity creates. He wanted to show us that anybody can be in the jury and those men present different kinds of men in the American society. It helps convey the main idea of the play because the main idea to my opinion is to show the American citizens their responsibility and the their impact in the democratic jury system.
I agree with Yaara. A name creates identity and conection to the character. What Rose is trying to show in the play is the difference netween groups of people when every juror represent another group. The jurors in my opinion are just symbolic and they reflect the society.
I agree with Michal, but I think that the point of creating the different jurors was not representing different groups, which some of them did, but representing different types of people. Their ethnicities were only part of their character. Some of the jurors were more about representing a culture, like juror number 7, or an emotion, like juror number 3
i think that the fact that the auther decides not to name the jurars make us see every jurar just as a collection of thoughts, and not as a real character that have a actual personallity. i am not exactly sure what does he try to get by doing this, but for me it seems that i can identify with every character, based only on her attitude and not on her background.
Plays are meant to be performed, not read. Every actor interprets his role and, if he does it well, his character is convincing and "whole": he has a personality and specific characteristics. In this play, we know some of the characters' backgrounds and professions. We get to see how each behaves in this very tense situation. For these reasons, I don't know how the fact that they do not have names makes much of a difference when it comes to our being able to relate to one of the other of them!
I disagree with David. I think that where, on some level, the jurors do represent different groups and types of people, the main reason for their anonymity is to show that the jury is made up of normal everyday people and that it could be anyone. That it could be anyone making these big decisions and not professionals, and to show the good sides of this as well as the bad.
I agree with Shoham. I think that by describing different realistic characters, the author is trying to show how anybody can find himself in a situation like that. By keeping the jurors nameless, he makes it easier for the reader to identify with them.
though I do agree with shoham that the jurors main reson of anonymisty was to make them out to be the normal people of everyday socioty I do have to add that the emotions and leannings in the jury room are based on each jurors uprising and their emotions as well. Davids idea of them represnting different emotions or cultures could very well be part of that as the culture and emotion sometimes come with the roots; like in the case of the 10th juror.
So, is that the main idea of the play, that we could all be a juror? That a jury is made up of regular people? Hmmmm. Again, I ask: How does the absence of names help Rose convey his main idea?? (By the way, did anyone notice how this was not kept in the movie?)
I think I agree with most of the comments here. Regan probably decided not to name the jurors in order to deny a possible specific identity. Whether the book is about criticizing the American legal system or the opposite, i think Regan tried to apply the play's conclusion to all of America, to make it as general as possible, or at least somewhat more relatable (and he did it by not naming any juror).
Plays are (usually) experienced by being performed. Actors necessarily take on specific characteristics as they interpret their roles. How would having names make any difference?
Name is nor a characteristic nor a personality, but rather an identity aspect. The actors that are hired for this play, are judged by their ability to portray the character. When you think of the character as a concept, or merely a stereotype, names usually aren't included. It basically comes down to how important you think names are for identifying each respective person.
I agree with Tom and the others. I think that Rose has decided not to give the jurors names because it does not matter. The author chooses to focus on what the jurors represent (opinions, population groups and so on), and not on who they are specifically. The important thing about them is their way of thinking, and the variety of opinions that they represent together. As Tom said, I think Rose tries to make it as general as possible. The trail in the play indicates more than this specific case or those specific people on the jury. He talks about the entire American legal system (and society, maybe).
In my opinion Reginald Rose decided that all of the characters in the play will be anonymous in order to emphasize one of the main ideas in the play. The act of removing the names out is making each and every character much more familiar and identified. I think that the main idea that Rose convey by that is to people around the USA that read the play back then. The lack of names and location creates a feeling that this jury can be any jury in any place. I agree with Valerie that the movie blurred the identification that Rose created in the play, although I can explain it only by personal feeling. When we've read the play I felt many times like I can identify with a character or compare another character to a person that I know. All of these feelings gone away when I saw the movie, since every movie has such an effect after reading the book before. The problem in this case is that the disruption of the identification conflicts the literary choice Rose made.
What we have read is a script. It is not meant to be "read" by people, but to be performed and seen. The setting of the play, by the way, is specifically New York. (Can you think of how we know that, from the play itself?)
I agree with Ayelet. I think that Rose avoides naming the characters because he wanted to convey us that every juror isn't a person but a collection of ideas and a whole identity that helps us understand the story better. Just like in the American society that Rose is trying to make us see.
I think that Reginald Rose decided not to give the jurors name in order to make all the readers identify with them. The jurors represent the American people. I agree with Yelly. I also think that the fact that the jurors have no names creates the feeling that they can be anywhere or be anyone- they can even be the reader himself.
I agree with Rotem, when a character has a name, it would be harder to the reader to isentify with it. Rose used different types of people and perspectives to make many characters so every reader can find at least one that represents his ideas and prespectives, so the characters can't be specific. Names can make the character very specific. Other than that, if the character has a name, the reader can think about things from his personal life and past, and that can make it harder for him to identity with the characters.
Noga, You (and others) forget that this is a play. It is not meant to be read but to be seen. That means that we experience the play by having actors perform it. It seems to me that the idea that names would limit our ability to identify with a character (when the character is being played by an actor with specific characteristics) isn't very persuasive.
First, I think that Rose didn't give the jurors names because this might can confuse the readers (many names are hard to remember),or distract their minds from the main idea and it's not the point of the play. Also, I agree with Yelly about the identify with the characters.
Plays are performed, not read (though we, as a class, have read it). And I will add— having only numbers did make it difficult for me to remember who is who! And what exactly do you agree with Yelly about? You need to explain yourself.
I agree with Yarra and the others. In my opinion, Reginald Rose chose to write the jury members in a stereotypical way, in order to reflect the variety in the American society, and in consequence, every American citizen who reads the play can imagine themselves in the juror's place. This quality conveys the idea of the play, which is letting ordinary people, like "you and me", make important descisions, such as sending a person to their deaths (Reginald chose this specific case of murder in purpose, which is with an extremely high risk).-noakopel
I agree with Noa and others that Reginald Rose chose not to name the jury because he wanted that everyone in the American society to identify with them. Everyone who sees the play can see only the personality of each juror, that tries to represent in a stigmatic way many types of Americans. If they have a name, they will become a full character and we could not identify with them anymore. Gal
Reginald Rose has decided not to give the jurors names because a name creates identity.
ReplyDeleteReginald wanted to create generalness, and not specificity that identity creates.
He wanted to show us that anybody can be in the jury and those men present different kinds of men in the American society.
It helps convey the main idea of the play because the main idea to my opinion is to show the American citizens their responsibility and the their impact in the democratic jury system.
I agree with Yaara.
ReplyDeleteA name creates identity and conection to the character. What Rose is trying to show in the play is the difference netween groups of people when every juror represent another group.
The jurors in my opinion are just symbolic and they reflect the society.
I agree with Michal, but I think that the point of creating the different jurors was not representing different groups, which some of them did, but representing different types of people. Their ethnicities were only part of their character. Some of the jurors were more about representing a culture, like juror number 7, or an emotion, like juror number 3
ReplyDeleteInteresting ideas David.
Deletei think that the fact that the auther decides not to name the jurars make us see every jurar just as a collection of thoughts, and not as a real character that have a actual personallity. i am not exactly sure what does he try to get by doing this, but for me it seems that i can identify with every character, based only on her attitude and not on her background.
ReplyDeletePlays are meant to be performed, not read. Every actor interprets his role and, if he does it well, his character is convincing and "whole": he has a personality and specific characteristics. In this play, we know some of the characters' backgrounds and professions. We get to see how each behaves in this very tense situation. For these reasons, I don't know how the fact that they do not have names makes much of a difference when it comes to our being able to relate to one of the other of them!
DeleteI disagree with David. I think that where, on some level, the jurors do represent different groups and types of people, the main reason for their anonymity is to show that the jury is made up of normal everyday people and that it could be anyone. That it could be anyone making these big decisions and not professionals, and to show the good sides of this as well as the bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shoham. I think that by describing different realistic characters, the author is trying to show how anybody can find himself in a situation like that. By keeping the jurors nameless, he makes it easier for the reader to identify with them.
Deletethough I do agree with shoham that the jurors main reson of anonymisty was to make them out to be the normal people of everyday socioty I do have to add that the emotions and leannings in the jury room are based on each jurors uprising and their emotions as well. Davids idea of them represnting different emotions or cultures could very well be part of that as the culture and emotion sometimes come with the roots; like in the case of the 10th juror.
DeleteShai: You mean UPBRINGING (not "uprising", which refers to a rebellion).
DeleteSo, is that the main idea of the play, that we could all be a juror? That a jury is made up of regular people? Hmmmm. Again, I ask: How does the absence of names help Rose convey his main idea??
ReplyDelete(By the way, did anyone notice how this was not kept in the movie?)
I think I agree with most of the comments here. Regan probably decided not to name the jurors in order to deny a possible specific identity.
ReplyDeleteWhether the book is about criticizing the American legal system or the opposite, i think Regan tried to apply the play's conclusion to all of America, to make it as general as possible, or at least somewhat more relatable (and he did it by not naming any juror).
Plays are (usually) experienced by being performed. Actors necessarily take on specific characteristics as they interpret their roles. How would having names make any difference?
DeleteName is nor a characteristic nor a personality, but rather an identity aspect. The actors that are hired for this play, are judged by their ability to portray the character. When you think of the character as a concept, or merely a stereotype, names usually aren't included.
DeleteIt basically comes down to how important you think names are for identifying each respective person.
I agree with Tom and the others. I think that Rose has decided not to give the jurors names because it does not matter. The author chooses to focus on what the jurors represent (opinions, population groups and so on), and not on who they are specifically. The important thing about them is their way of thinking, and the variety of opinions that they represent together. As Tom said, I think Rose tries to make it as general as possible. The trail in the play indicates more than this specific case or those specific people on the jury. He talks about the entire American legal system (and society, maybe).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Reginald Rose decided that all of the characters in the play will be anonymous in order to emphasize one of the main ideas in the play. The act of removing the names out is making each and every character much more familiar and identified. I think that the main idea that Rose convey by that is to people around the USA that read the play back then. The lack of names and location creates a feeling that this jury can be any jury in any place. I agree with Valerie that the movie blurred the identification that Rose created in the play, although I can explain it only by personal feeling. When we've read the play I felt many times like I can identify with a character or compare another character to a person that I know. All of these feelings gone away when I saw the movie, since every movie has such an effect after reading the book before. The problem in this case is that the disruption of the identification conflicts the literary choice Rose made.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have read is a script. It is not meant to be "read" by people, but to be performed and seen. The setting of the play, by the way, is specifically New York. (Can you think of how we know that, from the play itself?)
DeleteI agree with Ayelet. I think that Rose avoides naming the characters because he wanted to convey us that every juror isn't a person but a collection of ideas and a whole identity that helps us understand the story better. Just like in the American society that Rose is trying to make us see.
ReplyDeleteI think that Reginald Rose decided not to give the jurors name in order to make all the readers identify with them. The jurors represent the American people. I agree with Yelly. I also think that the fact that the jurors have no names creates the feeling that they can be anywhere or be anyone- they can even be the reader himself.
ReplyDeleteA play is not meant to be read. It is meant to be seen.
DeleteI agree with Rotem, when a character has a name, it would be harder to the reader to isentify with it. Rose used different types of people and perspectives to make many characters so every reader can find at least one that represents his ideas and prespectives, so the characters can't be specific. Names can make the character very specific. Other than that, if the character has a name, the reader can think about things from his personal life and past, and that can make it harder for him to identity with the characters.
ReplyDeleteNoga, You (and others) forget that this is a play. It is not meant to be read but to be seen. That means that we experience the play by having actors perform it. It seems to me that the idea that names would limit our ability to identify with a character (when the character is being played by an actor with specific characteristics) isn't very persuasive.
DeleteFirst, I think that Rose didn't give the jurors names because this might can confuse the readers (many names are hard to remember),or distract their minds from the main idea and it's not the point of the play. Also, I agree with Yelly about the identify with the characters.
ReplyDeletePlays are performed, not read (though we, as a class, have read it). And I will add— having only numbers did make it difficult for me to remember who is who! And what exactly do you agree with Yelly about? You need to explain yourself.
DeleteI agree with Yarra and the others. In my opinion, Reginald Rose chose to write the jury members in a stereotypical way, in order to reflect the variety in the American society, and in consequence, every American citizen who reads the play can imagine themselves in the juror's place. This quality conveys the idea of the play, which is letting ordinary people, like "you and me", make important descisions, such as sending a person to their deaths (Reginald chose this specific case of murder in purpose, which is with an extremely high risk).-noakopel
ReplyDeleteI agree with Noa and others that Reginald Rose chose not to name the jury because he wanted that everyone in the American society to identify with them. Everyone who sees the play can see only the personality of each juror, that tries to represent in a stigmatic way many types of Americans. If they have a name, they will become a full character and we could not identify with them anymore.
ReplyDeleteGal