I think the author did not give the jurors names because as a reader, you have to pay more attention and be more in depth with the play if you have to focus on what number juror says what. When reading, it is very easy to skim if there are usual names beind used. But, with numbers, you have to be more thorough on what we read and focus on what the jurors have to say which also helps us distinguish them and their different personalities. Also, I don't think names are important to have in this play, just like the boy who is on trial also doesn't have a name. They seem ike unnecessary information that might make the readers bias.
Reginald Rose did not give the juror names because he probably wanted the book to sound like it was the real thing. According to some sources, the people in the court are not supposed to know your name. Not even the lawyers are supposed to know your name. I also think that Rose did not tell the jurors' names because it would not be important anyway. It would be harder to follow the story if the book had names and you had to keep on flipping it back to the list of characters to remember who was which juror.
Emma- I think that Reginald Rose didn't give names to the jurors because it is a play and the characters never refer to each other in the play as names or by number of juror. This is because they dont know each other and they have just happened to meet because of the case. Remember that this play isn't meant to be read, but acted out on a stage.
I think that the author decided not to give the jurors names is because she felt, that the reader would have an easier time following, the book, also i agree with Emma, the audience does not hear the names of the jurors, so it would not matter, what names the author gives the jurors.
matt- I think that the jurors are not named because there is no need for it in the play. When you read the play there is no point to having them named. If the jurors had names then you could relate more to the jurors. Having the Jurors named would be a distraction to the reader. If people start connecting with the characters, then that would get them distracted and they won't think about the themes or motifs just which characters they liked
I agree with Emma and Normlicious, I think that Reginald Rose did not give the jurors names because it is a play, so the characters technically do not need names- the book is just a script. And this keeps it simple.
I would have to agree with Emma Norm and Sophie a little in that part of the reason is because it is a play. However, I would also have to argue that Reginald Rose chose not to name the jurors because it would require more concentration from the reader. When I read a book, I usually follow it largely based on the fact that different names are an easy way to understand who has what position. When they all have 'Juror #' it requires much more focus on which side a juror is on and how their position changes throughout the play.
Ok, hold on here, when did this get posted and assigned, I don't remember this.
And also, I believe that the author gave the jurors numbers and made them remain anonymous because that allows the reader to become more immersed in the story, because it removes just that one detail you don't have to pay attention to. But we also must remember that this is a play, and their are no lines or references to the other jurors in the play. When talking to each other usually they would refer to each other with "you" or"him". No names ever come up, so the author might have thought that thinking of names would just constrict the play more.
I think the author did not give the jurors names because as a reader, you have to pay more attention and be more in depth with the play if you have to focus on what number juror says what. When reading, it is very easy to skim if there are usual names beind used. But, with numbers, you have to be more thorough on what we read and focus on what the jurors have to say which also helps us distinguish them and their different personalities. Also, I don't think names are important to have in this play, just like the boy who is on trial also doesn't have a name. They seem ike unnecessary information that might make the readers bias.
ReplyDeleteReginald Rose did not give the juror names because he probably wanted the book to sound like it was the real thing. According to some sources, the people in the court are not supposed to know your name. Not even the lawyers are supposed to know your name. I also think that Rose did not tell the jurors' names because it would not be important anyway. It would be harder to follow the story if the book had names and you had to keep on flipping it back to the list of characters to remember who was which juror.
ReplyDeleteEmma- I think that Reginald Rose didn't give names to the jurors because it is a play and the characters never refer to each other in the play as names or by number of juror. This is because they dont know each other and they have just happened to meet because of the case.
ReplyDeleteRemember that this play isn't meant to be read, but acted out on a stage.
I think that the author decided not to give the jurors names is because she felt, that the reader would have an easier time following, the book, also i agree with Emma, the audience does not hear the names of the jurors, so it would not matter, what names the author gives the jurors.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletematt- I think that the jurors are not named because there is no need for it in the play. When you read the play there is no point to having them named. If the jurors had names then you could relate more to the jurors. Having the Jurors named would be a distraction to the reader. If people start connecting with the characters, then that would get them distracted and they won't think about the themes or motifs just which characters they liked
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma and Normlicious, I think that Reginald Rose did not give the jurors names because it is a play, so the characters technically do not need names- the book is just a script. And this keeps it simple.
ReplyDelete-Dan
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Emma Norm and Sophie a little in that part of the reason is because it is a play. However, I would also have to argue that Reginald Rose chose not to name the jurors because it would require more concentration from the reader. When I read a book, I usually follow it largely based on the fact that different names are an easy way to understand who has what position. When they all have 'Juror #' it requires much more focus on which side a juror is on and how their position changes throughout the play.
Ok, hold on here, when did this get posted and assigned, I don't remember this.
ReplyDeleteAnd also, I believe that the author gave the jurors numbers and made them remain anonymous because that allows the reader to become more immersed in the story, because it removes just that one detail you don't have to pay attention to. But we also must remember that this is a play, and their are no lines or references to the other jurors in the play. When talking to each other usually they would refer to each other with "you" or"him". No names ever come up, so the author might have thought that thinking of names would just constrict the play more.