Drawing It Together: The Continuing Problem

The vocal practitioners David Carey and Rebecca Clark Carey (2008) have included two exercises in their vocal arts manual which, when working on Shakespeare’s text, might vigorously activate both the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.

The Puck exercise (ibid. 153) focuses on a monologue by the named character in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and the Henry V exercise (ibid. 178) is based around the Chorus in the introduction to Act IV of the play Henry V. Both monologues are rich in language device, conjuring up powerful images which capture and verbally ‘paint’ the content. At the beginning of the exercise, the participants concentrate on voicing only the vowel or consonant sounds in the words, building a soundscape inspired by the images depicted in the monologue (aural, visual and physical ) rather than expressing the actual word meaning. They then move from individual phonemes to using the full words of the text, but in an exaggerated expression, still attempting to create the images and action through the sounds, rather than communicate the semantic information. Finally, they remove the ‘painting of the sounds’ and speak only the words of the text for meaning.

Carey’s rationale for these methods is that they are not only technical exercises for articulation, expanding the vocal colours of expression, breaking habitual expectations of speech, but that they work as decoys away from an emphasis of the reading of the words on the page. Carey explains that his teaching experience has revealed that: ‘...dyslexic students are often more able to engage with this imaginative approach to sound and expressivity than the more language-confident students who can be less connected to their physical, emotional and sensual impulses’ (personal communication 2009).

In consideration of this exercise and dyslexia, in my experience, there will be some individuals for whom this exercise might be complicated. As the physicians Brock and Fernette Eide emphasise ‘most individuals with dyslexia struggle with sound segmentation, (splitting words up into their sounds), and sound discrimination, (distinguishing sounds from one another) (Eide & Eide 2011: 23). However, they later describe that, although all of those with dyslexia are individual, most will remember things they have experienced, or imagined as mental scene-based, big pictures (ibid.174). Herein is a paradox of dyslexia and facilitation; the work might be enormously freeing for some, but especially difficult for others.

Carey’s point of taking the focus off the reading of the words is relevant to the dyslexic problem, but leads me back to the entry point of this study. If those with dyslexia do not read exactly what Shakespeare has written, sometimes skimming or supplanting their own improvised words in their ‘reading’, they not only deny Shakespeare’s voice, but can fail to comprehend the meaning and possible intentions of the text, impacting on themselves, their colleagues, and their audience. The unresolved arguments around the nature of dyslexia, despite years of extensive research in many areas, reveal what a convoluted area it presents in practice. It is significant that the literature about dyslexia contains a frequent re-iteration of the words, ‘difficult’, ‘problem’ and ‘complex’, both in describing the experience of the individual with dyslexia, and that of the researcher attempting to comprehend, or find trust-worthy answers.

Indeed, Nicolson and Fawcett remark that:

If it were not the case that dyslexia is both prevalent and debilitating, a researcher might be excused for choosing a more convenient research area, one not confounded by so many uncontrollable factors.

(2010: 13)

2.9 Conclusion

In this review I have identified that the gap in knowledge regarding the areas of my enquiry is multi-faceted; each of the factors contributing towards the problematic issues. Covering several interdisciplinary subject areas, it is evident that there is:

a) A gap in the use of educational theory to underpin the delivery of actor training and methods.

b) A gap in amassed articulation of experience, explicit theory about teaching approaches, and the dissemination of that knowledge in actor training.

c) A gap in the research about dyslexia within the environment of actor training, with the purpose of understanding some of the possible causes and manifestations of dyslexia.

d) A gap in the informed practice of the teaching of those individuals with dyslexic characteristics and challenges, and the linking of the explanatory theories (underlying the spectrum of dyslexia and co-morbidities) with the practice of acting.

e) A gap in the teaching methods regarding Shakespeare (beyond those of Linklater’s sonnet exercise) that are consciously tailored to enable acting students with dyslexia, in the reading and acting of Shakespeare.

f) A gap in the voiced, recorded experience of acting students with dyslexia, in the literature. Currently (apart from Leveroy’s evolving research) there is a void in this area.

This review has identified the urgent need and opportunity for me to endeavour to address these gaps, through my employment of action research and case study, with my acting students assessed as dyslexic. In my next chapter I explain my methodology, what I did and how I did it.

CHAPTER THREE