Judith

I feel as if Judith's MDQ was the question on whether or not Judith will carry out she and the servants "plan". Some may also argue that the question may be "what now? (After the assassination)". I think the "what now" question offers the reader more of an imaginative mindset. This is true because the question is almost half answered when the play ends. Judith is so key convinced that her murder of the general entitles her tonancertain power. Whether or not this is accepted by the public is open for interpretation. In my opinion, Judith seems to be a mix between mentally unstable and self afflicted which also opens another question on if she is fit to lead an empire (one that she has already entitled her self to due to the demanding dialogue used toward the servant).

Night Mother

Being a particularly morose play, I agree with the playwrights Major Dramatic Question, but would also intend to add something to it.  What seems clear is that the playwright means to generate sympathy for Jessie.Yet her act seems self-indulgent at best. We don't care deeply enough about Jessie to mind that she kills herself. On this point, in an odd way the play is reportorial. We are not inside the character's head and heart, but at a distance from both. At the same time, their roles as well as their language make the Mother the more sympathetic of the two women, to the extent they are comparable. So, summing this up, I think that another MDQ could be formed around the specific relationship between Jessie and Mama and whether or not this relationship couldve affected the outcome of the play.

Trifles

What kept me captivated throughout Trifles was the question we were all asking ourselves: What will they find next?  Murder mysteries have always been of interest to me especially the ones that don't take you down one simple road but rather keep twisting and turning and making you think that EVERYONE can be a suspect.  Although Trifles was a very short play, I feel as if it did a great job in keeping me guessing yet still developing the characters enough to understand where each one was coming from and how their own opinions were formed.  The only thing I would have to object in enjoying was the ending.  The fact that the women hid the bird from the Sherrif, makes me think that they are trying to justify murder as the right thing to do in her situation.  What TRULY happened under the Foster's roof was never clear because we were only hearing it from other people's point of view.  What makes me think Minnie did it out of mental insanity was how she handled herself when their neighbor came to use their phone.

Overtones

This play was mainly driven through exactly what the title of it suggests. Each main character (Margret and Harriet) had their own character in which these "split personalities" said things that the real character would never say in a civil society.  I liked this play for that reason alone.  It showed that society holds us up to be so proper yet inside we all have an instinct to the things we really want to say and the fact that society tries to constantly suppress that almost gives it a 1984 feel to our society.  I enjoyed drawing parallels to the non-tangible characters and comparing them to Smeagle/ Gollum in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies.  The only difference being that Gollum actually says out loud what the other side of him is thinking vs. Margret and Harriet who are civil enough to keep those thoughts inside their head.