The Conduct of Life

Maria Irene Fornes makes the dramaturgical choice to not complete give an end to a scene that would show where the conversations led. Fornes would stage a dialogue between characters, and leave the audience wanting to know where that conversation or those actions went. It, kind of, leaves the audience to guess, and possibly be wrong, or just be confused. I attempted to connect the dots at where the scenes ended, but I feel I came up short, and, just ended up confused. One example of Fornes not giving an exact end to a scene was when Leticia decided to go see what was in the cellar. Later on, one realizes that she had to have seen the little girl, but Fornes chooses to start a completely new scene between only Orlando and Nena. I was literally waiting at the edge of my seat to see Leticia’s reaction of seeing the Nena, but Fornes chose to leave me hanging. I think this choice allows the audience to know less of the characters. By the audience only seeing Orlando rape a girl constantly, we just believe he’s a horrible person and deserves to die. I, personally, believe there’s no excuse for that, and he got what he deserved. However, if Fornes had extended the scene to him possibly crying and revealing his true motive and reasoning, the audience may have tried to possibly understand Orlando, and may have generated a form of sympathy. The play may be titled The Conduct of Life it shows how individual actions influence how others behave in life. For instance, Orlando being so aggressive and unfaithful caused Leticia to shoot him. She had had enough and snapped.