There are many different ways for a monologue to be presented; within a larger context, or self-sufficient; thematically related and compiled; interview style; or structurally similar. All of these are presented between the three works The Laramie Project, The Vagina Monologues, and Sonnets for an Old Century. It is The Laramie Project that is most contextual, and, therefore, I think, the most effective. However, there are good and bad elements to all three compositions.
The Laramie Project is useful in that it plays interestingly with both theme and chronology. It takes a series of private interviews from over a year, about a past event, and arranges it so it is as though the present is merging with the past, and all the characters are inter-related, although they may have never really met. In this way, it builds a common identity, and allows a more developed character relationship, and an idea of universal values (or a shared common experience). I also like how the interviewer is present and interacting with the characters, because it gives a good representation of the real conversation, and the process. It adds to the context and makes the realism of their project that much more poignant. However, the purpose of a monologue is that it should be self-sustaining, (or understandable sans background and context), and I think these examples kind of tow the line because they are dependent upon each other to understand not only themes, but chronology, and the importance of multiple viewpoints.
On the other hand, The Vagina Monologues are completely independent from one another, yet linked thematically. It is very good at illuminating the scope of one topic by depicting multiple viewpoints. However, the target audience is difficult to understand, because there are certain times when the character is responding to a direct question, almost as though there is an invisible interviewer the audience cannot see or hear. This, to me, is isolating the audience, and putting them in the role of ignorant outsider, rather than the 3rd person omniscient that allows the audience to feel included. Also, its very disjunctive, and thus breaks up the flow of the piece. I think this way of unseen interviewer is not effective, and detracts from the idea of a personal relationship between the character and the audience. I do, however, think that these monologues are self-sustaining, and thus more effective of being independent viewpoints.
Lastly, Sonnets for and Old Century is yet another experiment with independent viewpoints, where there is no obvious thematic or chronological connection between these monologues, yet their structure and honesty is what makes them relate to one another, and allows the audience to relate to them all as a whole and cohesive entity. Also, the lack of a set identity allows the monologue to be more accessible and universal because of its malleability to different characters. Depending on who is playing each character, it gives the monologue new meaning and context, because each person comes with their own background. Thus, it is a very effective way to get many different viewpoints just from one piece of work. Both other works were confined to the original speaker, which works and was a specific choice. However, this openness allows the monologue to, itself, be void of context, yet as soon as someone begins to recite it, it gains their own context, and is thus grounded in realism more so than either of the previous works.
Because of these useful yet distinct differences between these three works, it shows the versatility of the monologue, and allows playwrites to manipulate and mold to serve one of many different purposes for a story or idea.
