Alright, so I have read the blogs that have actually been posted and there seems to be a little controversy, but I think Erin might have the best idea. The play we are reading is a comedy. It's supposed to envoke laughter from the audience. Taking obvious glances toward the audience to show confusion or even directing a funny comment off to the side from the other characters but to the people watching, make it that much more enjoyable. Comedies live and die by how the audience reacts to them so it's only natural to show how the play depends on them by "adding them into the show." However, I think people in thatr time also wanted to see if it had some relevance to their own lives. Today we thrive on stupid humor and situations that are incredibly unlikely to happen. Back then, I think the upper class folk would have liked to see that seperation from the audience. Erin stated that most of act one was presentational whereas act two ties in the representational, but I would switch those around. The first scene to me seemed more relatable to life in general with a father complaining about his twin sons. The second act with the Dromios is more comical and would invite more audience participation. I think to have a good comedy, it's a good idea to bring the audience into play then take that connection away as to build a need to be included later on in the performance. Or, because Shakespeare was most likely starting to get established in the theater, the audience already knows the comedy will be presentational and is anxiously waiting for their "part." Comedy of Errors supports this idea by starting out representational and quickly changing to presentational.