Playwrights on playmaking : $b and other studies of the stageMatthews, Brander
History
Playwrights on playmaking : $b and other studies of the stage
Matthews, Brander
Drama -- History and criticism; Theater
When the ‘Gilded Age’ was brought out in New York in the fall of
1874, Mark climbed the eighty steps which led to the editorial
offices of the New York _World_, then in the control of Manton
Marble. He asked for the city editor and he was shown into the
cubicle occupied by William C. Brownell. He explained that he had
come to ask the editor to puff his play; whereupon Brownell inquired
if it was a good play. “No,” was Mark’s drawling answer, “it isn’t
a good play. It’s a bad play, a damned bad play. I couldn’t write
a good play. But it has a good character. I can write character;
and that character is the best I can do. If it was a good play, I
shouldn’t have had to climb up here to ask you to puff it.”
Here Mark was unconsciously revealing his agreement with Aristotle,
the master of all who know. Aristotle declared that in a tragedy—and
the remark is even more applicable to comedy—plot is more important
than character, since you can have an appealing drama without
character but you cannot have it without plot. Lowell said the same
thing in more detail, in one of his lectures on the ‘Old English
Dramatists.’
In a play we not only expect a succession of scenes, but that
each scene should lead by a logic more or less stringent, if not
to the next, at any rate to something that is to follow and that
all should contribute their fraction of impulse to the inevitable
catastrophe. That is to say, the structure should be organic, with
a necessary and harmonious connection and relation of parts, and
not merely mechanical with an arbitrary or haphazard joining of one
part to another.
It was this constructive skill that Mark lacked. He could create
characters; he could make them reveal themselves in appropriate
situations; he could carry on a story which in the library would
delight all of us, but which was without the compact directness
demanded by us when we are in the theater. He possessed all the
qualifications of the dramatist except the one thing needful, without
which the rest are unavailing; he could not organize a structure
with the necessary and harmonious connection and relation of its
parts. In other words he was devoid of the engineering draftsmanship
which plans the steel-frame, four-square to all the winds that blow.
He may have had—indeed, he did have—dramatic genius; but he never
acquired the theatrical talent which would make his genius available.
He could not cut and polish and set his own diamonds.
(1921)
X
HENRY JAMES AND THE THEATER
X
HENRY JAMES AND THE THEATER
I
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account