the muse of literature's approach to drama

The Muse Of Literature has chosen to follow the high road, to treat the topic of drama from the point of view of literature and not to emphasize it as performance art. Except for occasional and tangential inroads to the theatrical, The Muse leaves to others the world of the stage—the Broadway or London stage, the American musical, performances of the Japanese Noh play and puppeteer epics like the Ramayana and its ilk; and, except insofar as stage performers are musicians, as in musical comedy or movies, The Muse leaves actors and acting to people like Joseph Papp and Konstantin Stanislavsky.

A little reflection reveals why this approach can be productive and why it will produce deeply satisfying results, despite the many significant and revelatory connections between playwrights, actors, acting, and the stage. From one perspective, it does not fundamentally matter if a work called a drama is written with performance in mind, or not. Experience has amply shown that plays can nourish the heart and soul (as well as the brain) when they are read:

• Witness the plays of Shakespeare, which are read by almost anyone with a grade school education in the U.S., Britain, and other English-speaking countries.
• Witness the school children in other nations whose native tongue is not English, yet who have read Shakespeare's works and perhaps the plays of other, not as illustrious but still important, foreign playwrights, and have been moved and have profited therefrom.
• Witness how some of the finest literature and music has been produced by non-English speaking artists inspired only by a reading of Shakespeare's plays.
• Witness how plays are successfully taught in college classrooms without professorial resort to a stage.

When comparing the experience of witnessing a play with reading it, The Muse Of Literature finds that one kind of experience is neither inferior or superior to the other; The Muse finds the two kinds of experience to be different. Depending on the work and the viewer or reader, witnessing a play can complement or supplement reading it. Some plays are meant by their author to be seen; others to be read. This intention also plays a role when comparing the relative advantages of seeing or reading.

Even the theatrical world finds this direction a congenial one. Until comparatively recent times, the institution of the theater, theater critics, and philosophers of aesthetics have characterized drama as a performance medium. But then authors like Samuel Beckett began stretching the point with plays like Waiting For Godot. Although designed to be performed on a stage, Godot, is inherently cerebral; seeing a performance is rewarding, but it triggers reactions of a kind barely akin to those felt when witnessing a play fashioned as a typical reenactment of a real-life situation. Other authors have stretched the point even further by writing plays not meant to be read or performed in any context. But more about that later.

In the world of the theater arts, good things and good people come and go; it always has been so. What comes around goes around. Except when drama becomes literature and vice versa, The Muse leaves these (ephemeral) aspects of drama to others. Exceptions? Yes, when theatrical history steps in to impact the literature of the stage, as in England between the golden era of the 16th through the 18th centuries, or when drama and personality and society intersect. The Muse Of Literature looks the other way if looking away enhances our perception and appreciation of literature. The Muse is sorry if this approach disappoints or offends you, but that's a Muse's prerogative.

—note— What is Dramatic literature? There are many dramatic forms. In this feature, The Muse is only interested in dramas that are literary. What does it take for a drama to qualify as a literary composition? See The Muse's definition of Literature with a capital "L": click here.