"Literary" people believe in the unaided script; "theatrical" persons believe in performance. Good play leads a duble e"istence# and is a complete "personality" in both its lives. If one can read well to oneself# one will hardly prefer to go and see a mediovre performance.
"Literary" people believe in the unaided script; "theatrical" persons believe in performance. Good play leads a duble e"istence# and is a complete "personality" in both its lives. If one can read well to oneself# one will hardly prefer to go and see a mediovre performance.
"Literary" people believe in the unaided script; "theatrical" persons believe in performance. Good play leads a duble e"istence# and is a complete "personality" in both its lives. If one can read well to oneself# one will hardly prefer to go and see a mediovre performance.
Is a play complete without performance? The question has been answered with equal vehemence in both the affirmative and the negative. The choice goes by temperamental preference: literary persons believe in the unaided script; theatrical persons believe in performance. oth are right. ! good play leads a duble e"istence# and is a complete personality in both its lives. $hen a theatrical person says a play has been misinterpreted in performance# he is certainly implying that a play is there and has its integrity before the interpeters touch it. as for literary persons# their concession that a play does have another life as well as that of the boo% is to be found# if nowhere else# in their dismissal of bits they don&t li%e as merely theatrical. In other words# their position rally is not that the theatrical dimension doesn&t e"ist but that they wish it didn&t. 'ach group is trying to ma%e a virtue of its onw deformation professionelle. Theatrical people have their limitations as interpreters of literature. (iterary people have theirs as interpreters of theater. If we can avoid the blindnesses of both parties# the only real problem lies in understanding the difference between script)alone and script)as)performed# for any given passage may have a different import in the two different conte"ts. *inally# one is not forced into any choice between literature and theater# and to %now Hamlet# or any great play# should be to %now it from stage and study# both. ! fine performance will never fail to throw light on at least an aspect of the play# while even the best reading in the study will fall far short of embracing all its aspects. The question whether one should prefer to read or to see aplay is best answered pragmatically. If one can read well to oneself# one will hardly prefer to go and see a mediovre performance. ut# for anyone capable of relishing theater )and that includes more people than %now it) even though the written script has its own completeness# there is no pleasure to top that of seeing a dramatic masterpiece masterfully performed. $hat is added means so much in such an immediate# sensuous way. If plot# characteri+ation and dialogue give body to the theme# and transform thought into wisdom# and a view into a vision# adequate performance helps them to do so in various ways but above ll by adding that final and conclusive concretion# the living actor. *rom 'nactment in The Life of Drama. In The Bedford Introduction to Literature; pp. ,-.-),--/