Toward a Theory of Dramatic Literature for a Technological Age

Abstract

Teachers and scholars seem always to have experienced some critical discomfiture in dealing critically with that mode of artistic production we call drama or play. It is, of course, literature. But then again, of course, it isn't. The debate which surrounds this paradoxical hybrid is at least as old as Aristotle, and we may derive from fragmentary and often oracular Poetics some notion of how this problem was seen in classical times. Though Aristotle pays extremely careful attention to constituent parts of a play in performance and indeed bases his definition of tragic mode on his perception of a theatre audience's response to play form, he goes on to add, For power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from and actors. The tone of this remark suggests that Aristotle is but carefully noting an to what he understands as norm: play in theatre with representation and actors. Yet, several chapters later, pursuing this exception Aristotle notes that the plot ought to be so constructed that, even without aid of eye, he who hears tale told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes place. This is impression we should receive from hearing story of Oedipus. Here again, however, Aristotle goes on to suggest that it is in playing that tragic piece achieves its full psychological impact. Though one can simply hear or read Oedipus, play, he seems to say, is a gestalt designed to yield its full effect only when all roles are well acted and when all of its constituent scenic parts work in harmony together.