The Prompter’s Box: Modern Drama and Literary Criticism Alan Ackerman When Modern Drama was established by A.C. Edwards at the University of Kansas in 1958, the dominant approach to the study of the drama within American universities, and indeed of all literary genres, was New Criticism. Although this term covered a very wide range of critical approaches, all shared an interest in close reading of the literary text and, in the interest of scholarly rigour, insisted on the firm exclusion of all such non-textual material as the cultural, social, and biographical context of the work. The dominance of this critical orientation posed serious problems for the study of drama in general and modern drama in particular. —Marvin Carlson, “A Difficult Birth: Bringing Staging Studies to the Pages of Modern Drama” [P]rior to theorizing about literary language, one has to become aware of the complexities of reading. —Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight I begin this instalment of “The Prompter’s Box” on the journal’s fiftieth anniversary by quoting from the first paragraph of Marvin Carlson’s article, which appears in the following pages, not only to dispute its basic assumptions but also, and more important, to ask why the foremost scholar of theories of the theatre – and one of the first to publish in this journal nearly fifty years ago – should believe that Modern Drama was and remains dominated by the New Criticism, that there are two fundamentally opposed hermeneutic models for studying drama (“literary interpretation” and “stage interpretation”), and that the former “hampers” understandings enabled by the latter. In the late 1950s, far from being in a dominant position, the New Criticism (or the range of critical approaches classed under that rubric) had fallen from favour. Among many others, Murray Krieger’s The New Apologists (1956), Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism (1957), and Frank Kermode’s Romantic Image (1957), each in diverse ways, devastatingly critiqued critical approaches that privileged an autonomous and autotelic poetic text, and this brief list does not include the increasing influence of social scientists such as Lucien Goldman and Claude Lévi-Strauss, the Myth-and-Symbol school in American literary [End Page 475] studies of the 1950s, Marxist Humanism, and so on. Lacking space for a comprehensive history here, I refer the reader, for starters, to Frank Lentricchia’s After the New Criticism, where he describes the “moribund condition of the New Criticism” in 1957 (4). But already in 1954, in an article later included in Blindness and Insight, Paul de Man speaks of the New Criticism as finished: “[E]ven when the influence of the New Criticism reached its height, it remained confined within its original boundaries. . . . Over the last five years, a far-reaching change has taken place here and abroad, putting the entire question of literary studies in a different perspective” (21). For obvious reasons, critics of the Cold War became increasingly interested in sociological, political, and psychological questions. Modern Drama, moreover, gives no sign of a “difficult birth” (Carlson’s ironic reference to Samuel Beckett) with respect to either the dominant critical paradigms of the 1950s or the relationship of page to stage. In addition to including articles on productions in Rome, London, Stockholm, and Paris, the first issues present articles that can hardly be characterized as firmly excluding “all such non-textual material as the cultural, social, and biographical context of the work.” The very first article makes liberal reference to Eugene O’Neill’s intentions in writing The Iceman Cometh: “[W]e would do well, if we want to come to terms with the ‘deeper’ meaning of The Iceman Cometh, to assume that he had something specific and important in mind, and to try to discover what it was” (Day 3). Without endorsing this critical approach, we would have to agree that it seems untroubled by the New Criticism. Other articles in the first issue deal with the subjects of adaptation and translation (Hellman of Anouilh, Lerner of Shaw); the pertinence of national, historical contexts; the importance of specific actors; and the shaping influence of audiences on the stage and in the box office. In the second issue of the journal, A...