FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116  
117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   >>   >|  
those of life; and he must not disrupt his design by an illogical intervention of the long arm of coincidence. Stevenson has stated this point in a letter to Mr. Sidney Colvin: "Make another end to it? Ah, yes, but that's not the way I write; the whole tale is implied; I never use an effect when I can help it, unless it prepares the effects that are to follow; that's what a story consists in. To make another end, that is to make the beginning all wrong." In this passage the whole question is considered _merely_ from the point of view of art. It is the only point of view which is valid for the novelist; for him the question is comparatively simple, and Stevenson's answer, emphatic as it is, may be accepted as final. But the dramatist has yet another factor to consider,--the factor of his audience. The drama is a more popular art than the novel, in the sense that it makes its appeal not to the individual but to the populace. It sets a contest of human wills before a multitude gathered together for the purpose of witnessing the struggle; and it must rely for its interest largely upon the crowd's instinctive sense of partisanship. As Marlowe said, in _Hero and Leander_,-- When two are stripped, long e'er the course begin, We wish that one should lose, the other win. The audience takes sides with certain characters against certain others; and in most cases it is better pleased if the play ends in a victory for the characters it favors. The question therefore arises whether the dramatist is not justified in cogging the dice of chance and intervening arbitrarily to insure a happy outcome to the action, even though that outcome violate the rigid logic of the art of narrative. This is a very important question; and it must not be answered dogmatically. It is safest, without arguing _ex cathedra_, to accept the answer of the very greatest dramatists. Their practice goes to show that such a violation of the strict logic of art is justifiable in comedy, but is not justifiable in what we may broadly call the serious drama. Moliere, for instance, nearly always gave an arbitrary happy ending to his comedies. Frequently, in the last act, he introduced a long lost uncle, who arrived upon the scene just in time to endow the hero and heroine with a fortune and to say "Bless you, my children!" as the curtain fell. Moliere evidently took the attitude that since any ending whatsoever must be in the nature of an artifice, and co
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116  
117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

question

 

ending

 

outcome

 
factor
 

answer

 
audience
 

justifiable

 

Moliere

 

dramatist

 
Stevenson

characters

 

pleased

 

safest

 

accept

 

cathedra

 

arguing

 

dogmatically

 
important
 
action
 
justified

insure

 

chance

 
cogging
 

intervening

 

arbitrarily

 

arises

 

violate

 
victory
 

narrative

 

favors


answered

 

broadly

 

fortune

 

heroine

 

arrived

 

children

 

whatsoever

 
nature
 

artifice

 
attitude

curtain

 

evidently

 

strict

 

violation

 

comedy

 

dramatists

 

practice

 

Frequently

 

introduced

 

comedies