Nancy Gish wrote:
> If "drama" depends on "structure," a great deal that has been called
> "dramatic"--monologues for example or the definition of the genre as in
> separate voices rather than third or first person--is all dismissed. I don't
> see why you assume any such "structure."
I'm on my way out the door ...
The dramatic structure -- exposition, complication, rising action, climax (there
are other terms used) -- is necessary to differentiate a drama from a skit, or
(in modern fiction) a short story from an anecdote. "Dramatic," like "poetic,"
does not define a form. Don't know about dramatic monologues. Are they plays
(for me equivalent in this discussion to dramas) or something else? (And there
is the dramatic method.)
Are you referring to Eliot's "definition of the genre"? I may have misunderstood
Jennifer, but I didn't think she was. If not, who defines drama the way you do?
Drama, poem, story are, for me, forms. I don't see how Sweeny A has the form of
a drama, nor do I think it suffers from not having it. You are right about its
staging. I saw it done and it was fabulous. Samson A, which, if my long memory
serves, is a drama and would be difficult to stage, J.P., if the temple is truly
to be destroyed. I'd like to see it.
I'll be back later and look forward to your reply,