There are four sorts of literature: short fiction, poetry, plays and nonfiction. True literature makes one think and ponder and makes mankind wonder at itself, but also, how many times have people laughed out loud or even wept at mere letters on a page? True literature incites anger, passion, sorrow, joy, etc. in its readers. This is because mankind can see something of itself reflected in even the most lowly and horrible of characters. Literature shows humankind its flaws. It reveals society’s gross injustices, often-overlooked true beauty, and skewed thought processes. It uses feeling as the pathway to thought, and thought as the pathway to action. Literature brings to the forefront all the crumbling foundations, and opens all the locked closets, so to speak.
I believe that plays are the type of writing that, oftentimes, most truly embody the very definition of literature itself. Literature is meant to start a conversation and what can better accomplish this but a play? Of course, a case can indeed be made for each of the other sorts of literature as well, and I am not in any way attempting to idealize playwriting and “put down” any other kind of writing, but plays, in particular, have the added dimension of being performed live. This makes the action of the script present tense and very real for the audience. Moreover, plays become not only a dialogue between the reader(s) and writer(s), but also a discussion between the actors, the dramaturgs, the directors, the costumers, and even the stagehands. Plays are a culminated group effort.
There is a Henry James quote that I find particularly applicable in this case, “’Art lives upon discussion…’” (Schilb and Clifford 13). What do people often do directly following the viewing of a play? People talk about it with their companions. They discuss what they liked or disliked about the costuming, the lighting, the sound effects, the acting, and, most importantly, the point(s) being made in the play itself.
These discussions will often become quite heated (as I, myself, can attest!). There is a more immediate dialogue about plays. People, as I have said, will often have a stronger opinion about a play as a result of having just seen it. This causes even more healthy (or unhealthy) argument among peers. People can’t help but think about the issues that a play might bring up because of its live and visual aspect. As Schilb and Clifford say, “…literary work tends to make its readers analyze it, interpret it” (Schilb and Clifford 7). Plays most definitely appear to do this. Sometimes, when reading a book, I know that I, personally, will simply return it to the library without ever discussing it with anyone (of course, being an English major, this occurs very rarely). What I’m trying to say is that plays have a more instantaneous reaction with audience members.
Citations:
Schilb, John, and John Clifford. "Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers." 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2015. Print.
