FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205  
206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   >>   >|  
emember) guessed right, mainly because the name Giselle seemed to me more suggestive of flightiness than the staid and sober Leonore, wherefore I suspected that M. Hervieu, in order to throw dust in our eyes, had given it to the virtuous lady. But whether we guess right or wrong, this clue-hunting is an intellectual sport, not an artistic enjoyment. If there is any aesthetic quality in the play, it can only come home to us when we know the secret. And the same dilemma will present itself to any playwright who seeks to imitate M. Hervieu. The actual keeping of a secret, then--the appeal to the primary curiosity of actual ignorance--may be ruled out as practically impossible, and, when possible, unworthy of serious art. But there is also, as we have seen, the secondary curiosity of the audience which, though more or less cognizant of the essential facts, instinctively assumes ignorance, and judges the development of a play from that point of view. We all realize that a dramatist has no right to trust to our previous knowledge, acquired from outside sources. We know that a play, like every other work of art, ought to be self-sufficient, and even if, at any given moment, we have, as a matter of fact, knowledge which supplements what the playwright has told us, we feel that he ought not to have taken for granted our possession of any such external and fortuitous information. To put it briefly, the dramatist must formally _assume_ ignorance in his audience, though he must not practically _rely upon_ it. Therefore it becomes a point of real importance to determine how long a secret may be kept from an audience, assumed to have no outside knowledge, and at what point it ought to be revealed. When _Lady Windermere's Fan_ was first produced, no hint was given in the first act of the fact that Mrs. Erlynne was Lady Windermere's mother; so that Lord Windermere's insistence on inviting her to his wife's birthday reception remained wholly unexplained. But after a few nights the author made Lord Windermere exclaim, just as the curtain fell, "My God! What shall I do? I dare not tell her who this woman really is. The shame would kill her." It was, of course, said that this change had been made in deference to newspaper criticism; and Oscar Wilde, in a characteristic letter to the _St. James's Gazette_, promptly repelled this calumny. At a first-night supper-party, he said-- "All of my friends without exception were of the opinion
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205  
206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Windermere
 

audience

 

secret

 

knowledge

 

ignorance

 

curiosity

 

actual

 

playwright

 

dramatist

 
practically

Hervieu

 

assumed

 

revealed

 

supper

 

repelled

 

produced

 

calumny

 
promptly
 
Gazette
 
exception

assume

 

formally

 

briefly

 

opinion

 

Therefore

 

determine

 

importance

 

friends

 
exclaim
 

information


author
 
nights
 

curtain

 
inviting
 
characteristic
 
insistence
 

mother

 

letter

 
criticism
 
newspaper

wholly
 

unexplained

 

change

 
deference
 
remained
 

birthday

 

reception

 

Erlynne

 

previous

 

enjoyment