Posted by MB on June 03, 1998 at 16:04:42:
In response to Great subject line, Ken, written by Laraine on June 03, 1998 at 14:52:15
] I agree also that "theatre was always low on the literary arts scale"--but isn't that because theater is by nature performed, and performance means pleasing crowds, which means that when serious art comes up against filling the theater, then filling the theater usually wins out. This isn't to say that genius cannot thrive in drama--Shakespeare proved for all time that it can. But the nature of popularity means that drama's in trouble compared to other literature, and it doesn't surprise me that talented people who had something to say were drawn more towards poetry or fiction.
Could it also be that writers could make more money publishing novels (including those that were serialized in newspapers and magazines) and literary criticism than publishing poetry or publishing (and producing their own) plays?
- A Good Thesis Deserves a Good Dissert. Ken 08:27:39 6/04/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.