Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:
> > As you say, Shakespeare's plots are rarely original. Therefore his
> > originality, and his greatness, lie in the way he told those stories.
> > And the form he chose to tell them in was drama. That is the essence,
> > or at least part of the essence, of Shakespeare.
> Fair enough. I was thinking earlier, if the play on paper is not The
> Thing, then the playwright needs the actors. But the actors need the
> playwright too. Does that make drama a living thing?
When it's being performed, absolutely it is. It's also a
collaboration, every single time; the actors' and director's and
set designer's and costume designer's and whoever else's creative
vision and energy working with (one hopes it's "with"!) the
playwright's to communicate the work to the audience. Who bring
whatever they bring to the performance as well, to add to the
From what we know of his history, Shakespeare knew that. For at
least part of his career he was a "working" playwright, part of a
company and probably involved in the production of his own
plays. I remember a Shakespeare prof of mine pointing out that
there must have been a period where they had two young "female"
leads (actually young men or boys): the tall blond one and the
short dark one. It's right there in the lines...