Identifier: dramatistsoftoda00hal (find matches)
Title: Dramatists of to-day:
Year: 1911 (1910s)
Authors: Hale, Edward Everett, 1863-1932
Subjects: Rostand, Edmond, 1868-1918 Hauptmann, Gerhart, 1862-1946 Sudermann, Hermann, 1857-1928 Pinero, Arthur Wing, Sir, 1855-1934 Shaw, Bernard, 1856-1950 Phillips, Stephen. (from old catalog) Maeterlinck, Maurice, 1862-1949
Publisher: New York, H. Holt and company
Contributing Library: The Library of Congress
Digitizing Sponsor: The Library of Congress

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
Bernard Shaw seriously,for he has such a gift of wit and paradox that heis apt to seem desirous of appearing frivolous. Itis hard also to write about him, for he has writtena good deal about himself much more cleverly thanmost people have written about him. He has amuch better knowledge of the subject and asuperior gift of expression. Yet the attempt mustbe made, for he really is serious in the main. Hewishes to accomplish something worth while andhe will do so, too, or do something in the direction.If one cannot get into touch with him, then somuch the worse for oneself. I was about to begin by saying that Mr. Shawwas not so much a master of stagecraft as someother people. Just then, however, I saw in a paperthat a distinguished actor of his plays affirmed himto be greater in dramatic construction thanShakespeare. That made me pause. It is truethat the remark was made at the University ofChicago, an institution whence newspaper reportis apt to offer us matter much more highly col-112
Text Appearing After Image:
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW BERNARD SHAW 113 oured than the original: still such may have beenthe opinion of the actor in question. I do not,however, believe that it is Mr. Shaws. Mr. Shawhimself says somewhere, with his usual candourand even modesty, that he is not remarkable forstage technique. His plays, he seems to think,are technically like other plays. He says that heis better than Shakespeare in one respect, and herenot a few will probably agree with him, but doesnot claim superiority in the matter of stage con-struction. There is not very much point in thecomparison. Shakespeare made his plays for hisown theatre, which was very different from ours,and much of his absolute stage technique is to-dayimpossible. Take the fifteen scenes (more or less)in the third act of Antony and Cleopatra, andin the fourth; that is something out of the ques-tion now, and so it is with some other matters. Ina large way I suppose Shakespeare had more dra-matic art than Mr. Shaw; certainly he managedto writ

Note About Images