Pierre Corneille and the Goblet of Fire
OK, we’re back. If you haven’t read the last blog, go back and do so now, because this one just takes off from where the last one left off. We were talking about Pierre Corneille’s idea about the “unity of time.”
Here are two interesting examples and just a brief statement about each.
Mason Free (A Drama): All of the action takes place in a single office. For dramas, like I said, this rule makes a lot of sense. Most of the plays that I’ve seen do this, such as Keely and Du, last semester.
Lord of the Rings: I think Corneille would agree that some things, which are this epic, require more time to pass during the action. He even notes that “there are plays in which the crux of plot lies in an obscurity of birth which must be brought to light,” or other cases where it is a needful thing to have time pass. Lord of the Rings, despite what some die-hard fans may say, would not work as a drama, and undertaking to do so would be the most tremendous of follies.
I must restate at this point that while I agree with Corneille that drama should adhere to his rule, I disagree that it is a rule which must always be followed. If nothing else, the history of writing has been a history of innovation. New devices and reworkings of old devices is a prized facility for authors. Especially in short stories and novels, we do not need to be bound by this rule, but the basic premise that work should be tight and free from too many superfluous things is something good to hold on to.
Oh, good heavens. We’re already almost to 300 words. Bah! A pox on average word limits! Mine must be around 400 words per blog by now anyway.
The third “unity” which Corneille details is that of “Unity of Place.” This is not, as he points out, one of Aristotle’s or Horace’s ideas, but I agree that it makes a whole lot of sense (which is easy since I, like many modern folks, don’t always look to the Ancients for all wisdom, glory and power (amen)). Basically, this one boils down to “don’t switch places much or, if you must, keep it simple (stupid).” I concur. As a practical writer, I find that limiting the number of places wherein the action takes place helps the reader to identify with the story, be immersed, and stay interested. No deep reasoning for me here, just the fact that what works, works, and a writer whose writing works might not need to work an extra two or three jobs. Ahem, but that’s something else.
I — aw, no way! I’m already at 450 words again. Look, I’ll conclude my “Unity” stuff next time. Come on back soon for part three (either tomorrow or Friday), “Pierre Corneille and the Deathly Hallows,” here at AndrewTheory.
