Pierre Corneille and the Sorcerer’s Stone
While it may seem odd, I prefer the biographical essays in our textbook far more than I tend to enjoy the “critical essays” themselves. A lot of these writers, like Pierre Cornielle’s, today’s (or this week’s) essayist, lead very interesting lives. It’s probably just the History-minor and Storyteller in me. Anyway, here we go: “Of the Three Unities of Action, Time, and Place” (textbook p. 367).
In the biography, I saw that Corneille had said that “the sole purpose of drama is to please the spectator” and immediately knew I was going to like this guy. “Three Unities” also mirrors many of my own thoughts on storytelling in general, even if it is directed specifically toward drama. Unity of action means that one story has one main plot; there is a story which serves as a backbone. Even in character-driven pieces, I feel that there should be a unified “something” (which I would call a plot, no matter how little it may seek to accomplish or how little it actually moves along). I enjoy subplots and I enjoy other, background actions occurring, but I feel that there must be unity in the primary action (call it “plot,” call it “characterization-in-motion,” call it “late for dinner” for all I care) in order for a story or drama to really succeed. Corneille’s point about not showing anything which does not need shown rings a bit harsh in my ears, though.
Unity of time, in its original sense that Corneille points out, meant all action should occur within one day. This seems pretty “tyrannical” (to quote Corneille on 374), but, as he points out, it makes some degree of sense. For the purpose of making the audience enjoy things, keeping the action tight makes everything seem more interesting. Keep things together, Corneille seems to say; trust me, he continues, it just plain works better. Have I mentioned how much I like Corneille? He’s got moxie (and experience to back it up). While for drama, this limitation may work (though my Sophomore Playwriting Play, Mason Free, was brief and yet still at least two days long), I find it difficult to really tie down so directly a proper length in prose fiction. However, from a “spirit of the law” over the “letter of the law,” I can still agree that not much time should be wasted, and that making a story tight (without just planing off interesting, engrossing, or useful bits) is overall a good idea. Lemme ’splain (or, “let me explain, if it so pleases you”).
Well, actually, this is already 450 words. I’ll get into some explanation next time. Sorry, but I’m sure it’ll be worth the wait.
