The discussion of the integrated plot leads us to consider dramatic structure and the way in which the tension generated by the rise and fall of events is ultimately resolved.
Souad Khalil | Libya
Dramatic structure is one of the most important elements that gives a theatrical work its coherence and vitality. It is the framework within which events are organized, characters interact, and conflict intensifies until it reaches a moment of transformation and resolution. This structure cannot be considered separately from plot, which organizes the movement of events and connects them through logical and artistic relationships, making each event have an impact on what follows and each action produce a consequence that drives the dramatic progression forward.
Since Aristotle, the concept of plot has been associated with the essence of dramatic action, as it is the means through which events move beyond mere chronological succession to become a structure that possesses meaning and necessity within the work. The significance of an event does not lie simply in its occurrence, but in its relationship to what precedes and follows it, and in its ability to generate conflict, motivate the characters, and alter the course of the story.
Plot and dramatic structure therefore intersect in shaping the unity of the theatrical work. The arrangement of events, the development of conflict, the interaction between characters, and the accumulation of causes and consequences become interconnected elements that contribute to reaching the ending. In this context, plots take different forms and are constructed in different ways according to the nature of the experience the playwright seeks to express and the artistic vision that governs their choices.
In this part, we examine the concept of plot and its relationship to dramatic structure, and consider its principal forms and the ways in which conflict is constructed within it. We will do so through a number of theatrical examples that reveal the different ways in which playwrights organize events and create dramatic tension, leading to the broader question of how a series of causes and consequences can be transformed into a complete theatrical structure.
Aristotle says that plot is the soul of drama, because through it we comprehend and remember its events, dialogue, and characters—or, in other words, we remember these components of the play within the framework of their relationships with one another. Plot is the arrangement of events in such a way that their interaction leads toward an inevitable ending. This differs from narrative storytelling, in which events simply follow one another. Narrative, however, can possess a plot if its events are arranged and shaped in such a way that a relationship of connection, cause, and effect exists between them.
The famous English novelist E. M. Forster illustrated the difference between story and plot with the following example: “The king died, and then the queen died” is a story, whereas “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” constitutes a plot. Plot therefore contains cause and effect. This is how the author conceives it during the creative process. It involves a certain degree of craftsmanship, selection, arrangement, and purpose, as well as the succession and movement of events. Plot moves toward integration, unity, and plausibility. Thus, it can be said that plot and dramatic structure are two sides of the same coin.
Dr. Gerges Al-Rashidi, in a study on plot and dramatic structure, adds:
“For dramatic structure to be solid, the relationship of cause and effect must be fundamental. Without it, there can be no rise and fall in the fortunes of the characters, nor can there be a succession of events following a pattern through which the conflict becomes increasingly complicated until it reaches its resolution. The embodiment of causes and consequences, however, follows a clear pattern through which the events of the play proceed.”
This explains the statement that Shakespeare borrowed his stories from well-known books and historical events, while his plots were the product of his own creative imagination. Shakespeare would often take a character such as Enobarbus in Antony and Cleopatra or Iago in Othello, and give that character a nature and qualities that did not exist in the original source, making the character an active participant in the dramatic movement whose behavior affected the plot of the play.
To highlight the element of conflict, a play may contain several protagonists engaged in conflict with an antagonist. This was clearly evident in the plays of past centuries. Critics continue to identify three major types of conflict: the conflict of an individual with another individual; the conflict of an individual with themselves; and the conflict of an individual with an external force or forces, such as society or a supernatural power. Other fundamental forms of conflict may also be added, such as the conflict of one group of people with another group, with a single individual, or with a particular force.
These conflicts do not determine how the conflict itself will end, but they determine the circumstances and developments that may arise from it. A play may contain more than one type of conflict. In Hamlet, for example, there is a conflict between the protagonist and himself, as well as between Hamlet and other people, such as King Claudius and Polonius. At the same time, these figures form part of the Danish royal establishment with which Hamlet is in conflict.
Plots take different forms. There are simple and complex plots, single and double plots, and tight and loose plots.
A simple plot presents a single, direct situation that does not become highly complicated. Many modern plays belong to this category. They present a situation that is interrupted by a new force which generates conflict and eventually leads to a resolution.
Take, for example, Tennessee Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire. The domestic situation between Stanley and Stella proceeds in a relatively stable manner until the arrival of Blanche, Stella’s sister, interrupts it. This gives rise to a family conflict. A family friend is attracted to Stella and considers marrying her, but Stanley destroys this possibility by exposing Blanche’s past and her moral failings. He eventually goes as far as sexually assaulting her. In the end, Blanche is taken to a mental institution.
The playwright is primarily concerned with portraying Blanche’s character and showing how her circumstances contribute to the collapse she ultimately experiences, rather than with creating a highly complicated plot. The plot is therefore reasonably direct, without elaborate structural complications, although it is by no means lacking in depth.
A complex plot, however, is not necessarily a guarantee of the quality of a play. The simplicity or complexity of a plot should arise naturally from what the playwright is attempting to present in the work.
Examples that illustrate the difference between the single plot and the double plot can be drawn from Greek theatre and from the French classical theatre that followed its example. These plays present a single story. The story itself may be complex and contain numerous events, but all these events are closely connected to the central substance of the story.
In Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, the entire dramatic action takes place on a deserted rock in the Caucasus, to which Prometheus has been chained as punishment for daring to help humanity and for defying Zeus. Although the play refers to earlier events, recounts how they occurred, and includes Prometheus’s account of his conflict with Zeus, the dramatic action never moves far from the mountain. Everything that happens is closely connected to what is happening to Prometheus.
Even the six characters who appear in the play alongside Prometheus serve mainly to bind him to the rock, carry messages from Zeus, or come to him with advice or consolation. The plot of this play is particularly simple compared with the plots of later Greek tragedies. It essentially revolves around the unrelenting vengeance of Zeus and the punishment inflicted upon Prometheus, culminating in his being buried alive in the depths of the earth.
Even the plots of later Greek plays that approach the traditional conception of plot are generally single plots: an event occurs only if it is directly connected to the central story.
Plays with double plots, by contrast, became prominent in Elizabethan theatre and thereafter. In such plays, two stories proceed side by side: one constitutes the main plot and the other the subplot. The skillful playwright combines the two in order to reveal the relationship between them.
Shakespeare was one of the most accomplished playwrights in blending the main plot with the subplot in both his comedies and tragedies. Perhaps the most famous subplot in Shakespeare’s plays is the story of Gloucester in King Lear. Although the events between Lear and his daughters do not, in themselves, require Gloucester or his two sons, the double plot clarifies the meaning of the central theme. The two plots intersect and reinforce one another.
The subplot has a powerful effect on the spectator. It is difficult to imagine King Lear without the events involving Gloucester’s family or without the many characters who populate the play.
What, then, is the difference between a tight plot and a loose plot?
The difference lies in the degree of intensity with which the playwright develops the plot. A loose plot is one in which the writer does not attempt to make every character and every movement play a role in complicating or resolving the situation.
The rigid drama that became widespread during the early twentieth century, as well as many one-act plays by Irish writers, belongs to the category of loose plots. The writer’s primary concern is with character, mood, and setting.
The plots of Expressionist plays may also be described as loose because their principal aim is to reveal emotional states and experiences. Eugene O’Neill’s The Hairy Ape, written in 1922, is an example. It consists of a series of successive situations in which Yank encounters different people, each representing a particular force or emotion more than a fully developed character. These figures do not play any further role in the play. They merely contribute to creating a temporary mood and to the experiences through which Yank passes.
O’Neill gives names to only four of the characters in the play. The others are identified by designations such as “Aunt,” “Second Engineer,” “Watchman,” and “Secretary of the organization.”
A tight plot, by contrast, requires the deliberate interaction of a number of characters, each with their own motives and desires, which lead them to behave in particular ways toward other characters. It is unlikely that a play whose characters represent forces, emotions, or abstractions will have a tightly constructed plot.
A tightly plotted play is therefore one in which every detail contributes to the complication of the plot, and no character or aspect of the dramatic movement is left without an explanation by the end.
This type of plot is associated with the highly crafted French plays that dominated the nineteenth century and later spread to England. In France, its leading practitioners included Scribe and Sardou, while in England the tradition was represented by Arthur Pinero and Henry Arthur Jones.
Tightly constructed plots have often been criticized on the grounds that they sometimes sacrifice ideas and characterization for the sake of perfecting the plot. This does not mean that a playwright should deliberately avoid constructing a carefully organized plot or that they should resolve the dramatic complication through an artificial device, as happened in some Greek plays when a god descended from a machine to resolve the dramatic crisis. This method of resolving the plot is known as deus ex machina, literally “god from the machine.”
It is preferable for the plot to emerge from the interaction and friction between the characters. Plot should not be a rigid, lifeless system within whose boundaries characters merely move.
In Hamlet, for example, Hamlet hesitates to kill his uncle Claudius because of the circumstances in which he finds himself. The plot therefore advances through Hamlet’s character and through the situation in which Claudius has placed him.
Thus, our discussion of the integrated plot leads us to consider dramatic structure and the way in which the tension generated by the rise and fall of events is ultimately resolved.
The chain of causes and consequences in a plot is not an endless sequence. Rather, it is a development in which causes accumulate until they lead to a major event and then to a succession of consequences.
In the second part of this article, we will continue by examining how a plot is constructed.
Read: The Arab Heritage and Psychology
__________________
Souad Khalil, hailing from Benghazi Libya, is a writer, poet, and translator. She has been writing on culture, literature and other general topics.
