Talk:Dramatic structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Theatre (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Literature (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

8 act? isn't it 5?[edit]

"Renaissance dramatists revived the use of the 8-act structure."? Where does this come from? Is it maybe a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Break out Freytag[edit]

Right now, this article implies that five act structure is pervasive. I'm considering moving the Freytag analysis and example to five act structure and then writing a parallel version to explain three act structure (neither of which exist as of this writing). This article would then be a respository for all types of dramatic structures, including the 12-part structure of Greek epics and other non-English storytelling. Thoughts? --Tysto 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

great idea -D

agreed. much more needed here. this seems to take the leading convention of dramatic structure and substitute it for the whole, not particularly helpful if you wanted to survey the analyses that have been done (rather than rehash the unattributed highschool freytag). (though it was useful to learn that it was freytag's analysis ...) -R.

-I support this idea. Also, you may want to include a link to the various standard plots. Not that they're strictly related, just that folks looking for that information will likely pass through here. Great work on the article so far!! Anjin 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comments. The problem only arises, I believe, because the opening statement identifies Freytag's five parts with five 'acts'. Ibsen's four-act structures, for example, often follow the pattern as sketched here. I recommend that instead of fragmenting into different articles, the main principles of traditional dramatic structure are introduced at the beginning and a subsequent section offers a declension of types and variants. DionysosProteus 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here created by the attribution to Freytag of terms and concepts that he didn't actually use. For instance, he referred to the first section of a drama as the "Introduction" (Einleitung), not as the "Exposition." This is an important distinction, because the Introduction may contain elements that are not necessarily expository, such as a Keynote scene (einleitenden Akkord, or "introductory chord"), and exposition can occur anywhere in the drama, as is pointed out in the article. Freytag also did not equate the five parts of a drama with the five acts of a play except in a very loose sense. He in fact included a separate discussion of act structure in his book, explaining how the five parts are typically distributed in a play of one, five, or three acts. Joachim57 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joachim57 et al ... This page does not represent "Freytag's pyramid," per se, so much as the simplifications, modifications, and accretions to that model that were made in the course of the 20th C. I would argue that the page needs a fundamental rewrite by someone who knows what they're talking about ... Who is not, unfortunately, me. As it stands, it is quite inaccurate. For example, Freytag's concept of the "climax" is not simply a reversal in fortune -- it primarily has to do with a shift in the interaction between the protagonist's will and what Freytag calls the "counter-play" which opposes it ... A much more subtle and somewhat more peculiar notion than what's given here. This looks less like Freytag's Pyramid than Syd Field's. -- NostalgicModernist (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above comments and my reading of the article, there are two problems. First, this is not an article about Dramatic Structure, but about Freytag's view of dramatic structure and, second, it is based not on Freytag directly but upon modern simplifications and accretions to the theory. My view would be that this article should be titled 'Freytag's Dramatic Structure', or that at the very least Aristotle's view should be given similar weight in the article. Martin Turner (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Dénouement, resolution, or catastrophe[edit]

Under "Dénouement, resolution, or catastrophe", there is a half-completed reference but I have no idea what it's referencing so I can't fix it. --Kitsunegami (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a 'dubious' tag to the assertion that, "More modern works may have no dénouement, because of a quick or surprise ending." I wasn't sure whether to tag it 'dubious' or 'citation needed.' There's certainly no citation provided, and it seems that finding one would be impossible because of the gross generalization and the word 'may.' There might be one for studio produced Hollywood movies, but referencing every medium of storytelling would be a tall order. In any case, I think that line could use work. There's also the problem that this appears in the "Freytag's Analysis" section. Is this part of what Freytag said, or should it be in a different section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Another obvious point is that ancient works "may" have no dénouement also, making the comment pointless. Anonywiki (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)