Olson: Intro

Elder Olson's Tragedy and the Theory of Drama is one of the relatively (and unfortunately) small number of critical works that prioritizes literary production over literary interpretation.

In his introduction, Olson frames his perspective like so:

I have attempted to see tragedy—indeed, as much as possible the whole of drama—from a point of view of the working dramatist. The problems of the dramatist, the technical means for their solution, the principles governing the different methods of solution comprise the subject of this book. (2)

I'd like to do something similar, I'd like to attempt to see Theory from the point of view of the working writer. However, there are some problems with this sort of statement, mostly in the form of definite articles: the point of view of the working writer.

The first of these articles assume that working writers can, at least in their attitude toward Theory, can be lumped together into a unified "point of view", which is of course false. Writers have all sorts of different attitudes about Theory: some are enthusiasts, some antagonists; some pick and chose, others disregard it entirely.

The second of these definite articles assumes that writers as writers can be lumped together under the heading of something called "the working writer." The "work" of writing is different for each writer. Each has his/her own process, a unique (or at least importantly differentiated) approach to the "problems" of the writing task, and not all of their "solutions" are technical ones.

Writers do different things when they write, have different ideas about the significance of their task, its relation to Theory, and hold their own opinions about whether or not Theory and creative practice have anything to say to one another.

Of course, I make a similar error when I use the term "Theory," as if there were a discernible body of written work that could be unified in such a way that it could be introduced in opposition to something called "writing" or "writers." Perhaps I should say "literary criticism," or something similar. Still, whatever "Theory" is, people in CW are talking about it, sometimes as if it were a foe.

I think it's better to say something like this: "I have attempted to read Theory on behalf of working writers—that is, with the general interests of writers and their various writing processes in mind."

Even that statement makes a generalization, but I think its a more reasonable one. Writers have in common at least that they write, and their position as writers gives them some common ground in relation to Theory and its various treatments of the author.

Olson, Elder. Tragedy and the Theory of Drama. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1966. Print.