LEOB DRAMA COURSE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I feel I must reply to a few points in Mr. Joel Henning's letter, printed in the CRIMSON on Saturday. I should emphasize, however, that I wish only to clarify, and not to launch a "controversy" in these pages; no controversy in in fact possible--at least now--on the subject of a "drama course" for credit, and Mr. Henning is incorrect in stating that anyone has made such a proposal. The Loeb Drama Center has not, the English Department has not, and, as I understand it, the CRIMSON'S affirmative editorial voiced cautious approval of such a project for future consideration. Dean Ford, Professor Alfred, and I have all noted some of the important problems which would have to be solved before any such suggestion could be made formally. Many of the objections raised by Mr. Henning are solid ones, and would certainly have to be considered.

His letter raised as well several red herrings. One is that a course for credit in drama would attempt (if it were ever instituted formally) to combine "elements of English literature courses with elements of actor training." Such an assumption may derive, I think, from a mistaken inference regarding the purpose of this spring's experimental project planned to celebrate the Shakespeare Marlowe Quadricentennial. If "actor training" occurs when undergraduates stage an important dramatic text, all well and good;this sort of training is nevertheless not a goal of the project. That goal is two-fold; first, to teach, as in any other area of study, as fully and as richly as possible, the nature of the play at hand; and, secondly, to indicate a way in which an undergraduate theater (not a professional theater) can become an integral part of the fabric of the University--in short, to take meaningful part in the academic life of the general community. That Marlowe and Shakespeare were both born in the same year, four hundred years ago in 1964, is a happy coincidences which provides an opportunity at the Loeb for both a teaching and a learning experience (which I take it, is the purpose of any "course,"for credit or not); the same ground-rules could apply, in fact, to any playwright whose work is worth studying. To stage a good play articulates it as the playwright intended, and if the play articulates it as the playwright intended, and if the play is worth studying as literature, to stage it properly after studying it textually and historically can become an exciting intellectual experience, and a dramatic one. If, in doing so, an important use of the drama center is found, so much the better; nobody has said that this should be its only use, or that such experimental projects as the Shakespeare Marlowe plans should be used to train actors.

I have stated the opposite, in fact, many times--and it is Mr. Henning's improvisations on the word "professional" which trouble me most. His point that there are now tea staff members in the Loeb (many of them part-time employees) is confusing to me; he calls this staff a "professional teacher. I have tried to indicate in the past that I think it imperative that we firmly those aspects of professional theater which produce monthly commercial, empty-headed work which leave the richer life of a play untouched; that a theater in a university is one place where the thought of a play is more important to its theatricality than the seem in an actor's tights or the deftness with which he mounts a staircase.

As a former president of the Harvard Dramatic Club, Mr. Henning should know that I could not agree with him more in his point that the existence of the Loeb "does not demand or justify...professional acting courses." The trouble is (as I think he himself admits in his letter) that Mr. Henning has indeed drawn "polarized caricatures" in his descriptions of that "A student in English honors who...is all thumbs" and that "C student in Social Relations...who (has no interest in anything said about dramatic literature," but is a polished actor. There are always students on the Loeb stage who are all thumbs; and it would please me immensely if there continued to be. That Mr. Henning would answer the objection that good actors should have a broad interest in the drama with a gesture toward professional casts in New York, only proves my point; I do not wish, God knows, to malign the serious professional who distinguishes an ancient and important are which was not always considered exotic fruit but the fact remains that those professionals in New York who really know very little about anything (including acting) only serve to underline a distinction which has to be maintained, I think, at the Loeb; the distinction between a study of dramatic works in their fullest sense (which includes staging them) and a study, with narrow scope, of professional techniques only.

The second study would be a great mistake. To pursue the first, in one form,is the purpose of this spring's work in Marlowe and Shakespeare. If this work indicates anything useful about the nature of a course which might recognize officially a combination of textual study and stage presentation, such results would be interesting; but surely any formal proposal should be postponed until recognized problems are solved, if they can be. The range of potential achievement among Harvard and Radcliffe undergraduates, working on theater as amateurs, is immense; nobody wants "an Olympian troupe in the Loeb disguised as students." What everyone has always wanted--I assume the production of plays enlarge themselves in a happy and productive way. Daniel Seltzer   Acting Director. Loeb Drama Center   Assistant Professor of English

As a former president of the Harvard Dramatic Club, Mr. Henning should know that I could not agree with him more in his point that the existence of the Loeb "does not demand or justify...professional acting courses." The trouble is (as I think he himself admits in his letter) that Mr. Henning has indeed drawn "polarized caricatures" in his descriptions of that "A student in English honors who...is all thumbs" and that "C student in Social Relations...who (has no interest in anything said about dramatic literature," but is a polished actor. There are always students on the Loeb stage who are all thumbs; and it would please me immensely if there continued to be. That Mr. Henning would answer the objection that good actors should have a broad interest in the drama with a gesture toward professional casts in New York, only proves my point; I do not wish, God knows, to malign the serious professional who distinguishes an ancient and important are which was not always considered exotic fruit but the fact remains that those professionals in New York who really know very little about anything (including acting) only serve to underline a distinction which has to be maintained, I think, at the Loeb; the distinction between a study of dramatic works in their fullest sense (which includes staging them) and a study, with narrow scope, of professional techniques only.

The second study would be a great mistake. To pursue the first, in one form,is the purpose of this spring's work in Marlowe and Shakespeare. If this work indicates anything useful about the nature of a course which might recognize officially a combination of textual study and stage presentation, such results would be interesting; but surely any formal proposal should be postponed until recognized problems are solved, if they can be. The range of potential achievement among Harvard and Radcliffe undergraduates, working on theater as amateurs, is immense; nobody wants "an Olympian troupe in the Loeb disguised as students." What everyone has always wanted--I assume the production of plays enlarge themselves in a happy and productive way. Daniel Seltzer   Acting Director. Loeb Drama Center   Assistant Professor of English