Literature vs. Performance

     According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a play is the "stage representation of an action or story." A novel is an "invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events." I agree with these definitions in theory, and yet, I take issue with the simplicity of the definition of play. The definition of novel talks about the complexity of the prose. This is also true of a play. The descriptions written down in a novel of the setting, of emotions, and of characters need to come through on stage as clearly as the do on paper. A performance is also "complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events." Plays, sometimes, are able to take more liberty with a story in sequencing than a novel ( that's not to say novels can't do that either!). Plays are presenting a story to us to absorb and a novel is presenting a story for us to interpret. 

     Literature had two definitions that I thought could be applied to the word, both taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The first defined literature as "written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance." The second defined "printed materials (such as booklets, leaflets, and brochures) that provide information about something." I don't believe that literature can be defined as only those works that are "considered to be very good and to have lasting importance." This is the commonly accepted definition, but literature should not be limited to notable works. I tend to define most written works as literature, despite numerous objections. I don't believe any piece should be discounted because it's not famous or fictitious. 

     The definition of performance, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "an activity (such as singing a song or acting in a play) that a person or group does to entertain an audience." This refers to the performance as a whole, but performance is also defined as "the way an actor performs a part in a play," which signals out an individual. I believe both to be accurate. A performance is being put on by a group for an audience, but also by an individual to act out the play, which are similar, but not the same. The way an actor performs is not the same as viewing a performance. One is an action, but the other is an experience. 

     Literature is written. It's words on a page that you can hold in your hand. Descriptions of places, people, and emotions are given in detail. It is something experienced alone and interpreted with an individual's personal opinion. Experiencing a piece of literature does not always happen in one sitting. A performance does. A performance is almost always experienced in one sitting (the exceptions being recorded TV programs or CD's). It is also almost always pre-prepared, while literature is written once and then published. The piece experienced by readers is the same as that first piece, but performances change as they're repeated. Actors present roles differently. Performances are visual actions coupled with spoken words. What you see is what everyone else in the audience sees. Literature is more open to opinion and an individual's imagination. Costumes and characters differ among readers of literature, but in a performance, there is no choice for the audience, but that is not to say imagination is not required for both. Both readers of literature and audience members need to "read between the lines" to get the context and emotion behind the characters. Creativity is also needed by both parties to form connections and to imagine aspects that are not presented to us upfront. 

                                        

Sources:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Google Images