The Art Of Dramatic Writing: Its Basis in the Creative Interpretation of Human Motives

I've easily read more than 100 books on creating fiction (my focus is primarily short stories and novels), and I've done so because I'm always interested in learning what others have to say about the craft that I might find ways to improve my own.I disagree with the reviewer who pishaws Egri's recommendation to create character biographies, saying that the "audience will never see them". The fact is, every short story, novel, play, movie is like an iceberg: what the audience reads/sees is only 10% of the whole. The rest is hidden. If a writer hasn't done her homework on a story's setting, background or, more importantly, on her characters' backgrounds, it will show, and in the worst way possible. Even if a writer is of the sort who develops her characters as she creates the story, there is still much about those characters which doesn't make it into the tale. It's rather like when you tell a cousin about a friend of yours. You don't give your cousin all the details, only those details which are relevant to giving your cousin an accurate, yet true, representation of your friend, but you can only accomplish this if you know your friend very well. The same is -- HAS TO BE! -- true of your story characters: you MUST know them very well (more than what you reveal) if you are to represent them to your audience accurately and truthfully (but not exhaustively), and that's precisely Egri's point.Regarding Egri and his agreements/disagreements with Aristotle, his disagreement with regard to a story's beginning has more to do with modern readers' interpretations of what constitutes a beginning. Every story must have a beginning, even if it doesn't appear on the page, on the screen, or on the stage. All the consituent parts of a story, even if they aren't put plainly before the audience, must be implied in what is. (Algis Budrys' WRITING TO THE POINT demonstrates this quite well.) Egri's disagreement with regard to Aristotle's views on plot/character, however, are, I believe, on the mark. In this case, however, the disagreement has more to do with historical/cultural/religious context. Aristotle's putting plot primary is due largely to the prevalent beliefs of his time, just as our putting character primary is due to the prevalent beliefs of ours. This, too, is a point which Egri recognizes.After reading Egri's book, my writing will never be the same again, I'll never read another novel or short story the same way again, and I'll never see a movie or play in the same way again, either. I dare say that I'll appreciate a good novel/short story/movie/play even more with the tools that Egri provides in this book, and will now be able to elucidate far more clearly than before why I didn't like a particular novel/short story/movie/play. In like manner, I now believe that I'm better equipped, after reading Egri's book, to recognize what is wrong with any story that I've written and will, therefore, be better able to fix the problem.After reading all the books I've read on story/character creation, I'd have to say that Egri's book is easily the best book I've ever read on the subject. While other authors of such books may have said much the same thing, Egri presents the same material in a way that makes it eminently clear and immediately memorable.POSTSCRIPT: In defense of novels (since that is my preferred medium), unlike what was stated in one review on Egri's book, pacing is just as important in a novel as it is in a stage play. If you have one high-paced scene after another in a novel, your reader will be breathless before she's half-done with the book. Conversely, if your pacing is constantly slow, you're very likely to lose reader interest. There are all sorts of tricks to controlling pacing in a novel, from word, sentence, and paragraph length, and even down to specific word choice. There are other ways to control pacing, as well, but I shan't get into that here. It's a shame that very few books have covered this aspect of novel creation.

This book was better than I believed it would be when I bought it. I will never write a play, and have no ambition in that direction. But I wanted to understand what makes a good play good and a bad play bad - and to be able to put it to words. Mr Egri has certainly enabled me to do that.Egri uses the modern philosophies of dialectics as his starting point. His main thesis is that a play is a dialectical development: It has a premise to prove, and the steps taken must not be forced - must not come from outside the premises inherent in the play, in the characters and the situation set up by the playwright. It is a beautiful application of philosophical theory to practical life, and - I believe - the best currently on the market.Because of this, the structure he reveals as the basis of good playwriting is also applicable to other fields like storytelling and poetry. Even to life itself, and not only in the fabrication of lies to your boss about where you were on your sick day (when you really went to a lake with your laptop to write a play).

This is the best book I've ever read on the subject. Simply the best.Never have I seen story ideas outlined in this way. Never have I grasped what made classics classic. This is the first time I've realized how to take my writing to the next level. Characters, dialogue, progressions and arcs are all covered so well, so completely, that good writing actually makes complete sense. I thought I was writing well before. But I was just finishing scripts. That was it. Now, I look forward to rewrites, and am doing more to lessen the need for rewrites in the future. From the broad strokes to the fine details, this book allows you to see what excellence is and how to achieve it. I highly recommend this book.

Arrived in the time that was estimated with zero flaws. I'm very satisfied.