NormalizeHEADmain

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1223 deletions

diff --git a/old/67645-0.txt b/old/67645-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 842829d..0000000
--- a/old/67645-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1223 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg eBook of Dialogue, by Anthony Hope Hawkins
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
-www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
-will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
-using this eBook.
-
-Title: Dialogue
-
-Author: Anthony Hope Hawkins
-
-Release Date: March 17, 2022 [eBook #67645]
-
-Language: English
-
-Produced by: Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed Proofreading
-             Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
-             images generously made available by The Internet
-             Archive/American Libraries.)
-
-*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DIALOGUE ***
-
-
-
-
-
-                        THE ENGLISH ASSOCIATION
-
-
-                               Dialogue
-
-                                  By
-                      Anthony Hope Hawkins, M.A.
-              Sometime Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford
-
-
-                          (Privately Printed)
-                            November, 1909
-
-
-
-
-As this leaflet is privately printed by special permission of the
-Author, no additional copies can be sold.
-
-
-
-
-                              DIALOGUE[1]
-
-  [1] An address delivered to the members of the English Association,
-      October 28, 1909.
-
-
-Although it is probable that the subject I have chosen to speak about
-this evening is rather outside the ordinary scope of your proceedings,
-I have thought it better to take that risk than to attempt to address
-you on some topic which I, as a working novelist and one who has made
-experiments in the dramatic line also, have had less occasion to
-study, and therefore should be less likely to be able to say anything
-deserving of your attention――not that I am at all confident of doing
-that even as matters stand. Yet perhaps it is not altogether alien to
-the spirit of this Association to consider sometimes a more or less
-technical aspect of literature itself, even though its main object may
-be to promote the study of literature; such a discussion, undertaken
-from time to time, may foster that interest in literature, on which in
-the end the spread of its study must depend. With that much said by way
-of justification, or of apology, as you will, I proceed to my task.
-
-                   *       *       *       *       *
-
-Some months ago I happened to read a novel in the whole course of which
-nobody said anything――not one of the characters was represented in
-the act of speaking to another with the living voice. One remark was
-indeed quoted in a letter as having been made viva voce on a previous
-occasion, but this sudden breach of consistency did not command my
-belief――it seemed like an assertion that in an assembly of veritable
-mutes somebody had suddenly shouted. The book was not in the main in
-the form of letters――it was almost pure narrative. The effect was worse
-than unreal. An intense sense of lifelessness was produced; you moved
-among the dead――or even the shadows of the dead. It was a lesson in the
-importance of dialogue in fiction which no writer could ever forget.
-
-What, then, is this dialogue? Formally defined it includes, I suppose,
-any conversation――any talk in which two or more persons take part;
-while it excludes a monologue, which one delivers while others
-listen, and a soliloquy, which one delivers when there is nobody to
-listen――unless, perchance, behind the arras. But some dialogues are, if
-I may coin a word, much more thoroughly dialogic than others――there is
-much more of what is the real essence of the matter. That real essence
-I take to be the meeting of minds in talk――the reciprocal exhibition
-of mind to mind. The most famous compositions in the world to which
-the title of dialogues is expressly given――Plato’s own――vary greatly
-in this essential quality. Some have it in a high degree: others
-become in great measure merely an exposition, punctuated by assents or
-admissions which tend to become almost purely a matter of form. Later
-philosophical dialogues, like Landor’s, give, to my mind, even less the
-impression of conversation――though an exception may well be made to
-some extent for Mr. Mallock’s _New Republic_. But speeches are not true
-dialogue, and you cannot make them such by putting in a succession of
-them. For an instance, see Mr. Lowes Dickinson’s _Modern Symposium_.
-One is inclined to say that unstinted liberty of interruption is
-essential to the full nature of dialogue――to give it its true character
-of reciprocity, of exchange, and often of combat. Without that it
-inclines towards the monologue――towards an exposition by one, and away
-from a contribution by several.
-
-Thus it is that not all good talk can be cited as a good or typical
-example of dialogue. I have taken philosophical examples――let me
-turn hastily to something which, I hope at least, I know rather more
-about. We all know, and doubtless all love, Sam Weller’s talk, but
-Sam’s creator is, naturally enough, too much enamoured of him to give
-his interlocutors much of a chance. The whole is designed for the
-better exhibition of Sam――the other party is, in the slang of the
-stage, ‘feeding him’――giving him openings. It’s one-sided. A quite
-modern instance of the same kind, and one which, at its best, is not
-unworthy of being mentioned in the same breath, is to be found in _The
-Conversations of Mr. Dooley_. ‘Hinnissey’ gets no chance, he is merely
-a ‘feeder’; the whole aim is the exhibition of the mind of Mr. Dooley.
-Contrast with these the conversations in _Tristram Shandy_――to my mind
-some of the finest and, scientifically regarded, most perfect dialogue
-in English literature. Every character who speaks contributes――really
-contributes, and is not merely a feeder or a foil. Each has his own
-mind, his own point of view, and manfully and independently maintains
-it. Uncle Toby is the author’s pet perhaps, but I think he is hardly
-less fond of Mr. Shandy――while Mrs. Shandy, Dr. Slop, Corporal Trim,
-and the rest, are all sharply defined and characterized out of
-their own mouths, and have their independent value as well as their
-independent views. If you would seek good modern examples of these
-dialogic virtues, you might turn to Mr. Anstey’s _Voces Populi_ or to
-Mr. Jacobs’s stories. In the latter the things that make you laugh most
-are often not in themselves remarkable――certainly not witty and indeed
-not aiming at wit; but they suddenly exhibit and light up conflicting
-points of view――and irresistible humour springs full-born from the
-clash of outlook and of temperament.
-
-It is precisely this power inherent in dialogue――the power of bringing
-into sharp vision the conflict of characters and points of view――which
-favours the increased use of it in modern novels. Serious modern novels
-tend to deal with matters of debate more than their predecessors of
-corresponding rank did――at once to treat more freely of matters open to
-question, and to find open to question more matters than our ancestors
-thought――or at all events admitted――to come within that category. It
-is both more efficacious and less tedious to let A and B reveal their
-characters and views to one another than for the author to tell the
-reader A’s character and views, and then B’s character and views, and
-to add the obvious statement that the two characters and views differ.
-We do not want merely to be told they differ; the drama lies in seeing
-them differing, and in seeing the difference gradually disclose and
-establish itself until it culminates in a struggle and ends in a drawn
-battle, or a hard-won victory. Of course, when a man is fighting alone
-in his own soul, you must rely on analysis――on analytic narrative
-(unless indeed you resort to an allegorical device), but where there is
-a conflict between two men――representing perhaps two types of humanity,
-or two sides of a disputed case――dialogue comes more and more to be
-used as the most technically effective medium at the writer’s disposal.
-
-But its increased use is not limited to this function. It is found
-possible to employ it more and more in the direct interest of literary
-form and technique. There are very many facts which the author of a
-novel desires to convey to his readers. A considerable proportion of
-them must be conveyed by narrative――so considerable a proportion that
-it is all gain if the number can be cut down. Here a skilful use of
-dialogue comes to the author’s aid. To take an example. The author
-wishes to acquaint the reader with the heroine’s personal appearance,
-since the reader is required to understand the hero’s passion and the
-villain’s wiles. We all recollect how in many old novels――even in those
-of the great masters of the craft――the fashion was to catalogue the
-lady’s charms on her first appearance on the scene. There they all
-were――the raven locks, the flashing eyes, the short curling upper lip,
-et cetera. You read them――and according to my experience you were in no
-small danger of entirely forgetting what manner of woman she was by the
-time you had turned half a dozen pages. But if you can see her beauty
-in action, so to speak, it’s a different thing. Say that her eyes are
-the feature on which special stress is desirable. Merely to state that
-‘she had beautiful blue eyes’――well, you accept the fact, but it leaves
-you cold. But if the hero, by a dexterous compliment, gallant yet not
-obtrusive, can, first, tell _you_ about the eyes, secondly exhibit to
-you the effect the eyes are having on him, thirdly, get a step forward
-in his relations with the lady, and fourthly, aided by her reply to the
-compliment, show you how she is disposed to receive his advances――the
-result is that the author has done more and has done it better. I have
-purposely chosen a simple――almost a trivial――instance, but it is not
-therefore, I think, a bad example of how the use of dialogue can not
-merely avoid tedium, though that is a supremely desirable and indeed a
-vital thing in itself, but can also give a natural effect instead of
-an unnatural, and add to the dramatic value of a fact by showing it
-in actual operation, producing results, instead of merely chronicling
-its existence, almost as an item in a list. Novelists have realized
-this, and the realization of it unites with the reasons which I have
-already touched upon to make them try to work more and more through
-dialogue――more and more to make the characters speak for themselves,
-and less and less to speak for them except when they must. There is
-a gain all round――in naturalness, in drama, in conciseness, and in
-shapeliness.
-
-It remains, while we are on this point of the technical usefulness
-of dialogue, to note two or three other ways in which it serves the
-novelist’s turn. He finds it exceedingly to his purpose if he wishes
-to be impersonal, to be impartial, to keep a secret, or to hold a
-situation in suspense. It enables him to withdraw behind the curtain,
-and leave his characters alone with the reader. It enables him to get
-rid of the air of omniscience which narrative forces upon him, and to
-assume the limitations of his _dramatis personae_. By so doing he adds
-reality to them――they are less puppets. Speaking through A’s mouth, he
-sees only A’s point of view, and when he speaks through B’s mouth his
-knowledge of the state of events is only B’s knowledge, and no greater.
-He may often desire to do this, for much the same reasons as sometimes
-lead a writer to assume, altogether and throughout the book, the garb
-of one of the characters, to write in the first person, to see only
-what the hero sees, to know only what he knows, and to feel only what
-he feels. The use of dialogue is in this aspect of it a less drastic
-form of the same device.
-
-I have tried to indicate the uses of dialogue to the writers of
-books――I must say a word or two about the stage later on――but it
-would be a mistake to suppose that its employment has no limits.
-One we have already touched upon――a man can’t talk dialogue to
-himself――well, unless he’s a ventriloquist, and in these days his right
-to soliloquize, or even to say ‘Hallo!’ when he’s by himself――except
-into the telephone, of course――is keenly canvassed or sternly denied.
-But even apart from this necessary limitation on dialogue, there are,
-I think, no doubt others. In the first place, dialogue, so excellent
-a means of exhibiting character and opinion, is on the whole not the
-most appropriate or effective mode of exhibiting action――unless, that
-is, the whole importance of the action depends on how it is received by
-one of the parties to the dialogue. Take the case of a murder. If the
-object is to tell an ingenious and thrilling story of a murder, it is
-in nine cases out of ten far better for the author to tell it himself.
-He gains nothing by putting it into the mouth of a character, and he
-probably loses directness and effect. But if the import of the murder
-lies not so much in itself as in the effect the news of it may have on
-A, B, then it is good to tell it to A, B; the reader can see the effect
-in operation. But with this exception I think it may be taken that
-books containing much external action, and much rapid action, will tend
-to rely less on dialogue, and more on narration. Not only is dialogue
-less quick-moving and direct, but when action is in the case, it loses
-just that naturalness which is so pre-eminently its own where it is
-dealing with a clash of temperaments or with contrasted views of life.
-It seems to come at second hand, and the reader feels that he would
-sooner have been with A, who really saw the thing done, than merely
-with B, who is only being told about it by the actual witness.
-
-Again, I think there is little doubt that the ordinary reader is
-fatigued by too much talking, and that a long novel, mainly relying
-on dialogue and reducing narrative to a merely subordinate position,
-is in great danger of becoming tedious. This it may do in one of two
-ways――or, if it is very unfortunate, in both――at different places. The
-writer may try to tell too much by dialogue, with the result that his
-characters speak at great length, and he topples over the line which
-divides dialogue from speech-making. Or, on the other hand, alive to
-the perils of speech-making, he may try to cut it all up into question
-and answer, and to enliven it by constant epigrams or some other form
-of wit. This latter expedient may not bore the reader so much as the
-speech-making, but it will probably fatigue him more. Dialogue does,
-in fact, make a greater claim on the reader than narrative. I think
-this is true even when it is good dialogue. Something may be done to
-help him by skilful comment or description――clever stage-directions
-in effect――but none the less he is deprived, or curtailed, of much
-of the assistance on his way which the narrative form can give him.
-I think that probably the best advice to offer to a novice would be:
-As few long conversations as possible――but as many short ones. Let
-the dialogue break up the narrative, and the narrative cut short any
-tendency to prolixity in the dialogue.
-
-Just now I referred to the possibility of assisting dialogue by
-comment or description, much as when you read a play you are assisted
-to follow and appreciate the lines written to be spoken on the stage
-by the directions inserted to guide the actor. This reference, I dare
-say, raised in your minds the thought that the dialogue I have been
-speaking of――dialogue as it is used in novels――is very rarely pure
-dialogue at all. The objection is well founded, and its application
-is wide, though the degree of its application varies immensely. You
-may find pure dialogue, without stage-directions, here and there,
-even in novels. George Borrow, for instance, is fond of it, and is
-a master of a peculiar quality of it. But far the more general form
-is dialogue assisted by comment and description――a hybrid kind of
-composition, in which the author plays a double part, speaking through
-the characters’ mouths at one moment, describing their actions,
-gestures, even their unspoken thoughts, at the next. This is the normal
-form of novel dialogue. The variations occur in the relative amount
-of this description or comment――of this stage-direction, as I have
-called it. And I call it that because this comment or description takes
-the place of what they call ‘business’ on the stage. The actor’s task
-is divided between his words and his ‘business’, and the playwright
-is entitled to rely on the ‘business’ to help out the words, just as
-the novelist describes or comments on the actions and gestures of his
-speakers, in order to assist and elucidate the meaning of the actual
-words they use. If you read a play――not seeing the actors――and if
-the author has given no stage-directions as to how the characters
-look or speak――as to whether they show anger or fright, or pleasure,
-or surprise, for instance, you will find, I think, that you have to
-read with an increased degree of attention――perhaps I may say of
-sympathetic imagination――and that, even with this brought to bear,
-you will sometimes be in doubt. So with novel dialogue. If the author
-denied himself description or comment interlarded with the actual
-words spoken, he would set a harder task both to his own skill and
-to the reader’s intelligence. The comments of the novelist, like the
-‘business’ of the playwright, clothe the skeleton of the actually
-spoken words with a living form, expressing itself in action, in
-gesture, by frowns or smiles, by tears or laughter. I have little doubt
-that if we possessed not only Shakespeare’s words, but Shakespeare’s
-‘business’, many a controversy as to the exact meaning of this passage
-or that, many a question as to the precise character or mental
-condition of this or that of his _dramatis personae_, could never have
-arisen――and many learned, and possibly some tedious, books would have
-gone unwritten.
-
-Now, so far as I know――but I hasten to add that I am not a wide reader
-of plays, though I am much addicted to seeing them acted――Mr. Bernard
-Shaw was the first among English dramatists to see and exploit fully
-the possibilities of stage-directions in helping the imagination of
-those who read, as distinct from those who see, his plays. Some of his
-stage-directions are, in my humble opinion, among the best things he
-has ever done――terse, humorous, incisive, complete――see, for example,
-his description of Mrs. Warren. But novelists were quicker to see
-the possibility of their stage-directions, their comments on moods,
-their descriptions of the actions or the gestures accompanying the
-spoken words. When you talk to a man or woman, you don’t shut your
-eyes and merely listen to the voice. You do listen carefully to the
-voice――since he may say ‘Yes’ as if he really meant it, or as if he
-only half-meant it, or as if he meant just the opposite――but you also
-watch his eyes and his mouth――and in moments of strong excitement it
-is recorded of many a villain that his fingers twitched, and of many a
-heroine that her bosom heaved; so fingers and bosoms are worth watching
-too. Now the point is that a skilful use of these stage-directions
-can not only immensely assist the meaning of novel dialogue, but can
-also add enormously to its artistic value and merit. It can diffuse
-an atmosphere, impart a hint, create an interest by a dexterous
-suspending of the answer. This last is, from a professional point of
-view, a particularly pretty trick――it’s not much more than a trick,
-but let us call it a literary device――and Sterne brought it to great
-perfection――and knew well what he was doing. I will make bold to quote
-a passage of his which bears on the whole subject, and shows both his
-method and the absolute consciousness with which he employed it――to
-say nothing of the shameless candour with which he laughs at his own
-trick. Corporal Trim is discoursing to his fellow servants on the death
-of Tristram’s brother, Master Bobby. ‘Are we not here now?’ continued
-the Corporal (striking the end of his stick perpendicularly upon the
-floor, so as to give an emblem of health and stability) ‘and’ (dropping
-his hat upon the ground) ‘gone in a minute?’ Then Sterne digresses, and
-repeats――as his manner is. But he comes back――and is good enough to
-explain: ‘Let us only carry back our minds to the mortality of Trim’s
-hat,’ he says. ‘Are we not here now――and gone in a moment? There was
-nothing in the sentence――’twas one of your self-evident truths we have
-the advantage of hearing every day: and if Trim had not trusted more
-to his hat than to his head, he had made nothing at all of it.’ And
-he proceeds: ‘Ten thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand (for
-matter and motion are infinite) are the ways by which a hat may be
-dropped on the ground without any effect. Had he flung it, or thrown
-it, or cast it, or skimmed it, or squirted it, or let it slip or fall
-in any possible direction under heaven――had he dropped it like a goose,
-like a puppy, like an ass――or in doing it or even after he had done
-it, had looked like a fool, like a ninny, like a nincompoop――it had
-failed, and the effect upon the heart had been lost.’ And he ends――most
-justifiably――‘Meditate, I beseech you, upon Trim’s hat!’ Trim’s hat
-may certainly stand as an instance of the value of stage-directions to
-novel dialogue.
-
-Returning to actually spoken words――the real talk between the
-interlocutors――we may note the great adaptability and elasticity of
-the dialogue form. The hesitation, the aposiopesis, the interruption,
-are all ready and flexible devices, apt to convey hints, innuendoes,
-doubts, objections, apt to convey the sense of a balance inclining
-now this way, now that, to show one mind feeling its way towards a
-knowledge of the other, while sedulously guarding its own secrets. Or
-you may seek the broader effects of comedy with the sudden betrayal
-of irreconcilable divergence, or of an agreement as complete as it is
-paradoxical, or of the mutual helplessness which results from total
-misunderstanding of the one by the other, or, finally, of the well-worn
-but still effective device――a favourite one in the theatre――of two
-people talking at cross-purposes, one meaning one thing, the other a
-different one, and the pair arriving at an harmonious agreement from
-utterly inharmonious premises――the false accord of a hundred scenes of
-comedy.
-
-Such are some of the arts of dialogue, as they are employed sometimes
-in the task of serious and delicate analysis, as for example by
-Mr. Henry James, sometimes in the cause of pure comedy, as by Gyp.
-That lady made an interesting experiment. She tried to indicate the
-gestures, wherein her countrymen are so eloquent, by a system of
-notation――so many notes of interrogation, or so many of exclamation,
-being B’s response to A’s spoken observation. But here, I think,
-she must be held to have resorted to ‘business’ as we have already
-discussed it, and to have passed beyond true dialogue. An ‘Oh’, an
-‘Ah!’ or a ‘Humph!’ constitute about the irreducible minimum of that
-articulate speech which makes dialogue. Notes of exclamation won’t
-quite do.
-
-One other function of dialogue deserves especial mention. Unless an
-author adopts the drastic course I have already alluded to――that of
-sinking himself absolutely in the personality of one of his characters
-and writing in the name and garb of that character――as for example
-did Defoe――and as, for example, does Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, when
-he plays Dr. Watson to Sherlock Holmes’s ‘lead’ as they say in the
-theatre――unless he does this, dialogue alone will enable him to impart
-‘local colour’, in other words, to set before his reader the speech and
-the mind of races or classes far different in their thoughts, in their
-modes of expression, and in their actual vocabulary and pronunciation,
-from what we may term the ordinary educated reader. Scores of Dickens’s
-cockney characters, Mr. Hardy’s Wessex rustics, Mr. Kipling’s soldiers,
-live and move and have their being for us solely in virtue of what they
-say and the way they say it. In fact they couldn’t be described――they
-must be seen and heard. They must be on the stage. Therefore they must
-use――their creators must use for them――that literary form which is,
-in the end, the link between novels and the stage――the form common to
-both――the form of dialogue.
-
-That last observation leads me naturally to pass on to the literary
-vehicle in which dialogue is in its glory――in which it is the sovereign
-instrument, in which it reaches its highest level of independence, in
-which it leans its lightest on any other aid than that inherent in its
-own capacity. This is the drama――and the drama written for the actual
-stage. I do not think that what are called ‘plays for the study’ need
-detain us. It is really only a question of degree in each case. They
-either approximate closely to the true stage-play or, on the other
-hand, they are really books in which, by artifice and often by an
-effort which is rather too visible, those parts that would naturally
-assume a narrative form, are presented in the guise of dialogue――or
-rather not so much of dialogue as we are now discussing it, but, as I
-should say, of speeches which are, in essence, either narrative, or
-argumentative, or reflective, or hortative in character.
-
-We may come then to the theatre itself――but before I attempt to say
-anything on the relations between stage dialogue and book dialogue, I
-should like to remind you again that even this greater independence
-of stage dialogue is very far indeed from being absolute. We have
-already referred to the stage-directions. These are amplified by the
-actor, of his own motion or in pursuit of the instructions he receives
-at rehearsal. The result is his ‘business’――everything he does on
-the stage except what he does with his tongue. The ‘business’ counts
-for much, but what counts for even more is that the words are spoken
-there on the stage by living man to living man. I think it is hard to
-exaggerate the effect of this――the immense help it gives to the words.
-It is not merely a question of vividness, though that is important
-enough. It is equally, or even more, a question of appropriateness,
-of the words matching the personality from which they proceed. The
-novelist can make his words match the personality which he has created
-in his own mind. Where he is at a disadvantage compared with the
-playwright is that it is infinitely harder for him, in spite of all
-_his_ stage-directions, and his descriptions, and his analysis, to
-set that personality as completely before his reader as the corporeal
-presence of the actor sets it before the audience in the theatre. Hence
-the match――the harmony――between the words and the personality――though
-it may exist, is apt not to be nearly so effective in the book as on
-the stage, and a line that misses its mark as written in the one may
-triumph in the other, thanks to the man who speaks it――to his skill,
-to his emotional power, not seldom, and especially in comedy, even
-to his personal appearance. In a word the independence of dialogue
-on the stage is qualified by its dependence on the actor. He has to
-do what the novelist does by descriptions and comments. He has to
-clothe the skeleton; and if it has been one’s fortune to see two or
-three great or accomplished actors play the same part, especially,
-say, in a classic play, where they are not guided――or trammelled――by
-too many stage-directions, and are not instructed――perhaps sometimes
-over-instructed――by the author, one will not, I think, doubt that the
-clothes they put on the skeleton may very considerably affect the
-appearance of its anatomy, sometimes seeming to alter the very shape of
-the bones.
-
-Still, all allowances made, it remains true that the stage offers the
-fullest, the fairest, and the most independent opportunity for pure
-dialogue――and it is necessary to ask the question――however hard the
-answer may be――what effect the medium of the theatre has upon dialogue.
-I admit at once that I think the question is very hard to answer. We
-are in presence of the indisputable fact that dialogue which is highly
-moving or amusing in a book may fall quite flat on the stage――while on
-the other hand dialogue which is very effective on the stage may sound
-either obvious or bald in a book. This is not to say, of course, that
-some dialogue will not be found good for both. Practical experiments
-are constantly being tried, owing to the habit of dramatizing novels
-which have achieved a popular success. The temptation is to carry over
-into the play as much of the dialogue of the novel as you can contrive
-to use; the object is to preserve as far as possible both the literary
-flavour and the commercial goodwill of the original. The result is
-interesting. The novelist, whether he acts as his own dramatist or not,
-will almost always notice, I think, that passages of dialogue which are
-most effective in the book are least effective on the stage――often
-that they need complete remodelling before they can be used at all.
-On the other hand, passages which he has little esteemed in the
-book――regarded perhaps almost as mere machinery, part of the necessary
-traffic of the story――make an immediate hit with audiences in the
-theatre.
-
-It is a commonplace in the theatrical world that there is no telling
-what ‘they’ will like――‘they’ means the public――not even what plays
-they will or will not like, much less what particular scenes or
-passages――and nobody with even the least practical experience would
-care to back his opinion save at very favourable odds. If then it is
-impossible to tell what they will or won’t like, it seems still more
-hopeless to inquire why they will or won’t like it; but that is, in
-reality, not quite the case. It is not, I think, so much that the
-playwright does not know what he has to do to please them, as that it
-happens to be rather difficult to do it, and quite as difficult to know
-when you have done it. Happily, however, we are to-night not on the
-hard highroad of practice, but in the easy pastures of criticism, and
-may therefore be bold to try to suggest what are the main features of
-good theatrical dialogue――features which, though they may be found in
-and may assist novel dialogue, yet are not indispensable to it, but
-which must characterize theatrical dialogue and are indispensable to
-success on the stage. These indispensable qualities may in the end be
-reduced to two――practicality and universality.
-
-By practicality――not a happy term, I confess, and one which I use only
-because I cannot think of any other single word――I mean the quality
-of helping the play forward, either by getting on with the evolution
-of the situations, or by exhibiting the drama which is the result of
-the situations (I must add, parenthetically, that by situations I do
-not mean merely external happenings――the term properly includes both
-characters and events, and their reciprocal action on one another). A
-play is a very short thing; a very solid four-act play――I am talking of
-the modern theatre now――will not cover more than 140 to 150 ordinary
-type-written sheets; a novel of the ordinary length will cover from
-three to four hundred. The obvious result is that the author has not,
-to put it colloquially, much time to play about. He may allow himself
-a little of what is technically termed ‘relief’. A good line pays for
-its place. But broadly speaking, all the dialogue has to work――each
-line has its task of advancing action or exhibiting character. Now
-only so many lines being possible between the rise and the fall of
-the curtain, it is clear that there is no room for digression or for
-rambling――things that are often most delightful in a book, where space
-and time are practically unlimited. More than this. Not only is there
-no space for rambling and irrelevant talk, but the necessary talk――the
-talk that is helpful and pertinent――must at the same time carefully
-consult the limits of space. There are a lot of points to be made in
-every act――aye, in every scene. The playwright cannot afford too much
-space to any one point. And the point must not only be made with all
-possible brevity――it must be made with all possible certainty, so that
-there may be no need of going back to it, no need of repetition; it
-should be stuck straight into the audience’s mind, as one sticks a pin
-into a chart. Hence there is need of directness――a certain quality of
-unmistakableness――one might almost say bluntness, when one compares
-theatrical dialogue with some of the minutely wrought novel dialogue
-to which I have referred to-night. But what then――I’m afraid you will
-be beginning to ask――what then, if you are right, is to become not only
-of the literary graces of style, but also of the intellectual quality
-of your work――of its profundity, of its subtlety, of its delicacy?
-Well, I can make only one answer――and being to-night, as I say, in
-the happy pastures of theory――I can give it light-heartedly. You must
-keep all those, and manage to harmonize them with your brevity and
-your certainty. That is one of the reasons――not the only one――why
-it is distinctly difficult to write good plays, not very easy to
-write even what are often contemptuously referred to as commercially
-successful plays――and not absolutely easy to write anything that can
-be called in any serious sense a play at all. There is a great deal
-of difference between just being a bad play and not being a play at
-all. The real playwright sometimes writes a bad play――but it is a play
-that he writes. Yes, your beauty, your profundity, your subtlety, your
-delicacy, must submit to drill――they must toe the line――they must
-accept the strait conditions of this most exacting medium. Conciseness
-and certainty――a quality of clean-cut outline――is demanded by stage
-conditions. The writer must know with accuracy where he is going at
-every minute and just how far. He ought to do the same in a book,
-you’ll say, and I admit it. But in the latter it is an ideal, and many
-a successful and even many a delightful book has been written without
-the ideal being reached――or perhaps even aimed at. On the stage the
-ideal is also the indispensable――for there a writer in the least of a
-mist wraps his audience in the densest fog.
-
-The second quality which I suggest as pre-eminently required by stage
-dialogue and which I have called universality really goes deeper and
-affects more than the mere dialogue, though strictly speaking we are
-this evening concerned with its effect in that sphere only. Consider
-for a moment the different aim which a writer of novels and a writer
-of plays respectively may set before himself. Of course the novelist
-may set out to please the whole British public――and the American
-and Continental too, if you like, though for simplicity’s sake we
-may confine ourselves to these islands. A certain number no doubt
-start with that aim. A few may have succeeded――very few. But such an
-ambitious task is in no way incumbent on the novelist. Whether he looks
-to his pride or his pocket, to fame or to a sufficient circulation, it
-is quite enough for him to please a section of the public. He may be a
-famous literary man and enjoy a large income, as fame and incomes go in
-authorship, without three-quarters of the adult population――let alone
-the boys and girls――knowing or caring one jot about him. And he may
-be quite content to have it so――content deliberately and voluntarily,
-and not merely perforce, to limit the extent of his appeal, finding
-compensation in the intenser, though narrower, appeal he makes to his
-chosen audience, and in the increased liberty to indulge and to develop
-his own bent――to go his own way, in short, happy in the knowledge that
-he has a select but sufficient body of devoted followers. For example,
-I don’t suppose that Mr. Meredith expected or tried to please the
-boys who worshipped Mr. Henty, or that Mr. Henty, in his turn, had
-any idea of poaching on the preserves of Mr. Pett Ridge. In a word,
-a novelist can, if he likes or if he must (often the latter is the
-case), specialize in his audience just as he can in his subject or his
-treatment. If he pleases the class he tries to please, all is well with
-him; he can let the others go, with just as much regret and just as
-much politeness as his circumstances and his temperament may dictate.
-
-Now, of course, this is true to some degree of the theatre also――at any
-rate in the great centres of population like London, where there are
-many neighbourhoods and many theatres. You would not expect to fill a
-popular ‘low price’ house with the same bill that might succeed at the
-St. James’s or, in recent days, at the Court Theatre. Nevertheless,
-it is immensely less true of the theatre than it is of the novel.
-Take the average West End theatre――it has to cater for all of us. The
-fashionable folk go, you and I go, our growing boys and girls go, our
-relations from the country go, our servants go, our butchers, bakers,
-and candlestick-makers go, the girls from the A.B.C. shops, and the
-young gentlemen from Marshall & Snelgrove’s go――we have all to be
-catered for――we have all to be pleased with the same dinner! Across the
-footlights lies a miniature world, in which wellnigh every variety that
-exists in the great world outside has paid its money and sits in its
-seat. Is this to say that the theatre must rely on the commonplace and
-obvious? Not at all――but it is to say that it must in the main rely on
-the universal――on that which appeals to all the varieties in virtue of
-the common humanity that underlies the variations. It must find, so to
-say, the least common denominator, and work through and appeal to that.
-The things that will do it differ profoundly――
-
-    ‘To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
-     Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
-     To the last syllable of recorded time,
-     And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
-     The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!’
-
-That does it. Or Congreve’s ‘Though Marriage makes man and wife
-one flesh, it leaves them still two fools!’――That does it, though
-obviously in quite a different way――or ‘Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art
-thou Romeo?’――again in a different way. Or again something quite
-elementary――even schoolboyish if one may dare to use the word of
-Shakespeare――may win its way by its absolute naturalness, as when
-Jacques says to Orlando――of Rosalind, ‘I do not like her name’――‘There
-was no thought of pleasing you when she was christened’――an unanswerable
-retort to an impertinent observation which I have never known to fail in
-pleasing the house. The thing may or may not be simple, it may or may
-not be profound, it may or may not be witty, but it must have a wide
-appeal――it must touch a common chord. I imagine that very few
-plays――though I think I have known a few――get produced and then please
-nobody――absolutely nobody in the house. I have known some failures that
-have pleased very highly people whom any author should be proud to
-please. But they haven’t pleased enough people――not merely not enough to
-succeed, but not enough to establish them as good plays, however much
-good literary stuff and good literary form there might be contained and
-exhibited in them.
-
-Now this need for universality――for the thing with a wide appeal
-not limited to this or that class or character of intellect――has
-its effect, I think, on the actual form of the dialogue, though I
-freely admit that is an effect extremely hard to measure and define
-with any approach to accuracy. It in no way excludes individuality
-or even whimsicality, whether in situation or dialogue. The writer
-who is probably the most successful living British dramatist to-day
-is also probably the most individual and the most whimsical. It in
-no way demands undue concession to the commonplace――but it does, I
-think, require that the dialogue shall be in some sense in the vulgar
-tongue――that it shall be understanded of the people. The thing need
-not be seen or put as the audience would see or put it, but it must
-be seen and put as the audience can understand that character seeing
-and putting it. It must not be perverse, or too mannered, or too
-obscure. It may not be allowed so much licence in this respect as
-book-dialogue, if only for the reason that its effect has to be much
-more immediate――there can be no such thing as reading the speech over
-again the better to grasp its meaning――a necessity not unknown in novel
-reading. Its appeal is immediate, or it is nothing at all. It must also
-be, above all things, natural――and this again is on the stage even
-more pre-eminently requisite than in the written page――if only for the
-reason that the speaker is more vividly realized on the stage, and
-the author less vividly remembered――so that any discrepancy between
-the speaker as he lives before you and the particular thing he says
-is more glaringly apparent. And, as a corollary to this necessity for
-naturalness, follows the need for full and distinct differentiation of
-character. The dialogue must clearly attach to each character in the
-play his point of view and must consistently maintain it. On the whole
-therefore we may say that the universality of appeal which the stage
-demands operates on the form of the dialogue by way of imposing upon it
-certain obligations of straightforwardness of effect, of lucidity and
-immediateness in appeal, and of naturalness and exact appropriateness
-to the speaker――obligations which exist for book-dialogue also, but are
-less stringent and less peremptory there than in the theatre.
-
-This question of naturalness, which is germane to the whole subject
-of dialogue and not merely to stage dialogue, is one of the most
-difficult things to lay down any rule about. It is not easy even
-to get any working formula which is helpful. On the one side there
-seems to lie the obvious rule――that all dialogue ought to be natural,
-appropriate to the person in whose mouth it is put――not merely what
-in substance he would say, but also said in the way he would say it.
-On the other side is the obvious fact that no two writers of any
-considerable merit do, as a fact, write dialogue in the same way, even
-when they are presenting the same sort of characters. Comparatively
-impersonal as the dialogue form is, when set beside the narrative, yet
-the writer’s idiosyncrasy will have its way, and in greater or less
-degree the author’s accent is heard from the lips of his imaginary
-interlocutors――and of each and all of them, however widely different
-they may be supposed to be, and really are, from one another. This
-appears to land us in an _impasse_; the obvious fact seems to conflict
-with the obvious rule. If it be so, I suppose the rule must go to the
-wall, for all its obviousness. But I fancy that some approach to a
-solution may be found in the suggestion that no two authors of creative
-power do, in fact, ever create characters of quite the same sort, and
-that we got into a seeming _impasse_ by being guilty of a fallacy.
-When an author sits down at his desk to contemplate, criticize, and
-reproduce the world about him, it is natural at the first thought to
-regard the author as subject contemplating and reproducing the world
-as object――pure subject as against pure object. Here is the fallacy
-as I conceive. The author as subject does not and cannot contemplate
-the world as pure object. What he sees is object-subject――that is to
-say, he consciously sets himself to contemplate and describe a world
-which is already modified for him by the unconscious projection of
-his own personality into it――or, in more homely language, he always
-looks through his own spectacles. It follows that when two creative
-minds――say Dickens and Thackeray――both set out to describe a duke or
-a costermonger, it is never the same duke or costermonger――it is not
-the abstract idea of duke or costermonger, laid up in heaven――but
-it is a duke-Dickens or a duke-Thackeray――a costermonger-Dickens
-or a costermonger-Thackeray. Consequently again it is not in the
-end natural――and, therefore, as the Admirable Crichton would remind
-us, it is not in the end right――that these two dukes or these two
-costermongers should speak in exactly the same way――though no doubt
-both of the pairs ought still to speak as dukes and costermongers of
-some sort――be it Dickensian or Thackerayan as the case may be. Of
-course, if an author’s idiosyncrasy is so peculiar that the subjective
-infusion of himself which he pours into the objective costermonger
-is so powerful as to cause the human race at large to object that no
-costermonger of any kind whatsoever ever did or could speak in that
-way――well, then the world will say that the picture of the costermonger
-is untrue and the language of the costermonger is inappropriate and
-unnatural――a conclusion summed up by saying that the author can’t draw
-a costermonger. His personality won’t blend with costermongers――perhaps
-it will with dukes――he had better confine himself to the latter. The
-author may take comfort in the thought that there are sure to be a
-few persons enamoured of singularity, and perhaps liking to be wiser
-than their neighbours, who will declare that his costermongers are
-of a superior brand to all others, and are indeed the only complete
-and veritable revelation of the quiddity of the costermonger ever set
-before the world since that planet began its journey round the sun.
-
-We arrive, then――as we draw near the close of these remarks――rather
-rambling remarks, I am afraid――at the conclusion, perhaps a conclusion
-with a touch of the paradoxical in it――that in dialogue the writer is
-always trying to do what in the nature of the case he can never do
-completely. He is always trying to present objectively a personality
-other than his own. He never fully succeeds, and it would be to the
-ruin of his work as literature, if he did. The creator is always there
-in the created, and it is probably true to say that he is there in
-greater degree just in proportion to the force of his personality and
-the power of his creative faculty. Is the greater writer then less
-true to life than the smaller? I am not going to be as surprising as
-that――for, though he puts in more of himself, the greater writer sees
-and puts in a lot more of the objective costermonger also. But it is,
-I think, true to say that what we get from him is not, in the strict
-use of words, anything that exists. It is a hypothetical person, if
-I may so put it――it is a compound of what the author takes from the
-world outside and what he himself contributes. The result is, then――to
-take an instance or two――in Diana of the Crossways, not an actual
-historical character, but what Mr. Meredith would have been had he been
-that lady――not an actual skipper of a coastwise barge, but what Mr.
-Jacobs would have been had he been skipper of a barge――not an actual
-detective, but what Gaboriau, or Wilkie Collins, or Sir Arthur Conan
-Doyle would have been had he been a detective, or, to take extreme
-cases, not the inhabitants of the jungle, but all the varieties which
-Mr. Kipling’s fertile genius would have assumed if he had had to people
-the jungle all off his own bat. True as this is of all imaginative
-writing, it is most true of dialogue. That is an attempt at direct
-impersonation, as direct as the actor’s on the stage――and it is and
-can be successful only within the limits indicated. The author, like
-the actor, must go on trying to do what he never can and never ought
-to succeed in doing――namely, obliterating his own personality. The
-real process is not obliteration but transformation or translation――a
-fusion of himself with each of his speakers――he modifies each of them
-and is himself in each case modified by the fusion. And we may probably
-measure a man’s genius in no small degree just by his susceptibility
-to this fusion. We talk of Shakespeare’s universal genius, and say
-that he ‘understands’ everybody; that is to say, that he is at home
-in speaking in any man’s mask――that he can fuse himself with anybody.
-Lesser writers can fuse only with people of a certain type, or a
-certain class, or a certain period, or a certain way of thinking. Some
-very clever people and accomplished writers fail in the novel or the
-play because they are deficient in the power of fusing at all, and
-their own personality is always the overpowering ingredient, so that
-they can preach, or teach, or criticize, but they cannot, as the saying
-goes, get into another man’s skin――a popular way of putting the matter
-which will express the truth about what is needful very well, if we add
-the proviso that when the author gets in he must not drive the original
-owner out, but the two must dwell together in unity.
-
-Thus we see dialogue fall into its place among the varieties of
-literary expression, as the most imitative and the least personal, yet
-not as entirely imitative nor as wholly impersonal. It carries the
-imitative and impersonal much further than the lyric coming straight
-from the poet’s own heart, much further than the philosophic poem with
-its questioning of a man’s own thoughts about the universe, further
-than narrative with its frankly personal record of how things appear
-to the narrator, and its unblushing attempt to make them appear in
-the same light to the reader. At its best it carries imitation to
-such a point that its own excellence alone convinces us that there is
-something more than imitation after all, and more than the insight
-which makes imitation possible――that among all the infinitely diverse
-creations of a rich imagination and an unerring penetration there is
-still a point of unity, which determines the exact attitude of each
-character towards the life which it is his to lead and the world which
-he has to live in. The point of unity is the author’s voice, veiled and
-muffled, but audible still, however various, however fantastic, however
-transformed, the accents in which it speaks. The unity in multiplicity
-for which poetry yearns, philosophy labours, and science untiringly
-seeks――this is also the aim and ideal of dialogue, and of drama, its
-completest form――so that out of the infinite diversity of types and
-of individuals which pour forth from the mind of a great creator there
-shall still emerge something that we know to be his, something that he
-has given to, as well as all that he has taken from, the great scene
-about him, his view of life as it must present itself to all sorts and
-conditions of men, his criticism of a world in which all these sorts
-and conditions of men exist.
-
-
-
-
-The following Publications have been issued by the Association, and
-can be purchased only by members on application to the Secretary, Miss
-ELIZABETH LEE, 8 Mornington Avenue Mansions, West Kensington, London:――
-
-
-                                 1907.
-
- No. 1.  Types of English Curricula in Boys’ Secondary Schools.
-                                                              Price 6d.
-
- No. 2.  The Teaching of Shakespeare in Secondary Schools
-           (Provisional suggestions).                         Price 1d.
-
- No. 3.  A Short List of Books on English Literature from the beginning
-           to 1832, for the use of Teachers.
-                                  Price 6d. (to Associate Members, 1s.)
-
-
-                                 1908.
-
- No. 4.  Shelley’s View of Poetry. A Lecture by Professor A. C. Bradley,
-           Litt.D.                                            Price 1s.
-
- No. 5.  English Literature in Secondary Schools. By J. H. Fowler, M.A.
-                                                 (Reprinted.) Price 6d.
-
- No. 6.  The Teaching of English in Girls’ Secondary Schools.
-           By Miss G. Clement, B.A.           (Out of print.) Price 6d.
-
- No. 7.  The Teaching of Shakespeare in Schools.              Price 6d.
-
- No. 8.  Types of English Curricula in Girls’ Secondary Schools.
-                                              (Out of print.) Price 6d.
-
-
-                                 1909.
-
- No. 9.  Milton and Party. By Professor O. Elton, M.A.
-                                              (Out of print.) Price 6d.
-
- No. 10. Romance. By W. P. Ker.                               Price 6d.
-
- No. 11. What still remains to be done for the Scottish Dialects.
-           By W. Grant.                                       Price 6d.
-
- No. 12. Summary of Examinations in English affecting Schools.
-                                                              Price 6d.
-
- No. 13. The Impersonal Aspect of Shakespeare’s Art. By
-           Sidney Lee, D.Litt.                                Price 1s.
-
-
-                   *       *       *       *       *
-
-
- Transcriber’s Notes:
-
- ――Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
-
- ――Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.
-
- ――Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.
-
- ――Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.
-
-*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DIALOGUE ***
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
-United States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
-the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
-of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
-copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
-easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
-of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
-Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
-do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
-by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
-license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country other than the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
-  you are located before using this eBook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that:
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
-the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
-forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
-Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
-to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
-and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without
-widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.