Our topic say's "Cal-a drama?"! What i now like to discuss is, if it would be possible to perform "cal" as a classic drama on a stage? Maybe in the way of an old greek theater or better in a modern way, for example as a musical?

That's an interesting approach, whereas you have to be careful by putting "musicals" on a level with "modern drama". A musical is more than a drama; it is drama, operetta, cabaret and opera at once. But I'd prefer to deal with the question "Cal - A Drama?" in a more theoretic way. The ability to play a work on stage isn't totally essential for calling a work a "drama". (Think of Faust II, it is called to be "unactable" but it is known as a drama.) Let us discuss about the stylistic devices, arc of suspense, plot, conflict, and how the protagonist is situated in the circumstances. And let us compare these aspects with the Drama Theory. Our first point of reference may be Freytag's well-known pyramid.



I'm not really sure about calling "Cal" a drama. Is there a climax? A denouement? A real change in the conflict?
I don't really think so. What do you think? And which criteria would you like to take?

I'm unsure as well. But i think you could call Cal's change ;) in relation to the IRA as a change in (his) conflict! Like our task in the exam, I think there's a change in his mind on page 57-58 and maybe a bit earlier. Before this passage he was just a follower to the leader, but from this passage on he begins to have his own opinion about the IRA and gets independet. In my opinoin you could say its a change in the conflicht and maybe even the climax?

I had to think long about this question, because my first reaction was "No, Cal can't be a drama!", but the more I think about it, I believe that you actually can count this novel also a drama. A drama should be constructed, like Timm allready mentioned, with an climax at the middle of that plot. This point is reached when Cal gets deeper and deeper into trouble, the action rises more and more, for example when his house was bourned down or when he mets this group of people at the street which wanted to fight with him. For me it's obvious that the tension rises from the beginnig to the middle of the novel. The question I have is, if the tension falls after that. For me it is at the same level like before, because it gets more and more interesting, how the constellation between Cal and Marcella develops. And also when he nearly gets caught by the army and they nearly find his gun because they thought he would be in this house because he plans an attack at the family of Marcella, I guess the tension doesn't fall, quite the contrary, I was really excited about that book.
So I want to argument for a semi-drama, if you can say that. The structure reminds me of a drama, but I wouldn't call it like that.

Lennard, I share your opinion concerning the continuous tension and because of that factor I wouldn't call 'Cal' a Drama. There would have have to be a resolution, and an end of the conflict. The death of every one (tragedy) or a harmonic fraternity (comedy) in which the relationship of Cahal and Marcella would end in happiness (or in a wedding) and the IRA would lay down the weapons. But they didn't. Just a few bad guys got caught.

And concerning this matter (the bad guys) there's another thing to say. According to the classical drama theory of Aristotle there are black and white characters. The good ones and the bad ones. It shall not be hard for the audience to take party for the good protagonist unlimitedly and to detest the bad guys. But are there fully bad figures and angle-like figures in this book? A classical hero and the villain? I don't think so but the classical drama theory requires this. And if we'd like to answer the question 'Cal - a drama?' then we should ask 'Cal - a classical drama' and the answer is 'No'. And this is my opinion:

'Cal' is not drama in the classical term with the classical characteristics. There's neither a bright hero nor the dark evil villain (even Skeffington has got his virtues). The thrilling proceedings do not end in a resolution which is characterized by death (tragedy) or harmony (comedy). They partly end in uncertainty (when Skeffington, Crilly and Cal get captured) but the frame story (the anglo-irish conflict) doesn't end at all and doesn't even change slightly.

'Cal' is a narrative in which a fictional character is set in a realistic environment. The protagonist experiences a world of tension in which the individual judgement is continuously doubtful. And so the reader's judgement is too. The story of Cal is too complex to make the reader sympathize with the protagonist fully. It is too realistic to be a drama.

I like you statement Timm, especial the end. I'm the same opinion. But there's somehing, we didn't considered now: Aristotelian three units! And like we all said before, this units are also against the idea of "Cal" as a Drama. Something like a unit of Time and place is not given in the book, maybe the unit of action, but for me, mostly not. In order to your statement, it shows, that "Cal" is to complex to be a drama, at least, for me, there are also to many persons acting, as it could be a drama.

Finaly, I think, we have thought of everything, so we could say, with a clear conscience, that "Cal" (never) can be a drama. There is no real Freytag pyramid, nor the Aristotelian three units and no tipical ending for a drama!

I support what you wrote too. The story/plot of “Cal” does not fit in the classical figure of a drama. Neither there is a “Rising action” nor a “Falling action” in a obvious way. The figure of a classical drama is set to five chapters, including the initial situation or exposition, the rising action, the climax and peripety, the falling action and the resolution in this strict order. But “Cal” nevertheless doesn’t fit in. I think it’s hard to figure out something like a middle of the story where everything is turning around.

The aspect concerning place and time is very nice. I didn’t think of it on my own. But when you mention it I see the point what definitely supports the refuting of any considerations that could put “Cal” into a drama or better classical drama. I just don’t agree with argueing against “Cal” as a drama by mentioning the number of people in it. Those ain’t as much as it would be problematically to deal them as an argument. I just count to nine people who say more or less. In Schiller’s Maria Stuart what we had handled with in class a few years ago there were 23 people, which were speaking and acting or just acting.

I conclude that “Cal” is definitely no classical drama as we call this sort concerning Freytag’s Pyramid. Too much characterizing aspects like the Pyramid’s structure or the compactness of place and time miss or diverge from the original idea of themselves. “Drama” is a meanwhile spacious term, that is used in many different variations. Once it means play with different roles, other time it is just used for describing a film as dramatically in the meaning of thrilling and fascinating. So “Cal” isn’t a drama like Aristoteles defined it but it could fit in several meanings of “drama” for example in the modern language use.

That was me, I forgot to log in. ^^

I agree with you. I thinkt that "Cal" doesn't show many of the aspects which are mentioned in a typical classical drama.
It just can be played as a sort of a modern drama because the book is writen as a novel and like Max R. allready said the book (plot etc.) doesn't fit in an classical drama.

and I think - to give an answer to JJJ first question- it would be hart to performe it on stage because I think that you are not abel to show all the places where it plays- but they are all importent.
It would be easier to make a movie about the book.