Writing for Vaudeville | Page 9

and Miller
played it with consummate art.
The vaudeville playlet and the play that is merely short, are separate art
forms, they are precisely and as distinctly different as the short-story
and the story that is merely short. It is only within the last few years
that Brander Matthews drew attention to the artistic isolation of the
short-story; and J. Berg Esenwein, in his very valuable work [1],
established the truth so that all might read and know it. For years I have
contended for the recognition of the playlet as an art form distinct from
the play that is short.
[1] Writing the Short-Story, by J. Berg Esenwein, published uniform
with this volume, in, "The Writer's Library."
And what is true of the peculiar difference of the playlet form is, in a
lesser measure, true of the monologue, the two-act, and the one-act
musical comedy. They are all different from their sisters and brothers
that are found as integral parts of full-evening entertainments.
To recognize these forms as distinct, to learn what material [2] best
lends itself to them and how it may be turned into the most natural and
efficient form, requires a special training different from that necessary
for the writing of plays for the legitimate stage.
[2] The word material in vaudeville means manuscript material. To
write vaudeville material is to write monologues and playlets and the
other forms of stage speech used in vaudeville acts.
But not only is there a vast difference between the material and the art
forms of the legitimate and the vaudeville stage, there is also a great
difference in their playing stages. The arrangements of the vaudeville
stage, its lights and scenery, are all unique, as are even the playing
spaces and mechanical equipment.
Therefore the author must know the mechanical aids peculiar to his
special craft, as well as possess a familiar knowledge of the material

that vaudeville welcomes and the unique forms into which that material
must be cast.
4. What Chance Has the Beginner?
The "gentle reader" who has read thus far certainly has not been
deterred by the emphasis--not undue emphasis, by the way--placed on
the value of proved ability in other forms of writing to one who would
write for vaudeville. That he has not been discouraged by what has
been said--if he is a novice--proves that he is not easily downcast. If he
has been discouraged--even if he has read this far simply from
curiosity--proves that he is precisely the person who should not waste
his time trying to write for vaudeville. Such a person is one who ought
to ponder his lack of fitness for the work in hand and turn all his
energies into his own business. Many a good clerk, it has been truly
said, has been wasted in a poor writer.
But, while emphasis has been laid upon the value of training in other
forms of literary work, the emphasis has been placed not on purely
literary skill, but on the possession of ideas and the training necessary
to turn the ideas to account. It is "up to" the ambitious beginner,
therefore, to analyze the problem for himself and to decide if he
possesses the peculiar qualifications that can by great energy and this
special training place him upon a par with the write who has made a
success in other forms of literary work. For there is a sense in which no
literary training is really necessary for success in vaudeville writing.
If the amateur has an imaginative mind, the innate ability to see and
turn to his own uses an interesting and coherent story, and is possessed
of the ability to think in drama, and, above all, has the gift of humor, he
can write good vaudeville material, even if he has not education or
ability to write an acceptable poem, article or short-story. In other
words, a mastery of English prose or verse is not necessary for success
in vaudeville writing. Some of the most successful popular songs, the
most successful playlets, and other vaudeville acts, have been written
by men unable to write even a good letter.
But the constant advancement in excellence demanded of vaudeville

material, both by the managers and the public, is gradually making it
profitable for only the best-educated, specially-trained writers to
undertake this form of work. The old, illiterate, rough-and-ready writer
is passing, in a day when the "coon shouter" has given the
headline-place to Calve and Melba, and every dramatic star has
followed Sarah Bernhardt into the "two-a-day." [1]
[1] The _two-a-day_ is stage argot for vaudeville. It comes from the
number of performances the actor "does," for in vaudeville there are
two shows every day, six or seven days a week.
Nevertheless, in this sense the novice needs no literary training.