When I invented “The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change” for my Playwriting students, they were not happy with that indoctrination because my doctrine conflicted with their simpler wishes and wants to flatly relate the stories of their lives.

Many amateur Playwrights just want to retell something that happened to them and have it immortalized on stage.

While that is fine, you must make your play idea subservient to the the greater requirements of Aristotle.

Every play must end obeying The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change — and that means things can never be the same as they were when the play started.  There is no harsher criticism for a play than: “Nothing happened.”  When “nothing happens” that means “nothing changed” and that means, “The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change was not honored.”

Crafting Irrevocable Change is a big task for any Playwright because the stakes are so high and hard to reach.  The simplest form of Irrevocable Change is a death.

Creating Irrevocable Change that is more subtle, but still as torturous, is the difference between a master Playwright and all the rest.

Irrevocable Change is found throughout the conflict of the choices characters make in any dramatic presentation.

Every character in a play must be made to make a choice that conflicts with something or someone else in the play.  It is through that conflict that the drama lives and the characters become real.

If nothing is at stake — happiness, home, money, art, life — then there cannot be Irrevocable Change.

Sometimes thing change, but they can always be fixed and put back right.  That’s what happens in real life.  Things change.  We change.  We move on.

On the stage — in the hyperrealistic frame of time the context of heightened place — that change must be Irrevocable… meaning once a choice is made, that decision can never be undone, reversed, apologized for, or in any other way put back to the way it was before that Irrevocable Change decision was made.

One example of an immaculately crafted Doctrine of Irrevocable Change moment can be found in the ending of Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play, “A Doll House.”

Nora, a childlike and immature wife to the disinterested and controlling Torvald, decides at the end of the play, to leave him and her children.  The play ends with her walking out of the house and slamming the door behind her.

Modern audiences cheer Nora’s decision to leave her family and live her own life — but that is a fatal and conveniently self-centered notion of conflict and The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change.

Audiences in 1879 fully knew that for a woman of Nora’s age and stature to leave her children and her husband — she had no right to property or money of her own — meant she wasn’t just leaving her family for freedom.

Nora was leaping into her death.

When Nora slammed the door behind her in 1879, she had no place to go, she had no one to turn to, and while she had irrevocably reclaimed the scent of momentary freedom, the immediate reality was a crushing homelessness, prostitution and societal degradation that would quickly pummel her into an empty, but rancid, death.

The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change of a woman leaving her husband and children in 1879 was so real and devastating to audiences that Germany refused to stage the play unless Ibsen, a Norwegian, rewrote the the ending and Nora came back into the house and recanted her want to leave and she had to express her new devotion to home, hearth, husband and her young children.

Ibsen hated the new ending Germany required, but he wrote the ending they wanted in order to get the play staged — Ibsen needed the money and the publicity — and then later, as society and social mores changed, Ibsen was able to restore his original ending for German audiences.

As you struggle with the requirement of “The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change” — you must always brutally ask yourself for honesty while writing by wondering aloud to the world, “Can they go back?  Can this be fixed?”

If the answer to either of those questions is ever “Yes” … then you must stop the writing process and track back to a moment — existing or newly crafted — where an irrevocable change decision must be made.  You will recognize that instant because it is always shrouded in heartbreak, anger and sorrow.

Posted by David Boles

David Boles was born in Nebraska and his MFA is from Columbia University in the City of New York. He is an Author, Lyricist, Playwright, Publisher, Editor, Actor, Designer, Director, Poet, Producer, and Boodle Boy for print, radio, television, film, the web and the live stage. With more than 50 books in print, David continues to write 2MM words a year. He has authored over 25K articles and published more. Read the Prairie Voice Archive at Boles.com | Buy his books at David Boles Books Writing & Publishing | Earn the world with David Boles University | Get a script doctored at Script Professor | Touch American Sign Language mastery at Hardcore ASL.

17 Comments

  1. I am enamored by this doctrine, David. There’s a vast difference between a good play and, say, the Doctor Seuss story “…and to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street!” Great stories are more than just, “Oh, interesting thing happened to me the other day.”🙂

    Like

    Reply

  2. The doctrine does have crosscurrents as you have pointed out, Gordon. I watched an HBO documentary the other night on Heidi Fleiss’ new stud ranch for women — Gay men, really — and she was telling the story of her favorite book, “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein. She was so affected by the story that she choked up and couldn’t continue. Now that’s power. That’s Irrevocable Change in action. The dramatic effect is everlasting!

    Like

    Reply

  3. Another great lesson for printing, David. Thanks so much for insight and teaching.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I’m so glad you find these new United Stage pieces worthwhile, Anne. Thank you!

    Like

    Reply

  5. kathakali.chatterjee December 30, 2009 at 9:40 am

    I absolutely froze when I saw the “King Oedipus” to be staged…talk about “doctrine of irrevocable change”…I avoided reading the play for long…

    Like

    Reply

  6. That is the classic example of conflict and tension and irrevocable change. So few modern dramas can even come near matching its perfection. Aristotle called it, “The Perfect Play.”

    Like

    Reply

  7. […] most fascinating irrevocable change in the first episode was The Self-Righteous Bible Thumping Carpenter — who moved from New […]

    Like

    Reply

  8. […] you have no honor in presenting the horribleness of the underlying meaning?  If there’s no Irrevocable Change, then there’s no reason to pursue such a wrongful […]

    Like

    Reply

  9. […] by a goodhearted and neighborly rectifier, and what was therefore lost, is intrinsically, and irretrievably, much more valuable than what was spent in the forced, but failed, […]

    Like

    Reply

  10. […] death in your eyes and wondering every instant of every day if you will live or die with real, irrevocable consequences; and while I do not measure up to Howard as a man or as a warrior, I can still take his lessons […]

    Like

    Reply

  11. […] unjustified in the context of the virtue of the show. Sure, killing Joe is an easy means to an irrevocable, Twilight Zone ending, but it was unfaithful to the emotional merits of the entire […]

    Like

    Reply

  12. […] always prefer the imperfect lie to the beauty of the plain truth of a straight line because we crave conflict and we are coded for drama and […]

    Like

    Reply

  13. […] on instinct.  Playwrights are trained to craft repercussions in the most terrible way using the Doctrine of Irrevocable Change: Every play must end obeying The Doctrine of Irrevocable Change — and that means things can never […]

    Like

    Reply

  14. […] has the father in him taken over the misogynist adolescent that plagued his political ambitions like Oedipus was haunted by a sexual curse he did not want, or desire, but […]

    Like

    Reply

  15. […] wonder the USA is in a deep and irrevocable moral abyss.  Children can’t trust their parents.  Parents are less moral than their offspring.  We […]

    Like

    Reply

  16. […] wonder the USA is in a deep and irrevocable moral abyss.  Children can’t trust their parents.  Parents are less moral than their offspring.  We laugh […]

    Like

    Reply

  17. […] bringing coiled drama into an explosion on the live stage. If the purpose of the Dramatic Arts is irrevocable change, they reasoned, then coiled detritus is the user agent that propels forward the story to the […]

    Like

    Reply

Share Your Thoughts:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s