P r e f a c e

_________________________________

OF the plays here offered, the first in order of writing was "Prince Hagen": a dramatization of a novel published nearly ten years ago. The author had always been dissatisfied with this novel, and he found that a new version of the theme was taking shape in his mind. The play which resulted was tried out under the author's direction at the Valencia Theatre, San Francisco, in January, 1909. In the light of the experience thus gained the play was entirely rewritten, and the new version of it is here presented.

     The second of the plays in point of time was "The Second-story Man." This little sketch, with two others, was given by a dramatic company, organized by the writer, in a dozen or so cities of California in 1909. The playlet is perhaps the most dramatic thing the author has written; concerning the opening performance the San Francisco «Bulletin» declared that "the applause was the most tumultuous ever witnessed in any theatre in this city"; and in two other cities the audience compelled the repetition of the piece. As an illustration of the difficulties encountered by a writer who seeks to use the stage in America as a medium for the setting forth of radical ideas, it may be mentioned that the production was offered to the head of the vaudeville "syndicate" in San Francisco, who declared his unqualified approval of it; but upon an account of the play being telegraphed to New York, word came in reply that nothing so radical could be accepted. "The Second-story Man" has been since presented in vaudeville on several occasions, but always with the same result - enthusiastic acceptance by the audience, and inability to obtain regular bookings from those "higher up". The playlet has been published, and also presented under Socialistic auspices, in England and Australia, in Germany, France and Italy.

     The third play to be written was "The Machine", concerning which the following explanation should be made. Four or five years ago the writer set to work upon what he intended to be a trilogy of novels portraying the life of the city of New York. The first of these novels, "The Metropolis", dealt with what calls itself "society"; the second, "The Moneychangers", with "high finance"; the third, which was to be called "The Machine," was to carry its hero through a political career, presenting a study of "Tammany Hall" and the slums. This work was undertaken at a time when the writer was in wretched health and under great nervous strain. He was unable to make either of the two published volumes what he had intended; and the third volume he was unable to write at all - the most superficial study of the material brought him into contact with so much misery and oppression that he found the attempt was literally wrecking him.

     The theme, however, kept haunting him, and conditions which he had discovered cried out for publicity. He found that the work was taking, in his mind, the shape of a play, and so finally it came to be written. He is aware of the fact that two inadequate novels and a play constitute a somewhat dubious literary form. However, "The Machine" is to be read by itself - he makes the explanation here merely in order that readers of "The Metropolis" and "The Moneychangers" may understand why they find the same characters in the play, and may know what was the story to which the two novels were intended to lead up.

     When this play was finished I took it to a manager-friend. He said, "It is as good as any political play that I ever saw, but the public won't stand for that kind of political play." I then took it to another friend, one of the most successful playwrights in America, a man who has made a large fortune out of plays which portray modern conditions. I told him that I had written a drama dealing with politics and high finance in New York.

     He said, "I will read it, but I know in advance that it will be impossible."

     "Why?" I asked.

     "You have treated it realistically, have you not?"

     I hesitated for a moment, then answered, "Yes."

     "Of course," he said, "and the public won't stand for realistic treatment of such a theme. If you want to deal with politics and high finance, you must treat it sentimentally, you must 'fake' it, as I did in '----'." He named one of the most successful of his plays.

     After which I took the play to a third friend, an actor-manager who ranks at the top of his profession. He said, "I read it with interest, but I couldn't put on a play like that. Tammany Hall would close me up in a week."

     I narrate these anecdotes by way of illustrating what a man encounters who attempts to found a revolutionary drama in America. I can only assure my readers that I intend to stand by my guns. I do not intend to deal with American capitalism "sentimentally", I do not intend to "fake" my portrayal of it. I spent ten years of my life fighting for the privilege of writing my novels as I wished them. I am willing to spend another ten years fighting for the privilege of writing plays. I believe that in "The Machine" I have produced an acting play, which the people of New York will some day see on the stage; They will see it, if for no other reason than because they need to know the facts which it sets forth.

     The youngest of my dramatic children is "The Naturewoman"; and she is too young to have had much of a past. Those to whom I showed her were unanimous in the opinion that I would have to put some more clothes upon her before she could be admitted upon the New York stage. A friend sent her to that "specialist in immoral and heretical plays," Mr. George Bernard Shaw, who made the comment "Of course, plenty of dramatic and literary faculty has gone to the making of it, but Sinclair is a traitor to civilization, and his main thesis, which is that a woman with the habits and ideas of a porpoise is superior to a woman with the habits and ideas of Madame Roland, will not wash." My reply to this is, that "The Naturewoman" represents a definite reaction in my attitude to life. For the first fifteen years of my independent intellectual existence, I was a disciple of the ideal of "spirituality"; I sought the things of the mind and "soul" exclusively - until suddenly I awakened to a realization of the fact that I had lost the power of digesting food. Now I have come to the conviction that it is better to have "the habits and ideas of a porpoise" - with a porpoise's digestion - than it is to have "the habits and ideas of Madame Roland" - plus the headaches and backaches which most of the Madame Rolands of my knowledge are obliged to contend with.

     In conclusion, I desire to put on record the fact concerning "Prince Hagen" and "The Machine", that they were offered to the New Theatre, and declined. Referring to the former play, the representative of the institution remarked to my play-agent that it was "a powerful work but contrary to the principles of the founders". This phrase has stayed in my mind; I am tempted to take it up and immortalize it. It would be by no means an uninstructive performance to take the list of the twenty founders of the New Theatre, as printed upon all its programs, and study their careers, both public and private, and inquire as to the "principles" which have actuated them. The New Theatre was founded to improve dramatic taste in this country, to lead the way to a new dramatic awakening. So far, in the judgment of many critics, it has failed; and it is surely worth while that some one who is free to speak plainly should point out the reason for the failure.

     It is the obvious fact that the next task before the American people is to take their political and industrial affairs out of the hands of gentlemen of the type of the founders of the New Theatre; and that the rousing of the American people to this task is the duty now before the country's writers and thinkers. In every nation of Europe today there is a school of dramatists who are enlisted more or less consciously and definitely in such an undertaking. Hauptmann, Halbe, Gorki, Andreiev, Heijermans, Van Eeden, Maeterlinck, Brieux, Hervieux, Bernard Shaw, Granville Barker, John Galsworthy - these men are the creators of worth-while and vital drama; and that we can name no such men in America means simply that in America the drama has not yet come to face the realities of modern life. It will not be long, I think, before we shall witness a change in this regard. The point I am making here is, that the New Theatre can have nothing to do with any such awakening - at least not so long as its "founders" have any control whatever over its destinies.

     Of what service these present plays may prove in the work of establishing a revolutionary drama in this country, the writer will make no attempt to predict. Only this much he will say - that they are the work of a man who has faced the realities of modern life; who is a passionate lover of the theatre, and intends to devote the greater part of his time from now on to the attempt to write for it. It is his plan to print his plays in book-form, and leave it for those to whom they may appeal to find some way of getting them before the public.