Nothing is commoner in modern house-planning than rooms which have at least two doors and a French window.  We constantly see rooms or halls which, if transported to the stage, would provide three or four entrances and exits; and this is even more true of the “central heated” houses of America than of English houses.  The technical purists used especially to despise the French window—­a harmless, agreeable and very common device.  Why the playwright should make “one room one door” an inexorable canon of art is more than human reason can divine.  There are cases, no doubt, in which probability demands that the dramatist should be content with one practicable opening to his scene, and should plan his entrances and exits accordingly.  This is no such great feat as might be imagined.  Indeed a playwright will sometimes deliberately place a particular act in a room with one door, because it happens to facilitate the movement he desires.  It is absurd to lay down any rule in the matter, other than that the scene should provide a probable locality for whatever action is to take place in it.  I am the last to defend the old French farce with its ten or a dozen doors through which the characters kept scuttling in and out like rabbits in a warren.  But the fact that we are tired of conventional laxity is no good reason for rushing to the other extreme of conventional and hampering austerity.

Similarly, because the forged will and the lost “marriage lines” have been rightly relegated to melodrama, is there any reason why we should banish from the stage every form of written document?  Mr. Bernard Shaw, in an article celebrating the advent of the new technique, once wrote, “Nowadays an actor cannot open a letter or toss off somebody else’s glass of poison without having to face a brutal outburst of jeering.”  What an extravagance to bracket as equally exploded absurdities the opening of a letter and the tossing off of the wrong glass of poison!  Letters—­more’s the pity—­play a gigantic part in the economy of modern life.  The General Post Office is a vast mechanism for the distribution of tragedy, comedy, melodrama, and farce throughout the country and throughout the world.  To whose door has not Destiny come in the disguise of a postman, and slipped its decree, with a double rat-tat, into the letter-box?  Whose heart has not sickened as he heard the postman’s footstep pass his door without pausing?  Whose hand has not trembled as he opened a letter?  Whose face has not blanched as he took in its import, almost without reading the words?  Why, I would fain know, should our stage-picture of life be falsified by the banishment of the postman?  Even the revelation brought about by the discovery of a forgotten letter or bundle of letters is not an infrequent incident of daily life.  Why should it be tabu on the stage?  Because the French dramatist, forty years ago, would sometimes construct a Chinese-puzzle play around some stolen letter or hidden document, are we to suffer no “scrap of paper” to play any part whatever in English drama?  Even the Hebrew sense of justice would recoil from such a conclusion.  It would be a case of “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and other people’s children must pay the penalty.”  Against such whimsies of reactionary purism, the playwright’s sole and sufficient safeguard is a moderate exercise of common sense.