A while ago, I asked the question Why is Richard portrayed without a hunchback in the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of Richard III? That question has now attracted three close votes. The comment explaining reads as follows:
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seems to be about a real-life performance, rather than literature
The comment doesn't really explain why real-life performance doesn't count as literature.
Should the question be closed, and if so, why?
It's as simple as that.
I highly recommend taking a look at Stella Adler on Ibsen, Strindberg, and Chekhov which demonstrates how literary analysis is critical in creating believable performances.
Poetry long pre-dates the modern novel, and dramatic poetry was held in the highest regard in antiquity, even above the epics. Modernism in theater was a centrally important literary movement, that influences all other forms of art and literature. Likewise, Shakespeare's impact on literature, drama and the English language is profound.
Theater is unique in that analysis extends into performance, thus dramaturgy in addition to acting and directing.
In relation the the question that prompted this meta, I'll compare portrayal of Richard III and Laura from the Glass Menagerie. Both have a physical impairment that influence their characters.
-If the deformity is pronounced physically in performance, as is generally the case, the audience interpretation is that the physical condition drives the character.
-If the deformity is downplayed, as with the Olivier, the audience interpretation is that the character is burdened more by the psychological effects than the physical. (i.e. the deformity looms much larger in their mind that the physical actuality.)
The latter case may be considered much more complex.
Questions about performance should be on-topic.
The best explanation I've seen for this comes from community member Joshua Engel:
As an actor I tend to view plays through that lens, but the name "literature" tends to imply something read rather than viewed. Neither lens is superior, but a greater diversity of views would help broaden the site. The StackOverflow base tends to draw from a sitting-in-chairs view. Acting is a not-uncommon hobby for programmers (who make up the initial core of any StackExchange base), but looking outside that base may be necessary to gain more perspective.
Joshua is right. Reading a work of literature alone, silently, is only one way of interacting with said work of literature. Other ways of interacting with a work of literature, such as performing a play, are equally valid and equally interesting. Questions about these alternative ways of interacting with literature must therefore be on-topic. If we don't allow questions about these other ways of interacting with literature, we will stunt the site's intellectual growth.
Questions about performance have lead to several interesting insights on this site. For example:
Is the fight between Mercutio and Tybalt a joke, or is it serious?
What changes when you adapt Dickinson's "I'm Nobody" to an acoustic rock song?
Is Bob Dylan's "A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall" supposed to be uplifting or mournful?
So have answers that have taken performance into account when discussing a work of literature:
Ash's answer to Why do Simpson and Bostley speak for each other in "Lost Voices"?
Joshua's answer to Why doesn't Hamlet like improvisation?
Closing these sorts of questions would be a huge, irreversible mistake. Let's keep them and learn from them.
