THE LETTERS OF RALPH VAUGHAN WILLIAMS

The Polytechnic Secondary School,
309, Regent Street, W.1.

15th January, 1936.

Dear Dr. Vaughan Williams,

I have been giving a great deal of thought to your ballet but without much success, I fear; mainly because Dickens’ story is not very adaptable to balletic form.
First of all, may I criticise the ballet as it stands at present.
1) The music allowed for the entrance of the characters to the Fizziwig house is too short.  Consequently the characters crowd too much upon one another so that the audience cannot grasp their identity.  Also, each group of characters has not time either to interpret its identity or to establish a role.  Twice the amount of music would, I think, just be adequate.
2) The Fizziwig Ball music is perfect.  I speak, of course, only from the producer’s point of view.  To my idea, too, it is musically perfect.  How I loved the Triumph!
3) The next episode, that of the Watchman’s Song, I think, comes off dramatically and I like the following sequence – now called the Snow Scene.  This I feel is the night between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and somehow I am attracted to my interpretation of it “with the shepherds and the kings passing on their way through the night”.  This interpretation prepares the audience for the final tableau and reminds them that Christmas has religious significance as well as a jovial side. 
But however one presents this scene, the next, the children’s scene is an incongruity.  If produced as it should be, as a children’s riot (this is what the Dickens text prescribes) then Hunsdon House is unsuitable (a) because it is contrary to child psychology and (b) because children, unless meticulously trained, cannot dance it effectively.  The sudden change to prayer, I think, is banal and too artificial a bridge to the succeeding solemnity.  If this scene is retained it could be regarded as a scherzo but then the final scene should be extended to the size and significance of a last movement.  The tableau can never be more than a coda or, speaking dramatically, a climactic denouement up to which the whole movement builds.
But the plot has another weakness.  It only deals with the first part of the Christmas Carol, that of the Christmas Past – the Snow Scene and the final tableau being only vaguely suggested by the original story.
If I may make a suggestion I should advise basing the ballet on the whole book, which is divided into three parts, Christmas Past, Present and To Come.  Let the Fizziwig Ball stand for the first part.  Retain the Watchman’s Song and the Snow Scene (but let it be the procession of the Kings, etc.).  Thus so far we get the Night of Christmas Eve, (when the Fizziwig Ball actually took place) representing Christmas Past.  Then follow in right order midnight by the Watchman and the mystery of the night before Christmas Day.
The next scene in the place of the Children’s Scene should be representative of the Cratchet’s i.e., Christmas Present, the time thus following on chronologically and being Christmas morning. 
Finally, Christmas To Come, by which time night has fallen and the scene is outside a church.  At first the scene is devoted entirely to Scrooge who finds his tombstone.  Then all the characters file by into the church, leaving Scrooge prostrate in the foreground.  The Vision of the Holy Family appears in the West Window of the Church and the singing comes from within, ending with the apotheosis of Scrooge as at present arranged.  The present bringing in of the whole cast is a mistake I feel.  The characters are so varied and do not make a unity.  Also, the costumes clash with those of the vision.  Let Scrooge be alone with his God and, as I say, the cast can have filed by previously as a sort of summary of all his visions.  As at present written, Scrooge is not important enough at the end. He is submerged by the surrounding numbers. His character is too sketchy. He should be dominant at the end.  The visions have faded. He is alone with reality.
Now, may I turn to my production of the ballet the other evening.  I was the most dissatisfied person there, perhaps, except possibly yourself who ought to have expected a better production.  But as you know, I was given no chance.  I like to build up my productions by means of rehearsals, shaping things bit by bit.  But I only got a complete cast 3 hours before the performance.  I am not complaining but merely stating the facts.
Had I been able to get the rehearsals I needed I should have given an entirely different interpretation.  For instance, instead of playing the Triumph straight, I should have given it the same variety as there is in the orchestration, treating different groups as you treated the instruments.
The procession, too, would have been a grander spectacle, with attendants on each king and stylised acting, simple but significant.  The children’s scene ought to have been realistic of the disorder of a children’s party.  Oh! there were scores of ideas which I could not incorporate for lack of time.
In suggesting so much, please to not think that I wish to intrude myself.  If you take no heed at all of my suggestions I shall not be in the least offended.  But if you feel inclined to consider them I shall be pleased to do anything you wish.
Also, at no far distant date I should like to do the ballet properly.
Finally, may I thank you for the honour you have paid me in allowing me in my small way to interpret your visions.
With every best wish for this New Year,
Yours sincerely,

F Wilkinson

P.S.

I am still hoping to find a group of people wanting to do opera well, especially Purcell.

Please excuse my alterations in this letter.  I have not liked to ask my secretary to re-type it.

In reading it through you may think I am criticising your work.  That is not so.  I refer throughout to the scenario, which is somewhat shapeless & lacks dramatic episode.

If my criticisms are unintelligible & my writing illegible I can always meet you & interpret my meaning if you wish.

FW.