Not that long ago I put out a call to collect the names of as many DC-area playwrights as we could find. As I’m writing this post, the list has an astonishing 187 names on it. Why is that astonishing? Bear with me for a little math.
The geographic region from which I’ve drawn the names on my list — DC, the Maryland suburbs up to Baltimore, and the Virginia suburbs down to Richmond — includes approximately 1% of the country’s population. (Anyone who cares to correct or improve that figure would become my hero.) By contrast, our 185 playwrights represents approximately 2% of the nation’s total, if you begin with the commonly-repeated assumption that there are 10,000 of us nationwide. That makes us, by my analysis, a very playwright-rich part of the country.
If I had to guess — and let’s face it, I have to guess — ours is not the only region in which the playwright percentage exceeds the population percentage. New York, of course, is a shoe-in. Chicago, too, and probably Los Angeles. I have a feeling Minneapolis is probably in the plus column, too. Is that the complete list? It might be, and it might not. Scott Walters’ recent analysis of NEA grants suggests that it might include, say, the 30 or 40 largest metropolitan areas in the country. I’m in the realm of pure speculation here.
Good news for DC (and the other cities I’ve just mentioned) is bad news, of course, for the rest of the country. To make up for our embarrassment of riches, there has to be a tremendous playwright shortage in, say, East Grand Forks, MN. (Don’t make fun; I have family there, and I love it.) No natural resource is ever distributed evenly across the states — there are more blueberries in Maine than Mississippi — but for some reason, this disparity seems more troubling.
So that’s one conclusion: we’re playwright-rich, perhaps more so than folks realized. I’m very glad to discover that, though it feels bittersweet.
Are there any other conclusions that might be drawn? The other thing I note is that the list consists of only 43% (or so) women. It’s hard to infer anything from that number, but my gut (and again, this is pure speculation) is that this is the result of under-reporting: more people gave me male playwright names than female playwright names. Might other factors be involved? Sure. Feel free to speculate in the comments, if you like.
Finally, one note. I had a meeting with one of the other playwrights on this list yesterday, and we talked about ways to start making something out of it. I’ll be writing more about the subject soon… hopefully in advance of the Dramatists Guild Conference in June.
Actually a ton of research by this guy (http://www.olavsorenson.net, former professor of mine from yale) shows that industries with highly centralized geographies (film in hollywood, tech in sillicon valley, finance in wall street, medical tech in boston, et al) perform better because of the network effects that density enables. Having a large group of people who all do very similar things within a small geographic area allows for the fluid transfer of people and ideas between organizations (in this case, an organization of 1–the playwright–or an organization of many–the theatre).
Resources & supporting services (financial, professional, and collegial) for playwrights are more likely to be offered in those cities where many playwrights have gathered–in fact that’s often *why* playwrights have gathered in those locations, is to take advantage of those resources.
Troubling no doubt for your notion that playwrights should be writing ‘local plays’ since the ecology for playwrighting can’t support these kind of network effects in every city in America.
I have actually read (via Gladwell, I think, and Steve Johnson, I think) about industry network effects. (I think the case studies I read were centered on book publishing and jewelry, though I might be mistaken.) I don’t mean to discount them, and I’m sure they’re at work here.
But network effects alone can’t explain (to me, at least) the disproportionate allocation of playwrights in, say, New York. There have got to be cultural forces at play as well, and if they weren’t, I suspect the spikes wouldn’t be QUITE as high in urban areas. Ten playwrights in NY — just ten — might be in Oklahoma instead. And those ten would have SOME version of a support system… even if all that meant was a quarterly gathering to talk shop in Enid.
Have you been reading Scott Walters’ commentary on NEA grants? I think there’s something to be said for acknowledging the disparity of resource allocation and wondering whether it’s part of the problem. Does it reinforce the “natural” ecology of playwriting? Shouldn’t it perhaps be the role of the federal government to dig canals so that the water can flow where it isn’t otherwise flowing? That’s my thought at least…