At her keynote address on Thursday night, Arena Stage artistic director Molly Smith hinted at a math equation she didn’t quite complete. (It was very dramaturgically smart of her to suggest a few details and let her audience fill in the rest.) After touting the fact that her theater has five playwrights on staff, she noted that there are 1,950 regional theaters in America and 4,000 university theaters. The only inevitable conclusion of her thesis, of course, rests on the fact that there are 10,000 playwrights in America. If Molly’s theater can accommodate five playwrights all by itself, and there are 5,949 other theaters out there with only 9,995 other playwrights to support… well, you can do the rest of the math yourself. Or you can let Arena Stage’s associate artistic director David Dower do it for you: he laid out the case more clearly on the TCG Circle blog. I know there are concerns about how we might implement the obvious solution — playwrights on staff at every single theater in the country — but (with all due respect to my friend Amy Wratchford) I consider them small potatoes.
Then again, perhaps (as Todd London suggested in HIS keynote the next day) the solution isn’t for theaters to bring playwrights on board but for playwrights to simply take over the whole of American theater by force. Inspired by Todd’s talk — which began with the Outrageous Fortune doom-and-gloom with which we’re all familiar by now but pointed to a few bright spots in the darkness — I asked him whether he could envision a career path that one might follow from playwright/theater blogger to artistic director. (Yes, I was thinking about myself.) His response, in essence: don’t think of it as a career move, but as a revolution. In other words, rather than applying for jobs, I should create my own thing and lead it. And maybe I will.
If there is going to be a revolution, though, it should perhaps be led by Julia Jordan, whose inspiring, emotionally-charged talk about gender parity blew the doors off the joint. (Though the energy was momentarily hijacked by the boneheaded male playwright who asked why there are female-only writing contests.) I was deeply moved by the substance of her talk AND by the courage with which she delivered it. On the other hand, when it comes to racial parity, I have to note the stunning and near-complete lack of diversity among speakers and panelists all weekend long, which made me rather grumpy every time I thought about it. I have no doubt that the Dramatists Guild shares my grumpiness, too… but we have to do better on this front.
The weekend wasn’t without one or two other clunkers worth noting, too. History will show (if it bothered to record anything) that the last few words of the conference were, oddly enough, “Stop writing realism!” Shouted by Mame Hunt at the end of the last conversation, they seemed both ill-advised (with realism/naturalism making a significant return to artistic importance) and unnecessarily negative. Speaking of that last conversation, the panelists seemed to be an oddly un-curated jumble: smart folks, to be sure, but not somehow fully of a piece with each other.
There were also, I would suggest, far too few workshops and panels addressing new technologies, the development of which is surely (as I have written elsewhere) the most important change in our field in the last ten years. For goodness’ sake, there should have been a panel on Twitter all by itself. Furthermore, where were the discussions about devised work and transmedia storytelling, just to name two hot creative growth areas? I think we could have done with a few more sessions on the cutting edge and one or two fewer on what seemed like dated New Age-flavored inspiration, though maybe that’s just me.
In some ways, the conference came off somewhat like the Dramatists Guild itself: a bit too conservative and old-fashioned for its own good at times. That may explain why — while the conference seemed to be jam-packed with relatively unknown (and lesser-known) playwrights — there were so very few hot mid-career playwrights in attendance. The speaker list was full of elite stalwarts, but where were Molly Smith Metzler and Jordan Harrison and A. Rey Pamatmat, just to name three younger-but-very-successful playwrights with whom I recently spoke? Where were Young Jean Lee and Kristoffer Diaz and Mike Daisey? I would very much have appreciated a chance to have heard from a greater diversity of voices. (For the record, I hope like heck that the reason they weren’t there isn’t that they aren’t Guild members. We need everyone.)
Those few criticisms aside, however, I really have to say: the conference was a smash hit. The sessions were generally either entertaining or informative or inspiring, the food was far better than anyone could have expected, and the esprit de corps was high. I suspect I’m not the only playwright who left George Mason University (which did a terrific job as host) feeling far less alone as a playwright and far more energized than terrified (though surely some of both) by the changes in our field. If for nothing else than that, the Dramatists Guild done good. And this was only the first time around: I have no doubt they’re going to get better.
I spent at least two-thirds of the conference in informal huddles with several of my fellow DC playwrights: Renee Calarco, Ally Currin, Anu Yadav, Rebecca Gingrich-Jones, Caleen Jennings, and Patricia Wolf chief among them. We sat together during the roundtable discussion among DC artistic directors and dramaturgs and cheered on our local friends; we ate together at almost every meal; we debriefed and discussed what we experienced in sessions; we introduced each other around; and it all felt great. My hope is that next year — and I sincerely hope there is a next year, no matter where the conference is held — there are more of us in attendance. Between now and then, however, let’s seize the moment, as David Dower has suggested, and begin reshaping our corner of the theatrical world. Let’s have new stories to tell the next time we get together. That would be grand.
Very well summarized, Gwydion! Overall I was energized by the conference and loved hearing the wisdom of some of my playwriting heros, as well as meeting new colleagues from around the country and making deeper connections with local playwrights. I was also dismayed by the lack of diversity – not only ethnically (although that was a HUGE problem that really bothered me, and must be improved next year), but also in terms of age – there were disproportionately few young playwrights who showed up. Obviously cost can be a strong deterrent, but I think you have a point about the lack of cutting edge panel offerings – addressing that lack might help attract this demographic for next year. I’m also hoping that Julia Jordan’s message made an impact on people (especially men, let’s face it) who hadn’t been sufficiently aware of the greater obstacles female playwrights face – I’m hoping everyone will be motivated to do their part to address this discrimination. As for the female DC playwrights at the conference, we already started discussing some ideas, so everybody: look out!
I *love* to hear that the female DC playwrights are onto something. I have no doubt you’ll do something amazing, and I want to offer whatever help I can!
I mean, I feel like I should be invited to speak at *every* conference, mainly so that I *can* take over the American theater by force. But I’m glad to hear that progress is being made in the talks, and that’s the most important thing. Thanks for the shout-out though — not just of me, but of that fine group of peers who do deserve to be participating in these talks whenever possible.
I know exactly how you feel. Next year I’d much rather be standing behind a podium talking about 2am Theatre and how it has influenced my work as a playwright, for example, instead of live-blogging for 2am Theatre while seated in the audience with my iPad. That would be progress.
As for the shout-out: you’re welcome (all of you). Well-deserved.
Gwydion, I did speak on the importance of twitter and 2amt at the conference. And I must admit I’m a little annoyed that you didn’t come to that panel and then say that it wasn’t represented. Particularly since you told me that you didn’t feel the need to come to that panel.
I wish we hadn’t been up against Gary’s high demand workshop on the 10 minute play, but what can you do. But the forty or so folks in that room really got taste of what twitter can do to change their careers.
I’m sorry you’re annoyed, Andie, but I stand by what I wrote, which is that
there were “far too few workshops and panels addressing new technologies,”
not that there weren’t ANY such workshops. I’m *thrilled* that your session
— which I didn’t attend, as I told you, because I knew you weren’t likely
to tell me anything I didn’t already know, given the fact we get our
knowledge from many, if not all, of the same sources — was part of the
program. (My choice to attend Gary’s session was not a comment on your
subject’s importance — or, for that matter, a comment on you.) I also
appreciated Susan Miller’s talk about writing for the web, which I did
attend. Frankly, though, two sessions of this nature just weren’t enough, to
my mind, to do justice to this critical subject, which I consider one of the
two or three most important areas of growth and development for our
industry. That’s why I wrote what I wrote.
My annoyance isn’t with the post itself. I think that there is room for a more diverse crowd and more sessions on the internet. I’ve seen a massive change with many playwrights regarding the internet, and little by little, the tide will turn. As Gary said, this was not meant to be the best conference; it was meant to be the first conference. And I think we need a greater diversity of voices in the future.
My annoyance is with implication of your comment in response to Kristoffer that the 2amt perspective wasn’t offered. I told that story of how 2amt and twitter can change a career. That bit of progress has happened.
I agree with Gary’s approach: no reason to try to be perfect out of the gate. After all, we’re writers: we do first drafts, then we revise.
As for your annoyance: I’m sorry, my friend, but I think you’re seeing an implication where there isn’t one. I was being direct: next year I want to be speaking, rather than blogging. That was (and is) my (only) point. I know you addressed 2am Theatre, and I’m glad for it. I was merely using rhetoric. We’re on the same side.
Just found your blog and seriously enjoying it. While I couldn’t make it to this year’s conference, (flying across the nation and then hotelling it… SIGH) I enjoyed your “rundown” as well as your comments on room for improvement in the the gender/ethinic parity and technological revolution departments. Great blog! I’ll be back 🙂
Thanks, Tiffany! And hey, maybe next year they’ll host the conference on the west coast!