An unadorned, declarative headline, a basic thesis. But I feel compelled to state that theatre is, in fact, good. It is inventive, simple, thought-provoking, shocking, challenging, entertaining, comforting, educational, cultural, popular, necessary, surprising, ritualistic, original, familiar, compelling, relaxing, perfect, messy. It is and must be for all ages, all religions, all races, all classes, all incomes, all locations. It can be grand or intimate. It is, as a form of creative expression, essential. It is, unfortunately, relegated to niche status by far too many. If you do not believe this, there’s probably little that follows that will be of much interest to you, though I hope you’ll stick around anyway.

So I repeat: theater and the practice of making theatre is good. That applies to all theatre, under whatever auspices it comes to life — save that it adhere to the beginning of the Hippocratic oath, by doing no harm, in process or content. This is what I believe.

Why the declaration? Because as someone who enjoys attending theatre, reading about theatre and discussing theatre (online and face to face), as someone who has made my life in theatre, I worry that we lose sight of this fundamental in our discourse on the subject and, since we probably also all agree that theatre faces constant challenges, we reduce our strength by focusing on our divisions rather than common ground. I admit, many among us probably gain more attention from inflammatory rhetoric than we do from emphasizing mutual goals, but this is probably endemic to any subject upon which people are passionate. Yet hyperbole is largely anathema to progress and solutions. Occupy Wall Street may be known to us all, but can it claim any achievement other than awareness? And as aware as we may be, most of us probably can’t articulate its goals; “occupy” has become a signifier simply of protesting the status quo, or worse still, a punchline.

I announce my platform because of the many theatre debates to which I am either party or witness. This weekend, Patrick Healy’s article in The New York Times set off a new round in the perennial struggle between commercial and not-for-profit theatres, between large not-for-profits and small ones, between urban organizations and suburban ones and rural ones. By speaking for the article on the record, I felt compelled to join the conversations that followed. On others issues I have been more circumspect, but some include: the ongoing question of the proper place of playwrights in the life of institutional theatres, as voiced in the TDF report Outrageous Fortune; the complementary consideration of the place for new plays on Broadway; the philosophy of whether gatherings to explore theatrical challenges must by their nature be wholly public; the analysis revealing what some view as disproportionate funding by the federal government of large organizations in highly concentrated population centers; the uncertainty over whether dynamic and premium pricing is positive or negative in both commercial and NFP scenarios; the ethical question of utilizing and relying upon unpaid interns throughout our organizations. Feel free to insert your own here.

What concerns me is that in many cases, these topics are addressed unilaterally (in blogs or speeches) or with simplistic brevity (in Twitter volleys). Public colloquies are most often undertaken solely by and for peer organizations or individuals, so face to face discussions occur among people who function in a similar manner, on a similar level, or within a structure that discourages genuine free expression as people fear reprisals for honest statements. And let’s face it, everyone is so busy keeping their own organizations or projects alive, (not to mention making a living and having that often elusive construct known as a personal life, frequently with people who have interests beyond theatre), that it’s difficult to change their small part of the theatre world, let alone transform the field itself.

As I engage in as many conversations in as many forums as I’m able, I am of course opening myself up as a target, especially as I sometimes adopt contrarian views and refuse to accept labels others seek to foist upon me. Frankly, I enjoy honest, respectful debate, and I participate in it to insure that all sides of an argument are being explored, that those of us who are passionate do not simply spend our time reinforcing the beliefs of the like-minded. Let’s leave narrow-minded partisanship to the ugly political process which divides our country; let us first and foremost be partisans for theatre. Because theatre is good.

I was called part of “the theatre elite” on a worthy blog a few weeks back, and it caught me up short. I did not respond to it at the time in what might have been, for others, an entertaining series of blogs and tweets resulting from that assertion. Trust me, I don’t think of myself as remotely elite. But by forcing myself to not make an immediate response, I could consider the statement, which stung, but which I came to understand better over several days. Prompted by the perspective of the writer, I pondered my career, and I will say that while perhaps many may classify me as part of the theatre elite (however you define it) by virtue of where I’ve worked and the jobs I’ve held, I can only hope that none will think me elitist and some may find I’ve done a few good things.

Do I flirt with the charge of elitism again by speaking out to say that I do not oppose the large NFPs their ability to produce on Broadway? Absolutely I do, since these multi-million dollar companies are seen as elite, and are targeted from both sides, from smaller companies and from commercial producers, for differing reasons. But I hope that people will understand that my position comes from my central belief that theatre is good and that there are lots of ways to make theatre, that Broadway is simply one portion of the field, and that in its high profile yet geographically limited part of theatre, it is enriched by the presence of the work of these NFPs.

Are you muttering, “Pollyanna,” as you read this? Do you think I am being “willfully ignorant,” as one Tweeter said this past weekend? Do you thrive on confrontation as opposed to respectful debate? Do you favor overthrow rather than collaborating for change? Then perhaps I’m not for you — and indeed, if you’ve tried to get a rise out of me, I’ve probably disappointed you.  When it comes to the politics of theatre, I guess I am an enthusiastic and passionate moderate. I want to be part of developing and implementing creative solutions that remove impediments and build support for theatre, not fomenting rebellion. As six degrees of separation have now been reduced to roughly 4.7 (according to a study I read earlier this year), I don’t want to increase that distance once again by shouting, but instead shrink it more, level the field of communication, by building ever more linkages – creative, intellectual and personal — between reasonable people, by pushing us all past reflex reaction and towards productive action.

I did not intend to deliver a sermon (another tendency brought to my attention on Twitter). But perhaps as the year draws to a close, I am more reflective than I realize. Perhaps I am influenced by the waning rays of the winter sun sinking behind the horizon on one of the year’s shortest days. Perhaps I am wearied by theatre reportage and conversation which either seeks to inflame dissension or which blandly propagates party lines without seeking deeper understanding. So I hold fast to what I hope we all keep paramount: that whether professional, amateur or audience member, we are all in this together. We would do well to remember that before our next communication, be it among ourselves or to the public, the government, the funders and others, about the art form we hold dearly in common and in trust. Because, when it comes right down to it, theatre is good.

With “10 Best” lists filed, it won’t be long before we start seeing another seasonal staple of theatre coverage in New York: the stories about how a spate of January closings marks one of the direst winters on Broadway in recent memory. These stories come as regularly as stories about the turkey hotline do in November. They are, simply put, a staple of theatre journalism. So before anyone starts panicking over this year’s inevitable doom and gloom tales, which ironically get the greatest play in media that cover the arts least (I’m looking at you, business news outlets), let me attempt to debunk them, because apparently my memory for these recurring alerts is greater than that of those who propagate them.

Yes, many shows will close in the next four to six weeks. A number of these are not unexpected: they were genuine limited runs planned so they would not be plying their trade in the tourist-depleted Manhattan of mid-winter, or they were shows at institutional theatres which have to clear out for the next production. There are also those shows which opened in October and November and didn’t catch on, whether due to critical response, poor marketing, the oft-cited “crowded marketplace,” a generically-evoked “economy,” or ingrained audience indifference to the product.  These are the shows without the cash to survive the fallow months, even with the range of discounts that will be offered to induce audiences to attend as a savings, rather than necessarily a true value, proposition. (Now that prices appear in lobbies on video screens, some may be entertained by watching the ticket tariffs drop, like an old stock ticker.) There will also be the occasional long runner, which has simply run out of steam.

But none of this is terribly new and given that a good percentage of Broadway’s roughly 40 theatres are occupied by long-runners that aren’t going anywhere, the winter closings rarely vary by more than a few productions from year to year. The numbers game is stacked for doomsaying when every theatre represents 2.5% of the total pool. This is one of those times when numbers can be employed completely accurately, but also misleadingly.

The first snowflake of this particular blizzard fell when Private Lives announced that its limited run would end five weeks early. This is not good news and I feel for those involved (I mention it by name only because their situation is public; I will not prognosticate on the fate of shows that may be on the bubble, despite abundant indicators of their ill health). But that news prompted none other than The New York Times to list some other shows that were also closing soon as part of the burgeoning January trend, and they opted to include one limited run show which had actually extended by a week, all to fit the perennial story template.

Look, this is a field in which the popularly held generalization says that perhaps one in five shows ever recoups its investment, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that for many shows, closings follow openings quickly, as few shows run for a long time at or barely above their breakeven point. For fall shows, this is accelerated by the desire of theatre owners not to have a show operate just above its “stop clause” (part of the theatre agreement which allows owners to close shows that aren’t generating high enough revenue), only to have them falter in March. Why the worry? Because a March closing means there’s not enough time to get a new show in before the Tony deadline, and that may result in an empty theatre until the fall. A January or February closing allows time for another production to open by late April, so there’s a chance that the real estate known as Broadway theatres is filled with revenue-generating tenants who may well stick around longer than their autumnal counterparts. Indeed, it is not unheard of for shows to be offered financial incentives to close up shop around this time, when the stop clause itself can’t be invoked.

If this seasonal winnowing did not occur, if the fall shows were all big successes, we’d end up with spring theatre coverage bemoaning the lack of new material to accompany the crocuses and daffodils. Keep in mind, the only reason 35 to 40 shows compete at the Tonys each year is because so many close from the fall, whether by intent or fortune; the relatively small number of venues, less the number of theatres occupied by those long-running hits, would not allow for that many new shows if there was not a culling of the herd.

Despite “the economy,” there remains heated competition for Broadway’s theatres. The dark years of the 80s when houses sat empty for months at a time has not returned, even though a decrease in production was anticipated (and reported on) each year since the crisis of 2008. Shows close, other shows open, this is the circle of Broadway life. So when the seasonal horror stories start to appear, chalk them up to weak memory and/or journalistic laziness, because it isn’t news, just something to fill space on a slow day, and bad news is so much more enticing than the positive.

As sure as the president will pardon a turkey, just as we’ll all be forced to ponder the meteorological skills of a groundhog, Broadway will – we are told – be under a black cloud very soon. But the sun will indeed come out tomorrow (March and April, to be exact) and the cycle renews itself again. Perhaps if you see these stories, you’ll now take them for what they are, or better still, if you’re called for a comment, you’ll use this as a template for debunking the perennial premise, as the winter’s chill ostensibly threatens the health of the remarkably resilient fabulous invalid.

P.S. This post, with minor emendations, will also be applicable in early May and mid- June, when closings will be blamed on the lack of Tony nominations and/or wins, and again on Labor Day when theatres must be cleared for new fall shows. I will not, however, rewrite this and post variations of it at those times. I hope I’ll have new ideas then.

When reading aloud, for which this is meant,

Please keep in your mind that the @ is silent;

For names unfamiliar that cause you to think,

Fear not, as each one is a link.

To all real poets, I send utmost apol’gies

Most of all to R. Angell, king of this style of homilies.

*   *   *

In 2011, a year oh so sweet,

I truly engaged in the world of the tweet

For news and for humor, I must give my thanks

To at least some of the folks who fill out its ranks:

When I am in need of a funny retort,

I steal from the master @BorowitzReport.

For my twitter one liners I have gotten the hang,

From the comic machine, one @JohnFugelsang.

Sometimes I find that I laugh ‘til I cough

With rapid witticisms from wry @ditzkoff,

But when I want theatre news, then the best tweets to see,

Are those that are tagged @patrickhealynyt;

And @HellerNYT, please don’t critique my poor meter,

As I’ve struggled to name your gang at @nytimestheater.

All news from the Times may come out helter skelter,

But it’s diced, chopped and shortened by fine @BrianStelter;

West coast theatre news is most accurately sung,

In the tweets of @latimes editor, sharp lady @lfung.

Also in that direction, where the weather’s oft fair,

Come dispatches via @moorejohn and @JimHebert.

When it’s news of what’s up in my home state show biz,

I’ve only to turn to @joesview and @showriz.

As our twitter crowd gathers comes a pair of renown,

Please play for us @GeorgiaStitt and @MrJasonRBrown!

I promise that if you’ll just play the piano,

You’ll get zero guff from @ccaggiano.

Our joy and amusement will never be scanty,

Long as we see the work of Miss @laurabenanti.

Or who else to admire, well don’t you suppose,

That we’re just as enchanted by @anikanonirose?

And for late night odd tweets that have us gasping for breath,

Look only to the nocturnal @kchenoweth.

Rock, roll and showtunes surely deserve a hand

For that dynamo Alice and @RipleytheBand.

Among great musical stars, I count myself luckily

As one who can send a DM to @BettyBuckley.

For comic repartee, both swift and not mean,

Doff your cap to Spinal Tap’s great @mjmckean,

I envy him greatly at his end of the rainbow,

Nightly he goes home to kiss lovely gal @JimmyJindo.

For what I write here, I might land in hell,

When compared to the verse of Heights’ Lin_Manuel,

And while naming Tony winners is no longer my hobby,

I call out to another awards champ, @LopezBobby.

From theatre critics’ ranks, I’ll raise a loud shout,

To intrepid arts traveler Mr. @terryteachout.

Opinions? Time Out New York most certainly had ‘em,

With the sage @davidcote and the sharp @FeldmanAdam,

And out in Chicago theatre folks most aspire,

To praise from @ChrisJonesTrib and Time Out’s good @krisvire.

Sing ho, for @AP’s Mark @KennedyTwits,

And though not down with Twitter, the News’s Joe Dziemianowicz.

At the @wsj, there’s a big three-way tie:

Ellen Gamerman, @piacatton and new friend @barbarachai.

While our online debates devolve into “Yo Mama,”

I wish only the best to @petermarksdrama.

For Canadian news, I’ve had the good luck,

To meet @globeandmail’s intrepid Kelly @nestruck.

On drama thoughts British, he’s the West End’s accurate gauge,

The constantly flying scribe Mark @ShentonStage.

Other good English journos, I’ll serve pudding figgy

To The @Guardian’s @lyngardner and her colleague Ms. @chiggi.

Bloggers you shouldn’t miss and I often have thunk-a,

Read wise @parabasis and smart @Geohunka.

If you want your blog reads at a passionate pitch,

You need go no further than bold soul @clydefitch.

For countless articles, and blog posts, we surely all hail,

Encyclopedic digest-er Thomas — hey @youvecottmail!

For all of the satires that they have loosed,

Let’s laugh with the trio known as the @reduced,

And Shakespearean buffs cannot possibly shame me,

As I praise able Bard tender, one @ASC_Amy.

As @2amt grows to influence more,

We owe debt to its founder — nimble guy, that @dloehr.

While praising @2amt, I’d be called a phony

If I omit @travisbedard and @halcyontony.

Applaud @Pollykcarl and also @ddower,

Immersed in new plays that they want to see flower.

Say it’s social media you want to shmooze with,

See DC’s @allihouseworth and @devonvsmith.

Meet the folks behind ads, displays, flyers and hypes,

Here’s @trishamead, ol’ @chadbauman and skillful @spinstripes.

Bravely dipping toes into Twitter, he’s surely the one,

Stalwart Goodman head honcho @RobertFalls201.

While east coasters may think that she’s out in the sticks,

There’s wisdom to garner from @LindainPhoenix;

If you study in Boston, it’s Emerson’s plus,

To offer the classes of kind @JulieHennrikus.

Former colleagues of yore I praise with élan,

@Jcravens42 and fundraiser skilled @mcahalane.

Even anonymous tweeters I’ve goodwill allotted,

To @BroadwayGirlNYC and the sharp @BroadwaySpotted.

Because he’s so gracious, he won’t slander my rhymin’,

Cheers to even-toned theatre buff @nprscottsimon;

And I’ll happily share a most seasonal bagel

With playwright and radio host — wait wait, @PeterSagal!

Compared to most humans, we’re mired in sloth

When contrasted with Jujamcyn’s prez, @Jordan_Roth.

At @TectonicTheater there’s no manager finer,

Than skillful good-natured tweep, their @gregreiner.

You’re feeling parched? Let us drink some wassail

With @teresaeyring and @DERagsdale.

If you’ve known me for years this won’t come as a shocker

That I send holiday wishes to old friend @Kockenlocker.

Another longtime associate whose opinions I rate,

Is the veteran publicist @Bubbles2828;

Among new p.r. folk most particular fine,

I list @deniseschneider and @BrookeM1109.

Warm jacket and mittens I send @TDFNYC greeter,

The cheerful and inventive @EricaMTheatre.

At the @NewVictory, for your kids and you,

Works the good-humored @JamieNYC42.

‘Round restored @LincolnCenter these guys built a fine berth,

@SimsJames and Shakespearean @AWShuttleworth.

Though she’s mostly afar, on the dance floor I’d twirl

My Aussie companion, stalwart show gal @DramaGirl;

While we’re Down Under we’ll get our egg nog on,

For writers @elissablake and @alisoncroggon.

At this season of kindness I must also bless,

Humanist playwright @GwydionS;

To the convicts at Sing Sing @_PlainKate_ brings the art,

She’s admired by me and most astute @TheaterSmart.

There are so many playwrights whose debts we are in,

But I name only @kristofferdiaz and The New School’s @chris_shinn.

To past homes of employment highest praises I’ll sing:

@HartfordStage, @GoodspeedMusicl, @gevatheatre, @TheWing.

For those not found here, please don’t be offended,

Since holiday cheer’s what I fully intended,

It may be that your handle was too tough to rhyme,

Or that after much effort, I ran out of time.

To all who have patience with my obsession Twitter

I shower you all with confetti and glitter,

Here’s to the topics into which we will delve

In the next theater year, two thousand and twelve.

“There is competition everywhere.”

I have to admit that the preceding quote from Metropolitan Opera general manager Peter Gelb is true, but I like to think that the ever-struggling arts might take a more collegial view than the one espoused by Gelb in an interview with The Guardian. In that story, Gelb defends The Met’s practice of requiring that venues which show “The Met: Live in HD” series of movie theatre simulcasts may not show the work of other opera companies (the English National Opera is cited specifically). My previous admiration for Gelb’s innovative work in the field of cinema screenings of performing arts is now severely mitigated by my dismay over the exclusionary tactics of the United States’ largest performing arts organization.

I’m not upset as an opera buff – far from it. I might see one opera a year and that tends to be plenty for me. Instead, I’m struck by the fact that while movie studios themselves were forced, decades ago, to divest themselves of theatre ownership precisely to prevent such exclusionary booking practices, an enormous not-for-profit has effectively reinstated it when it comes to using such venues for one cultural discipline. Speaking like a corporate shark or a mob boss who doth protest too much, Gelb says, “We don’t force movie theatres to take our movies; we don’t hold a gun to their heads. They could take the Royal Opera instead if they wanted to.”

Gelb cites the limited repertoire of opera in general, and competition for singers and directors as a cause for his exclusionary tactics (I’ll leave it to you to read the rest of the argument); it’s worth noting that he fails to cite any concurrent or similarly expansive efforts to expand operatic literature or showcase young talent, which surely would alleviate some of his worries. But I cry only crocodile tears for his dilemma, much as I do for the poor beleaguered owners of sports teams who apparently cannot make a buck on their franchises valued in the hundreds of millions, even when they receive corporate welfare to build ever flashier and more exclusive stadiums. The fact is, this past weekend in Manhattan, in addition to the actual Metropolitan Opera performing Faust on stage, you could see that production in at least four major movie theatres on Saturday, while on Sunday, at a single venue of which I’d never heard, you could glimpse Don Giovanni live from La Scala in Milan. I have no idea what the national or international theatre ratio or audience attendance might have been.

Because of my marginal enthusiasm for opera, I immediately began to wonder whether this kind of us-or-them mentality applied to theatre at the movies as well. Although I was aware of past cinema screenings of Roundabout’s The Importance of Being Earnest, the Broadway production of Memphis and a few shows from London’s The Globe, it seemed that the National Theatre’s NT Live series was hugely dominant. Were they similarly anti-competitive? Not at all, per Mary Parker, senior press officer at The National: “We have no limitations – venues that show our broadcasts can show anything else they want, we have no exclusivity as part of our contracts.”

I hesitate to plant my flag so firmly on this particular issue, because I believe that live performing arts are best experienced live in person, not projected on a screen; I likened these screenings to PBS broadcasting writ large when they began. But I have come to realize that I have been privileged to spend my life in Connecticut and New York, supplemented with frequent travel to London, so while these cinema screenings may not be essential for me, they are a lifeline for those less fortunate and with less access to cultural capitals than I have enjoyed for most of my life.  When I spoke with Nicholas Hytner of the National almost a year ago, he voiced strong sentiments about accessibility and exposure through NT Live; indeed, it was that conversation which turned my own thinking on the topic.

But ultimately I’m concerned less about this single aspect of cultural programming, cinema screenings, than I am about collegiality and cooperation (or lack thereof) in the arts. While giving due respect to Gelb and The Met for pioneering this expansion of arts programming, they are now setting the worst possible example by trying to exclude their peers (and they have few anywhere in the world as it is) from sharing their achievements through advancements in technology by owning the category. This is not about competition, as Gelb would have it; this is about cultural monopolization.  Should any arts organization that receives public funding be allowed to undertake initiatives that explicitly deny others?

At a time when all of the arts must find strength in numbers, in unity, in the sharing of ideas and resources, Gelb and The Met are espousing the corporate mentality of Gordon Gekko; it stands in stark relief against the slow-motion implosion of its one-time neighbor, the New York City Opera. It is as if the Met wants not only to be the Yankees of American Opera, they want to be the Harlem Globetrotters too, dazzling us with their skills, but assured of never losing a game. You need never ask not for whom or when the fat lady sings, Mr. Gelb, since given your druthers, she would apparently sing only for thee.

I was invited by Polly Carl of Arena Stage’s New Play Institute to contribute to their very active HowlRound blog in the fall of 2011. Ever the contrarian, I wrote not about new, current plays, but rather about plays which were new and current some 20 to 25 years ago. It proved most gratifying because Bill Cain, the author of the play I focused upon most, saw the blog and wrote an exceptional coda in the comments section.  It is reproduced here following my essay. For all of the original responses, you can read the the post and comments at HowlRound. You can also see .

Are you familiar with any of these plays? Stand-Up Tragedy. Daytrips. Romance Language. A Place With The Pigs. From The Mississippi Delta. Rebel Armies Deep Into Chad. Pill Hill. Messiah. In Perpetuity Throughout The Universe. A few? None? Don’t feel bad, because to my knowledge, none of them have received a major production in years. Yet they were all new plays that received prominent productions from the mid 80s to the early 90s. Some had New York runs, both long and short. I saw them all, and worked on several.

Of the playwrights, some remain active in the theater, others moved on to television, I don’t know what’s up with a few, one passed away recently, another several years ago. They are, in order, Bill Cain, Jo Carson, Peter Parnell, Athol Fugard, Dr. Endesha Ida Mae Holland, Mark Lee, Samuel Kelly, Martin Sherman, and Eric Overmyer. Certainly a few of those names are familiar.

So why do I single out these relative obscurities? Because I think they are the barest tip of an enormous iceberg: plays that were once perceived to display value and talent, but never achieved a level of recognition to have become standards, let alone classics. They were hot new plays that grew cold for any number of reasons, and now languish somewhere in the catalogues of companies like Samuel French and Dramatists Play Service like orphans, forever hoping someone will notice them, but always being passed over for the younger, newer, more conventionally attractive.

I should acknowledge before I go on that new plays are essential to the lifeblood of the theater, and I champion the opportunities created for authors to develop and premiere new work, as well as to see it go on to second, third, or tenth productions, whether in New York or Peoria. I hope that new works don’t suffer from the “premiere”-itis that swept regional theaters in the 1980s, when everyone pursued the first production of a new play, but then that work found itself abandoned, for any number of reasons: a bad first production, the fact that it was no longer a “virgin” work that could attract grants, having not attracted the “right” critics to hoist it to the next level, that its subsidiary rights were already encumbered. I love the discovery of new work and nothing herein should suggest otherwise.

But I keep thinking about these orphaned plays, which were in fact once loved. Where do they fit in the new play lifecycle of American Theater? After all, I was not alone in appreciating them in their day, and I was hardly the only person to see them. I know that these weren’t necessarily perfect pieces, but they were effective and evocative, and part of our theatrical heritage as surely as well-known classics.

I think often and fondly of Stand-Up Tragedy, a play I fell in love with upon reading its very first page, when a Catholic priest stated his desire to, in his next life, work for a religion that “doesn’t use a dead young man as its logo.” Only pages later, the same character posited the tenets of all great religions—“Who made the world? What went wrong? What do we do now?” Surely these ideas remain pertinent, as does the central story of an idealistic young man who discovers that his altruistic ambitions may not be enough to save troubled inner-city youths. And Bill Cain, after a stint in television, is back writing plays with a vengeance, with premieres of Equivocation, Nine Circles, and How To Write a New Book of the Bible coming in rapid succession. Whatever the perceived flaws of Stand-Up Tragedy, it is a seminal work by a committed and talented playwright that deserves second, third, and fourth looks.

Not to focus on plays rooted in Catholic theology, but I was also deeply struck recently when I attended a reading at The Public Theater of The Trial of the Catonsville Nine, a play which premiered when I was nine years old, but which I knew had been a landmark play from the early days of the Mark Taper Forum. I saw it primarily because a friend was playing the role of the author, Father Daniel Berrigan. I went expecting agitprop theater that had dated poorly; I came away with a lesson in a Vietnam War-era protest and a soaringly beautiful finale, all the more remarkable for having been fashioned from the transcripts of the trial that gave the play its name.

In a field where only the most dedicated academics and literary managers know much of American playwriting before O’Neill, and where the growth of regional theater made up for the reduction in Broadway venues during the 1960s and 70s, perhaps it’s unsurprising that there is now a body of abandoned plays. Perhaps we simply cannot be expected to produce not only the accepted canon of Western dramatic literature and essential new work and also to perpetually reexamine work from the recent past. But surely there is some compromise position. While New York’s Second Stage began with the mission of reviving overlooked plays from not so long ago, it is now best known for showcasing new work; Signature Theatre Company in New York, with its focus on a single playwright each season, has at times revitalized overlooked works from playwrights’ oeuvres. But the companies here in New York that focus on largely forgotten plays of the past, The Mint Theater and Peccadillo Theater, look back at least fifty, if not seventy-five years for their material. Has much of the playwriting of the 70s and 80s gone the way of the leisure suit and disco, the skinny tie and the Mohawk haircut, and must it wait another thirty to fifty years before it gets another chance?

I wonder whether the not-for-profit theater is guilty of what we accuse “popular culture” of doing, that is to say, constantly embracing the new and abandoning anything that can be accused of being “so five minutes ago” (as is that particular phrase). Do we lionize only the true hits and consign the vast body of literature engendered by and created for our stages to the dustbin of history? Yes, you can browse for them at the Drama Book Shop in New York or the Samuel French shop in Los Angeles, but beyond that, they require archeological hunts, facilitated by sites both commercial (Amazon) and altruistic (the dizzyingly thorough Doollee.com). But how many never even saw publication, relegating them to permanent anonymity? And while I’m speaking mostly of plays, I would be remiss in pointing out that the same fate befalls new musicals too, especially those that aren’t recorded, since so few people can or are even willing to read a score or have it played aloud for them.

What’s fascinating is that whenever someone does have the vision to revivify a somewhat lost work, they are hailed for doing so. Though older than the plays I’ve previously cited, Arena Stage had enormous success with Alice Childress’s Trouble in Mind. MCC Theater in New York is poised to resuscitate the musical Carrie, which is likely to prove either folly or inspired, and both critics and fans await it with bated breath. Although I’m citing a work of French origin from the 60s, when the long-forgotten Boeing Boeing hit West End and Broadway pay dirt a few seasons back, non-profits across the U.S. rushed to program it, and soon Roundabout will stage its even less familiar sequel, Don’t Dress for Dinner. There is life, and ticket sales, left in so many pieces.

The modern American playwriting tradition is, arguably, only about a hundred years old, but it has certainly boomed, with countless theaters and training programs encouraging ever more plays (and yes, there are more plays than there are theaters to produce them; it was perhaps ever thus). But I worry that its growth has created an overamped Darwinian ecology which eats too many of its young and narrows its focus to the prize winners and nominees, to the works that become hits straightaway, to those that end up on critical “best of year” lists without giving them all time to be considered and mature before they are, by some unspoken consensus, deemed no longer worthy. I think we owe it to our field to not just support playwrights and their new plays, but to maintain the pulse of their body of work and the work that came before them, so there is a true continuum in American dramatic literature, not just a series of that which, in its time, was deemed the very best. Is it possible? Yes. Practical? Maybe not. But I think it’s a worthwhile goal. Who knows what we may find, barely breathing, but ready to be loved and speak to us once again, perhaps as it never could before.

To once again quote Stand-Up Tragedy, “I don’t have all the answers. I just want to ask better questions.”

*   *   *

FROM BILL CAIN:

The odd thing about Stand-Up Tragedy isn’t that it has vanished but that it ever was. The only reason it ever came to be was because people like you, Howard, had such enthusiasm for it and I remain grateful. My agent, Beth Blickers, still can’t believe that an over-the-transom un-agented first play got picked up for a workshop by the Mark Taper Forum. Bob Egan – who picked it up – is still astonished that it went from workshop to second stage to mainstage at the Taper in a year. And then to San Francisco to D.C. to Hartford and to Broadway. And I still can’t believe that after doing so well in those places that one review in the New York Times could kill it so dead. It took me 20 years to write another play – though writing for television – a critic-proof medium – in the meantime was a very great joy. … I was deeply ashamed of the short Broadway run. And it took me a long time to get over that. Two things eventually addressed the shame – one, immediate – one, over the long haul. The immediate help was that Stand-Up didn’t just teach me how to write; it also taught me why I should write. On opening night at the Taper in Los Angeles – a wonderful night – one of the young teachers on whom the main teacher was based – had flown himself out to see the show. I was very nervous to hear how it had affected him. When I found the courage to ask, he didn’t say that he had liked it or not. He said something much simpler. He said, “I didn’t know anybody had seen me.” When the show opened on Broadway – also a wonderful night at least until the review came out – the boy who was the model for the central student was there and I was terrified of his response. He said something similar. He said, “I’m the hero, aren’t I?” And I said, “Yeah – you always have been.” They taught me what writing is about. Letting people know that they have been seen in all their hidden greatness. It was a big thing to learn. And a new way to evaluate success and failure of a work that took years to write. … The more long term healing element was discovering that the show wasn’t dead. Over the years, having people come up to me and say, “I got started in Stand-Up,” has been a very great and surprising joy. Just the other night at 9 Circles in Los Angeles in a talkback, a young actor said that seeing Stand-Up had been a starting place for him. I asked him if he had seen the Taper production. He said no, he had seen it in Virginia. Who knew? Gordon Davidson said to me after opening in Los Angeles, “Now the play goes out and does its work.” I am very grateful to be a part of that process – both as a writer and an audience member. Nobody talks about Chips With Everything or No Strings – but they continue to work in me and I am grateful. … Thank you, Howard, for bringing all of this to mind.

When you last saw Peter Marks and me, we were being thoughtful and playful on the stage of Arena’s Stage’s Kogod Cradle (you can watch here on New Play TV), as a result of the impromptu debates that sprang up between us over several months on Twitter. It was clear that there was an appetite for more conversation, and indeed some of our regular Twitter pals who attended the live event were frustrated that they couldn’t just interrupt us at will and, no doubt, might have preferred shorter answers. So Peter and I resolved to continue the conversation, but no longer by accident.  The following transcript is from the Twitter dialogue on December 7, our first since the November event at Arena. This conversation included more than two dozen active participants, as well as our invited “special guest” Robert Falls, artistic director of The Goodman Theater in Chicago, arelative newcomer to Twitter.

As before with these transcripts, they are reconstructed to the best of my ability, relying upon participants’ use of the #pmdhes hashtag for tracking. I have cleaned up some common Twitter abbreviations for ease of reading, but I was cautious about converting anything where I wasn’t absolutely sure about meaning; sticklers, as a result, will find some messages that exceed Twitter’s 140 character limit. Retweets of comments within the conversation have mostly been excised. Finally, the transcript is most expediently prepared in reverse chronological order, so you’re advised to jump to the end of this post and then scroll upward for proper continuity.

*   *   *

Chadbauman 3:42pm  Similarly, Rick Lester from @trgarts likes to say that prayer shouldn’t be a marketing strategy.

Danfrmbourque 3:41pm  @productionkat I know. They love to retweet you and send out press release stuff, but not much real interaction. Thus I follow few.

Chadbauman 3:40pm   A takeaway from the event was @petermarksdrama saying if your business model is based on good reviews, you’re in trouble.

Productionkat 3:38pm   @Danfrmbourque I have been suprized at how little theatre do tweet to promote or answer questions

Danfrmbourque 3:36pm  @Chadbauman curious as I’ve had theatres tweet at me days after I had mentioned them; a bit funny, like they are in a time warp!

Chadbauman 3:34pm  @Danfrmbourque We try our best to be continually staffed, but sometimes that is impossible.

Danfrmbourque 3:32pm  @Chadbauman Chad, how regularly is Arena twitter account “Staffed”? Some theatres seem to have accounts live a few hours at a time.

RSTStatusReport 3:32pm  @Dloehr And the Tony goes to ………”Bathroom Espionage Stories!”

Petermarksdrama 3:31pm  I love what @Klange has gleaned about reviews. And thanks to @Bankyhimself for the hashtag reminder! Can trample my lawn anytime.

Chadbauman 3:31pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201 @petermarksdrama great discussion today guys. Glad I could participate. Thanks for pulling it together!

HESherman 3:31pm   @rosalind1600  #pmdhes is PeterMarksDrama & HESherman, since this all started as online debates between us.

HESherman 3:30pm   @rststatusreport You’re as young as you tweet!

Dloehr 3:30pm   @RSTStatusReport @HESherman The phrase “bathroom espionage stories” alone was worth the price of admission.

HESherman 3:29pm   @Chadbauman And in some cases, during.

Chadbauman 3:29pm  @HESherman Much easier these days. They’ll tell us on Twitter what they think minutes after a performance.

HESherman 3:28pm   @petermarksdrama And the ones who retweet fans messages from people who just want to be retweeted by a celeb.

RSTStatusReport 3:28pm  @HESherman I bet there are some good bathroom espionage stories. DO TELL.

Dloehr 3:28pm   @RobertFalls201 That #blatantpromotion was with a wink, yes?

HESherman 3:27pm   I’m going to sign off. Feel free to keep talking and use #pmdhes, as I’ll create a transcript of all messages with it from this afternoon.

RobertFalls201 3:27pm  @HESherman This has been great & int, this new world. Tx 4 questions, comments, confusion. Go see #RED @arenastage #blatantpromotion

Klange 3:27pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201 @petermarksdrama Thanks to all of you!

RSTStatusReport 3:27pm  @Chadbauman The fact that I first read “SM” as Stage Manager and not Social Media might be a sign that I’m getting old.

Petermarksdrama 3:26pm  @HESherman I also dislike proselytizing celebs who hammer daily at the same political causes. Gotta turn down the volume

HESherman 3:26pm   @Chadbauman I remember when I had to send spies into the ladies restroom to listen to conversations to judge reactions. Old times.

SMLois 3:26pm   @HESherman @robertfalls201 @petermarksdrama thank you guys for engaging in the conversation.

Walt828 3:26pm   @asc_amy: @robertfalls201 Of course. Doesn’t alter the case: 55% of grant funding goes to top 2% of NPOs.

Dloehr 3:25pm   @HESherman @RobertFalls201 @petermarksdrama Let’s all do this again sometime. 😉

ASC_Amy 3:25pm   @HESherman Thanks for organizing it!

Edenlane 3:25pm   Usually my plan too… unless featuring an interview RT @HESherman: @smlois I discuss what I’m going 2 c, not my post-show opinion.

Jfdubiner 3:25pm  @Dloehr @ASC_Amy @LindaInPhoenix Me too – expansive opps for communicating dif ideas about same content to dif auds.

Productionkat 3:25pm   BRAVO! RT @ASC_Amy: @Walt828 @robertfalls201 We covered 96% of our expenses in October with earned income.

Chadbauman 3:25pm  @HESherman I can tell how a show is being received in part these days by SM responses in previews.

HESherman 3:25pm   I think we’re slowing down. B4 all fall away, thanks to all of you, and especially @RobertFalls201 for joining the fun.

ASC_Amy 3:25pm   @Walt828 @robertfalls201 But if there is one, there are very possibly more & it proves other models are possible.

Dloehr 3:25pm   @PirateQueenKate Indeed. I’m actually drafting a post about OccupyDowerApt.

Walt828 3:24pm   @asc_amy @robertfalls201 One outlier doesn’t undermine the argument.

Productionkat 3:24pm   I found it to b a great 1st connection then larger donation @Klange: @RobertFalls201 @productionkat @HESherman @GoodmanTheatre

PirateQueenKate 3:24pm  @Dloehr See my #WDW2011 epic story of Washer/Dryer installation. Danger. Drama. Heartbreak.

HESherman 3:24pm   @petermarksdrama Andy Borowitz, John Fugelsang and Albert Brooks are worth a follow.

Klange 3:23pm     @RobertFalls201 We are nothing if not trailblazers.

Dloehr 3:23pm   @Jfdubiner @ASC_Amy @LindaInPhoenix What really intrigues me is the idea of telling a story that spans all of those forms…

SMLois 3:23pm   @HESherman I try to mention most of what I attend before I see it, but if I love it I promote. I never publicly criticize.

HESherman 3:23pm   @Chadbauman Twitter is simply the tech amplification of word of mouth. A media for the masses (vs. mass media).

Walt828 3:23pm   True. Does it have to be 100%? RT @asc_amy @robertfalls201 I’m not going to repeat our earlier “discussion,” but that isn’t the case

Danfrmbourque 3:23pm  @SMLois @Klange If I see a show I usually mention it, every little bit helps. If I really hate something I’m not likely to though

Petermarksdrama 3:22pm  @HESherman To answer your question: I followed a lot of well known comedians etc. But a lot of them perform on here. Doesn’t do it for me

SMLois 3:22pm   @RobertFalls201 @Chadbauman I suppose it depends on the reviewer. From some a positive review is gold. Others just don’t matter.

ASC_Amy 3:22pm   @Walt828 @robertfalls201 We covered 96% of our expenses in October with earned income.

HESherman 3:22pm   @smlois I discuss what I’m going 2 c, not my post-show opinion. More interested in promoting theatre than critiquing it publicly.

Chadbauman 3:22pm  @RobertFalls201 @SMLois @Klange we’ve had shows get negative reviews and do quite well because of positive word of mouth.

Walt828 3:21pm   @robertfalls201 Seems like Baumol and Bowen gave a license.

ASC_Amy 3:21pm   @Walt828 @robertfalls201 I’m not going to repeat our earlier “discussion,” but that isn’t the case everywhere.

HESherman 3:21pm   @Klange There’s great similarity.

Walt828 3:20pm   @robertfalls201 Seems as if the nonprofit model is built on ever-increasing unearned income. Wasn’t always like that, says Ziegler.

Klange 3:20pm  @Chadbauman @SMLois right! Cuz, ideally, each aud member has a unique experience across a broad range of tastes. Like attracts like

Dloehr 3:20pm   @PirateQueenKate @LindaInPhoenix Different types of stories, to be sure, but a fun challenge nonetheless.

Dloehr 3:19pm   @PirateQueenKate @LindaInPhoenix It also allows for fun storytelling–I’ve done it with plays, I’m doing it with #celebbowling.

Klange 3:19pm  @SMLois oh, of course not. You act as a curator – not just a mindless booster.

HESherman 3:19pm   @lindainphoenix Yes! I can ramble on in my blog posts, and I do. Here it’s about focus and brevity. Headlines, essentially.

Jfdubiner 3:19pm  @ASC_Amy @LindaInPhoenix @Dloehr Interesting how forms is defining function as there are more forms – fb, tw, blog, tmblr etc.

Dloehr 3:19pm   @HESherman @robertfalls201 Ben has an account, and we joked about it in January. I’d love for him to join in.

JaysenElsky 3:19pm  @HESherman Well, I am a youngin, so it really is an exercise. But it came from a real conversation. and, I agree with your hope

Geohunka 3:19pm  @HESherman  But that’s true of any form of communication. Besides, similarly, you only hear what people want to tell you.

PirateQueenKate 3:18pm  @LindaInPhoenix @Dloehr brevity forces clarity. You can’t couch weak ideas in flowery language and obfuscate. short, sweet, simple.

Chadbauman 3:18pm  @SMLois @Klange Nothing replaces word of mouth. I’ll take positive word of mouth over neg reviews any day. Trick is to get both.

HESherman 3:18pm   @petermarksdrama Yet your corporate overlords would be so proud of you.

Klange 3:18pm  @HESherman @robertfalls201 Maybe that’s where #OWS got the idea for the “human microphone.” 😉

Productionkat 3:18pm   I look at everyone as potential funders too-

RobertFalls201 3:18pm  @Walt828 I hear you and understand. These are issues we’re all grappling with. Large or small, we all need funding.

Klange 3:17pm  @RobertFalls201 @productionkat @HESherman @GoodmanTheatre It’s mostly people we met here. Tighter #DCTheatre community sprung up

SMLois 3:17pm   @Klange but I’m not going to promote all 150+ shows I see each year.

Dloehr 3:17pm   @LindaInPhoenix Exactly. I’m just responding to the idea that these 140 char posts exist independent of any context.

LindaInPhoenix 3:16pm  Funny this hit my feed during convo on social media Answers to 31 Social Media Questions You’re Too Shy to Ask

ASC_Amy 3:16pm   @LindaInPhoenix @Dloehr Indeed, for more in-depth you can always spill into a blog post.

SMLois 3:16pm   @Klange agreed. When I love a show I’m thrilled to talk about it. And I’m picky, so my opinion has some weight locally.

HESherman 3:16pm   @robertfalls201 Maybe 600 followers, but message can be RT’d and amplified many times. You never know what captures attention.

LindaInPhoenix 3:15pm   @Dloehr Actually, I think the 140 character thing is

RobertFalls201 3:15pm  @HESherman Sure. Beats working.

HESherman 3:15pm   @geohunka Over time, its sort of remarkable, depending on how much you wish to say publicly.

Petermarksdrama 3:15pm  @HESherman I was shilling with a wink.

Petermarksdrama 3:14pm  @Walt828 I so agree. And you gotta listen to what people are saying.

HESherman 3:14pm   I’d promised @RobertFalls201 a 45 minute conversation. Please stay if you can Bob, but no one will think ill if u must bow out.

Klange 3:14pm  @SMLois @petermarksdrama @hesherman I think it’s incredibly important to support other work, too. Word of mouth for plays, etc.

Chadbauman 3:14pm  @RobertFalls201 We are putting much more effort into building our own communications infrastructure as well.

RobertFalls201 3:14pm  @Klange @productionkat @HESherman I find that so interesting. No funders that I’m aware of at any level following me @GoodmanTheatre

Walt828 3:14pm   @robertfalls201  A recent report shows a huge income gap between rich NPO’s and the rest: top 2% get 55% of grant income. Is this fair?

Dloehr 3:14pm   Enough with the 140 character thing. It’s the accumulation of conversation that reveals who we are, as with any other medium.

ASC_Amy 3:13pm   @geohunka You can reveal your point of view quite easily. Honesty in convo = transparency.

Playwrightsteve 3:13pm   @HESherman @Walt828 Control usually equals canned PR messages. But Twitter is best used as a dialogue. Much less control there.

Dloehr 3:13pm   @RobertFalls201 People can also follow you on Twitter lists without officially following you, so it may be more people than that.

NicolesNotes 3 :13pm  @Walt828 I agree. It’s quite likely that this is why so many companies remain ineffective. There should be format, but flexibility.

HESherman 3:13pm   @petermarksdrama Now you’re just shilling. Doesn’t become you.

Petermarksdrama 3:12pm  @ddower Critics are assumed to be this, that, other thing. But we’re really just like Soylent Green. Believe it or not, we’re PEOPLE.

HESherman 3:12pm   @Walt828 One can control their own message, but not the flow of communication.

Dloehr 3:12pm   @HESherman @petermarksdrama Beeber. (sic)

Klange 3:12pm  @productionkat @HESherman @robertfalls201 We reach a lot of small funders aka followers, but we’re tiny. Haven’t noticed big funders

ASC_Amy 3:12pm   @RobertFalls201 I think it has grown in the past hour.

Geohunka 3:12pm  How much can you meaningfully reveal in 140 chars? Camaraderie is not transparency

RobertFalls201 3:12pm  Not sure what 2 make of having a reg aud of 20K 2 communicate w as a dir but putting lots of energy into comm w/600. (or is it more)

Dloehr 3:12pm   @TheTicketMaven If it’s “usually promo 4 org,” I’d say it’s being done wrong. Without engagement, there’s little point in following.

HESherman 3:11pm   @petermarksdrama What celebs WERE you following? Do tell! Inquiring minds want to know!

SMLois 3:11pm   @petermarksdrama @hesherman I’ve also stopped following anyone who only pushes their own work and doesn’t converse.

Petermarksdrama 3:11pm  @HESherman Yup. Post remains smart, informative, sophisticated, utterly indispensable news source!

ASC_Amy 3:11pm   @TheTicketMaven Actually only about 30% of my time on Twitter is promo for my org.

Walt828 3:10pm   Seems to me that to participate in Twitter you have to be willing to reveal. If you want to control the message, it won’t work.

RobertFalls201 3:10pm  @petermarksdrama @HESherman @jenniferehle Depends on the celeb. I find it interesting to get to know them without PR protection shield.

HESherman 3:10pm   @danfrmbourque Yes, comments devoid of context can be tricky. Also sort of amazed by folks making off-color jokes here.

TheTicketMaven 3:10pm   So social media is two-fold…usually promo for org but growth for the employee participating.

Dloehr 3:10pm   @BankyHimself #tiggerbounce #snoopydancing

ASC_Amy 3:10pm   @RSTStatusReport @JaysenElsky @Dloehr Indeed. *digs in heels at Shakespeare theatre*

Dloehr 3:09pm   @JaysenElsky Probably not. There’s always room for verbosity, or for a Mametian scene of nothing but one to two words back & forth.

RSTStatusReport 3:09pm  @JaysenElsky @Dloehr Gosh, I hope not. I’d like to think there’s still a place in the world for flowery language.

HESherman 3:09pm   @jaysenelsky Seems like a formal exercise to me. But IMHO, fad, not future (I hope).

Petermarksdrama 3:09pm  @HESherman I’ve stopped following all celebs/famous actors (except @jenniferehle because she’s so charming) don’t learn anything

Danfrmbourque 3:08pm  Twitter can be intimidating because so little room for context, Always careful when replying to those I don’t know because of that

Ddower 3:08pm  @HESherman I’ve learned a lot from watching what you’re learning, @petermarksdrama. Bunches about what we assume critics know/feel.

Dloehr 3:08pm   @HESherman @morydd The real trick is focus. The     is well-focused because of time. The #2amt stream is more freeform & always on.

Productionkat 3:07pm   We have done twitter fundraisers! 🙂 RT @HESherman: @robertfalls201 Have you found any funders who are actually engaging on Twitter?

HESherman 3:07pm   @petermarksdrama U still have vast audience if using print. Unless u say something inflammatory online, @washingtonpost best soapbox

Petermarksdrama 3:07pm  @HESherman @robertfalls201 I’ve found it wildly useful for background, for trends, for shows+writers I didn’t know about

BankyHimself 3:07pm  As someone who’s hung with @Dloehr in person, I’ll attest to his real-life “bounciness.”

Dloehr 3:07pm   @ASC_Amy @morydd It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the stream. That’s why the #2amt site’s there, to distill or spark conversation.

JaysenElsky 3:07pm  @Dloehr On true intimacy in 140 characters. Funny. working on a one act with dialogue entirely in 1-2 words. The future?

RobertFalls201 3:06pm  @petermarksdrama Yes! (Point proven.)

HESherman 3:06pm   @morydd I’ve used the firehose analogy as well. And this sort of Twitter gang conversation can be even trickier.

BankyHimself 3:06pm  Do these great minds sit around all day and think about theatre? No, sometimes they’re on the couch watching Breaking Bad too.

MariselaTOrta 3:06pm  @JaysenElsky @HESherman @robertfalls201 Listening aka lurking is also 1st level of engagement. Participating will likely follow

Petermarksdrama 3:05pm  @SMLois I see.

BankyHimself 3:05pm  Getting 2 know the person-side @RobertFalls201 who’s work I’ve studied/d admired , has helped encourage me as a young artist.

HESherman 3:05pm   @robertfalls201 @petermarksdrama Yet Peter says he has new perceptions from Twitter. If participation adds value with critics…

Klange 3:05pm  @Dloehr @petermarksdrama I can attest to that.

Petermarksdrama 3:04pm  @RobertFalls201 I’ve been told by PR people who advise, don’t respond to a critic, cause they have last word! (Not true anymore!)

Michaeldove 3:04pm   @HESherman Opening up the process and sharing the experience is so key to Forum. Can’t think of it any other way-just feels natural

ASC_Amy 3:04pm   @morydd I sometimes have to take 15 minute “twitter breaks” from my regular work, with timer and everything.

SMLois 3:04pm   @petermarksdrama don’t want any revelations of behind the scenes activity or anything implying I’d work on days off

Dloehr 3:04pm   @petermarksdrama But in person, I’m very much the same as here–bouncy, usually ready with a joke, ready to engage.

HESherman 3:04pm   @asc_amy Focus groups can be misleading in many cases, but absolutely, the self-selection of SM holds perils

JaysenElsky 3:04pm  @HESherman @robertfalls201 I think people lurk because they are afraid they have nothing to add

Morydd 3:03pm  @HESherman I also find following the #2amt much like drinking from a firehose. Hard to stay on top of convo and get other work done.

Dloehr 3:03pm   @mlaffs Man’s a good hugger, what can I say?

HESherman 3:03pm   @robertfalls201 I RT’d stories re MOTHER WITH THE HAT in Hartford, but didn’t offer personal comment due to possible perception of conflict of interest

ASC_Amy 3:03pm   @LindaInPhoenix @HESherman *zing*

Dloehr 3:03pm   @petermarksdrama …explain why I’d be vanishing for a few days in October.

Mlaffs 3:02pm   @Dloehr that bromance with @travisbedard is legen- *and i hope you’re not lactose intolerant* -dairy

LindaInPhoenix 3:02pm   @HESherman Maybe when I teach arts management next year…

Dloehr 3:02pm   @petermarksdrama …there’s a lot I don’t share. I kept very quiet about my mother this fall, for instance, only blogging to…

RobertFalls201 3:02pm  @petermarksdrama @HESherman @HESherman MORE?? No. I have enough critics in my life!

Petermarksdrama 3:02pm  @SMLois @HESherman @michaeldove Lois, what is the distinction? Why some ask you to stop?

Dloehr 3:02pm   @petermarksdrama Indeed. And I’ll admit, there are certain aspects I highlight, others I downplay. As open & silly as I am here…

Petermarksdrama 3:01pm  @seanjbryan @HESherman Amazing statistic

HESherman 3:01pm   @lindainphoenix Gee, you didn’t call me! (harumph, unfollow button)  😉

ASC_Amy 3:01pm   @HESherman You have a very self-selected focus group on social media, have to be careful of drawing conclusions.

Petermarksdrama 3:01pm  @Dloehr It’s extraordinary how much you DO get the essence of the person on twitter. Also, we all start w/common habit

ASC_Amy 3:00pm   @TheTicketMaven Yes, only about 5% of my interaction is with our patrons.

RobertFalls201 3:00pm  @morydd @HESherman V true. I follow discussions re: MOTHER WITH THE HAT, tweeting in theaters, etc etc, but have nothing to say to jump in

RSTStatusReport 3:00pm  @playwrightsteve Exactly. Also good way to make connections. I’ve met several playwrights through Twitter conversations.

Seanjbryan 3:00pm   @HESherman @petermarksdrama 98% of the people I know in the US I met through an online platform of some kind

HESherman 3:00pm   @RobertFalls201 Are there things you would like to learn from people via social media, as opposed to audience surveys?

TheTicketMaven 3:00pm   Many want the convo to be with the patron and that isn’t always the case.

Petermarksdrama 3:00pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201 Bob, do you have a desire for more contact with critics??? Or is that secondary?

Mlaffs 2:59pm   @HESherman @ASC_Amy some folks are unable to think big and grasp implications of the nebulous internet

LindaInPhoenix 2:59pm   (it helped that social media was a topic)

Mlaffs 2:59pm   @HESherman @ASC_Amy @LindaInPhoenix i think case studies/ROI helps focus the convo to concrete benefit to org.

LindaInPhoenix 2:59pm   Half our speakers series this year was built on connections made initially via twitter

Michaeldove 2:59pm   @MariselaTOrta @hesherman And did you get any pushback on that?

HESherman 2:58pm   @morydd Didn’t mean to suggest all lurkers are reticent. You point is well taken. See, danger of very brief statements!

ASC_Amy 2:58pm   @playwrightsteve the @pewresearch folks have found the same thing in their studies.

Mlaffs 2:58pm   @HESherman @ASC_Amy good points, but convincing technophobes brings up the question of Return on Investment. I use case studies & consumer data

Petermarksdrama 2:58pm  @Dloehr @Klange @ASC_Amy I don’t pretend that we’re 1 big happy fam. But hearing voices as passionate about theatre as mine helps in job

Dloehr 2:58pm   @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama Like with us, for example. 🙂

Playwrightsteve 2:58pm   Doesn’t decrease human interaction. Social media helps me keep contact w/ people with whom I otherwise would have NO contact

PirateQueenKate 2:58pm  @playwrightsteve & @ASC_Amy JINX!!! cc: @petermarksdrama @Dloehr

Dloehr 2:58pm   @petermarksdrama But meeting in person? All the awkward getting-to-know-you-ness drops away. Never ceases to amaze me.

HESherman 2:58pm   I have made more new real-world friends via social media of late than through just “meeting” people. Just had lunch with @nestruck.

GwydionS 2:58pm   @asc_amy @Dloehr I would never have met either of you without Twitter.

Ddower 2:57pm  MT @HESherman Yes. Our communication department @arenastage created it. But atop that you also have the Institute, with different rules of engagement.

SMLois 2:57pm   @HESherman @michaeldove I’ve had companies ask me to stop tweeting about our work while others pay me extra to run their account

MariselaTOrta 2:57pm  @HESherman @michaeldove “no social media” in artist contract–I blog my writing process. That wldn’t work for me

Dloehr 2:57pm   @petermarksdrama Amen. I’ve never seen it as a replacement for human interaction, which is the other criticism I’ve heard.

ASC_Amy 2:57pm   @HESherman @mlaffs an interesting blog re: the ROI of Social Media

PirateQueenKate 2:57pm  @Dloehr @Klange @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama Lunch = Oyamel #NOMS

Playwrightsteve 2:57pm   @ASC_Amy Okay. So, we shared a brain just then.

Ddower 2:57pm  Interesting discussion at #pmdhes re: critics, artists, and Twitter. Join in now, or read and respond later.

Playwrightsteve 2:56pm   @petermarksdrama @Dloehr And Twitter leads to opportunities for 1-on-1 face time that would not have occurred otherwise

ASC_Amy 2:56pm   @petermarksdrama @Dloehr Twitter has actually increased my one-to-one face time with folks I wouldn’t otherwise have met.

HESherman 2:56pm   @mlaffs Is ROI the be all and end all? Isn’t a great deal of the benefit qualitative, not quantitative?

Morydd 2:56pm  @HESherman Not all lurkers are afraid of the interaction. I don’t join into every conversation I listen to in real life either.

Petermarksdrama 2:56pm  @Dloehr agreed–it’s not perfect, and not really a sub for one-to-one face time. But ppl who poopoo it usually don’t try to do it

HESherman 2:55pm   @Chadbauman Have @arenastage social media policies had to evolve as mass acceptance of form has grown so rapidly?

Jfdubiner 2:55pm  @HESherman That’s a hard pill for an old #dramaturg to swallow…

Dloehr 2:55pm   @petermarksdrama @Klange @ASC_Amy My wife was dubious until she saw how much fun I was having with @travisbedard & his ilk.

Michaeldove 2:55pm   @HESherman No mentioning of the show, that is, good or bad.

SMLois 2:55pm   @Dloehr @petermarksdrama which is why it has to be a conversation.

RobertFalls201 2:55pm  Yes. I think there is a danger of too much Twitter. Distracts f/the silence I need as an artist vs. noise I require as a producer

HESherman 2:54pm   @michaeldove ‘No social media’ in artist contracts sounds like a 1st amendment violation to me. Likely unenforceable.

Dloehr 2:54pm   @Klange @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama What’d y’all have for lunch? (ducks from the brickbats)

Chadbauman 2:54pm  @HESherman @ddower Arena adopted social media guidelines in 2009.

Mlaffs 2:54pm   @Dloehr @petermarksdrama also arts orgs are overworked – they see it as *another* time-suck/commitment/resource-stretcher

Klange 2:54pm  @petermarksdrama @ASC_Amy Lol. It does take time, but the convo here has definitely led to increased collaboration in #dcTheatre

Petermarksdrama 2:54pm  @RobertFalls201 It’s easier transaction with you Bob because I admire your work. But as you said in an early tweet, you’re a “big boy” – I think so am I

Playwrightsteve 2:54pm   @Dloehr @petermarksdrama What is the character threshold on “true intimacy” anyway?

Dloehr 2:54pm   @petermarksdrama And my answer is, it’s not possible in a single face-to-face sentence, either.

HESherman 2:53pm   I remain amazed I’m so fluent on twitter. As I often joke, in person I have trouble says ‘hello’ in 140 characters.

Dloehr 2:53pm   @petermarksdrama I’ve gotten the “true intimacy isn’t possible in 140 chars” line before from people who don’t like twitter.

Mlaffs 2:53pm   @ASC_Amy @SMLois @petermarksdrama i’ve made a point of speaking 2 ROI & strategy to help people understand how it can be a benefit

ASC_Amy 2:53pm   @michaeldove I posted them on my blog (pls ignore the time lapse since my last post)

HESherman 2:53pm   @Jfdubiner Accepting that bad grammar & punctuation is OK, boiling thoughts down to briefest essence is new way to think

LindaInPhoenix 2:53pm   thought it would be a great way to interact w/ students, but only a handful follow.

Danfrmbourque 2:52pm  Twitter really breaks down walls between artists and critics. Casual, deceptively simple it encourages small talk and then bigger

Petermarksdrama 2:52pm  @Klange @ASC_Amy My wife says “You’re twittering your life away.” Makes me feel guilty!

SMLois 2:52pm   @petermarksdrama @asc_amy and the meaty discussion tends to come from the same small percentage of users

Dloehr 2:52pm   @petermarksdrama I think people are afraid also because they don’t realize how much like regular conversation it is.

HESherman 2:52pm   @ddower Is there a social media policy in place @arenastage regarding content? Who created it?

Jfdubiner 2:52pm  @RSTStatusReport @petermarksdrama Is that still true? Or is it hard to bend old ideas of community engagement to new definition of comm?

Ddower 2:52pm  One of fastest changes underway in this sector is the move from controlled messaging/access to transparency. Twitter works there.

Petermarksdrama 2:52pm  @RSTStatusReport I think that’s very true

RobertFalls201 2:52pm  @petermarksdrama Interesting. Some critics want NO contact with people they’re reviewing; does having this contact compromise or assist?

HESherman 2:51pm   @theticketmaven But that’s fine. You’re interested. Maybe you’ll join in, if not today, another time.

Michaeldove  2:51pm   @ASC_Amy @ddower @robertfalls201 @hesherman @shakespearectr What kind of guidelines, if you can share?

Klange 2:51pm  @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama Many view it as trifling chats on reality TV/sports/whatever. I know it to be a place for real connection

Petermarksdrama 2:51pm  @ASC_Amy @SMLois It is a time-suck, no doubt. + I find the meaty discussion crowds out the promotion, so u have to wanna TALK

Dloehr 2:51pm   @Jfdubiner @petermarksdrama It’s almost like a haiku.

HESherman 2:51pm   @robertfalls201 Absolutely people lurk, but term is pejorative. Many not bold enough to engage with strong personalities at times.

TheTicketMaven 2:50pm   @RobertFalls201 I’m lurking right now

ASC_Amy 2:50pm   @ddower @RobertFalls201 @HESherman Indeed. It took official social media guidelines to get everyone at @shakespearectr comfortable.

RSTStatusReport 2:50pm  @petermarksdrama Maybe some folks feel more comfortable in a bubble? Engagement with larger community could shatter preconceptions.

HESherman 2:50pm   @robertfalls201 I refer to social media as the earliest days of radio or TV. Still so new. Constantly evolving.

Ddower 2:50pm  @RobertFalls201 @HESherman And it takes courage for an institution to allow the individual voice. So staffers, like me, walk a line.

Jfdubiner 2:49pm  @petermarksdrama As someone new to twittering, the form itself is hard. Like being a transfer student in a foreign language.

Dloehr 2:49pm   @petermarksdrama This is after taking me to the airport, asking, “Why are you going to DC? Arena Stage invited you to what? Why?”

HESherman 2:49pm   @petermarksdrama Yet its a subset of theatre folks who a) are on social media and b) who you choose to “hear.” Not general public.

Dloehr 2:49pm   @petermarksdrama Took two years and the wave of 2amt to get my AD on here, since he realized he should see what I was doing.

RobertFalls201 2:49pm  @petermarksdrama I have more than 600 followers BUT only interact w/5%. Think most people are “lurkers” and afraid 2 participate.

SMLois 2:48pm   @petermarksdrama many companies I work with see twitter as waste of time with no clear Return on Investment

ASC_Amy 2:48pm   @petermarksdrama Everyone I talk to fear the possible time suck, don’t understand the possibilities.

Petermarksdrama 2:48pm  @RobertFalls201 Your passion comes thru. Our engagement is esp interesting, Bob, ’cause I’m going 2 see your work in DC soon.

Edenlane 2:48pm   @HESherman Funders / Underwriters are asking about all of our social media presence to measure the reach of their support

RobertFalls201 2:48pm  @HESherman It all feels a bit like the Wild West. Uncharted.

HESherman 2:48pm   @brookem1109 Brooke, Brooke, Brooke. Priorities, young lady, priorities. But I guess getting @petermarksdrama good seat is vital.

Petermarksdrama 2:47pm  My question is, what limits Twitter in many theatre people’s minds? Why aren’t they flooding the platform?

Klange 2:47pm  @petermarksdrama @ASC_Amy @PirateQueenKate Thank you! I can only strive to get better & take what I can from each piece of feedback

HESherman 2:47pm   @lindainphoenix So many people assume retweets or “curated” content is something you agree with; don’t get it may b just for convo

ASC_Amy 2:47pm   @HESherman I’ve seen funders in other nonprofit areas mostly. Although a couple arts funders out of Chicago.

RobertFalls201 2:46pm  In my profile, I say I’m intensely political & have no fear of exposing opinions. Want to opine re: arts, politics, pop culture…

HESherman 2:46pm   @robertfalls201 Have you found any funders who are actually engaging on Twitter? Maybe that’s the next piece of the puzzle.

Petermarksdrama 2:46pm  @Klange @ASC_Amy @PirateQueenKate Karen, Your responses to the post review on here were smart, not emotional.

ASC_Amy 2:46pm   @HESherman @moorejohn I first really engaged with Twitter during my two months of unemployment. Huge to have a community.

BrookeM1109 2:45pm  Want to follow convo but must finish press night seating #Tessitorture #Procrastination

Dloehr 2:45pm   @RobertFalls201 @HESherman In the past, I’ve compared it to a global MST3K experience and/or a virtual Algonquin Round Table.

HESherman 2:45pm   @moorejohn As someone who’s consulting and doesn’t have regular daily gig, Twitter keeps me engaged with theatre community

PirateQueenKate 2:45pm  @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama Yes, the theater wasn’t willing to admit shows were weak, easier to ban reviews from green room.

Petermarksdrama 2:44pm  @Jfdubiner @moorejohn for me, absolutely. I have far more context about what audiences and theater folks are interested in

Dloehr 2:44pm   @HESherman Indeed. Hopefully we can act as a gateway for them. (I’ll happily recreate Bob & Ray routines at the drop of a hat.)

HESherman 2:44pm   @robertfalls201 At the same time, I feel like I’m playing to an audience at times, with hashtag games and blog promos

ASC_Amy 2:44pm   @Klange Indeed. Have faith in your vision and acknowledge there are different tastes/perspectives.

RobertFalls201 2:43pm  @HESherman I agree & have come 2 learn that. Always a line 2 walk b/c institution = critics, funders, auds.

Rosalind1600 2:43pm  @Jfdubiner @HESherman @petermarksdrama But agree with Peter Marks on no politics. Plenty of other venues for that — like work.

HESherman 2:43pm   @robertfalls201 To me, it’s like having a whole bunch of pen pals all at once, with instantaneous response

Klange 2:43pm  @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama @PirateQueenKate Or see one bad review as a referendum on your project/worth. One has to get past that

Rosalind1600 2:43pm  @Jfdubiner @HESherman @petermarksdrama I don’t mind talking only about theater. But other arts/culture interesting to discuss too.

LindaInPhoenix 2:43pm   @ASC_Amy @petermarksdrama I’m in a similar boat re political comments, but am comfortable posting political content w/o comment

HESherman 2:42pm   @Dloehr Yet we talk about Tom Lehrer and Bob & Ray, and probably lots of our followers have no frame of reference

HESherman 2:42pm   @petermarksdrama Save for weighing in on current #GOPmuppethearings, I am apolitical on social media, except for arts policy

Jfdubiner 2:42pm  @moorejohn @petermarksdrama Has getting to know audience/artists changed the way you write about the work?

ASC_Amy 2:42pm   @petermarksdrama @PirateQueenKate I see it happen when folks don’t take control of their own destinies and blame others for failures

Moorejohn 2:42pm  @HESherman Honestly it’s so raw, I haven’t wrapped my head around that it’s over. I took the buyout and had to be gone in 24 hours

SMLois 2:41pm   @petermarksdrama @hesherman @robertfalls201don I know some critics who feel it is a conflict of interests to get to know artists.

RobertFalls201 2:41pm  @HESherman @petermarksdrama One does form common community w Twitter…find people around you with shared interests include info AND entertainment value

Petermarksdrama 2:40pm  @PirateQueenKate Fascinating to hear theaters “demonize” critics. What the heck is that about?

Edenlane 2:40pm   @moorejohn True for our broadcast too… & the back channel can drive our content at times

Moorejohn 2:40pm  @HESherman I was seen as just a guy, not some cliched monster. People felt comfortable approaching me in theaters, and I welcomed it

ASC_Amy 2:40pm   @petermarksdrama I’m the same way. I’ll comment about a lot, but not politics or religion.

HESherman 2:39pm   @moorejohn So what’s your feeling about continuing now that you’re leaving the paper? Do you still want this presence?

Jfdubiner 2:39pm  @HESherman @petermarksdrama I want to hear about other interests/concerns/opinions. Talking only about theater gets boring.

Petermarksdrama 2:39pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201don’t feel comfortable, e.g., commenting on political issues the way theatre people do on here. Journalist in me

Dloehr 2:39pm   @HESherman @petermarksdrama @RobertFalls201 …such as a common love of Tom Lehrer or Bob & Ray, for instance.

Michaeldove 2:39pm   RT @SMLois:     I think candid but careful might be the twitter motto for working professionals

RobertFalls201 2:39pm  @petermarksdrama Correct. Tricky to be both leader of an institution and individual artist. But that’s always an issue for me.

HESherman 2:38pm   @smlois Sort of the artistic Twitter version of “Trust, but verify”? 😉

Dloehr 2:38pm   @HESherman @petermarksdrama @RobertFalls201 What’s fascinating to me is finding those common interests beyond theatre…

Moorejohn 2:38pm  @HESherman Plus, social media connected me with new readers who didn’t buy my paper and never would’ve found me. Total game-changer

RobertFalls201 2:38pm  @HESherman @TheWing I too was urged by PR/Devo 2 blog about #RED. Found interesting to some but don’t want to just promote, want more

PirateQueenKate 2:38pm  Before Twitter, theaters could “demonize” a critic because the review was their only voice, now it can be contextualized more & discussed

HESherman 2:38pm   @petermarksdrama That’s an interesting point. We may start here given common interest in theatre, but how far beyond should we go?

Edenlane 2:37pm   GR8 rule of thumb RT @SMLois: I think candid but careful might be the twitter motto for working professionals

HESherman 2:36pm   @moorejohn How did social media change your image John? (and please hashtag all messages     to be sure they’re seen)

Petermarksdrama 2:36pm  @RobertFalls201 To me, Bob, it seems to have allowed you to open up on a variety of topics, not just theater…

SMLois 2:36pm    I think candid but careful might be the twitter motto for working professional

Klange 2:36pm  @PirateQueenKate @petermarksdrama Agreed. I’m no longer terrified of critics. I’ll take my lumps, but love the conversation

HESherman 2:36pm   RT @moorejohn: I was pretty much a presumed stereotype till people got to know me on social media.

HESherman 2:35pm   I first got involved in Tweeting and blogging at insistent urging of @TheWing’s Dir. of Web Development

Dloehr 2:35pm   @GwydionS Is it supposed to be different?

HESherman 2:35pm   @robertfalls201 Are you on Twitter at staff’s urging, personal interest, or what motivated you?

PirateQueenKate 2:34pm  I feel that @petermarksdrama is more accessible & now more someone I’d like to meet in person thanks to his tweets, not so before

Edenlane 2:33pm   great connection tool

RobertFalls201 2:33pm  Yes, got in trouble 1st wk (Should’ve used DM; in supporting colleagues, alienated others) Have had to learn 2 B candid but careful

HESherman 2:33pm   @petermarksdrama Same question does for you – are you engaging with people you didn’t know or didn’t expect (besides me)?

HESherman 2:32pm   @robertfalls201 So are you meeting new folks or connection with people you already knew professionally?

MariselaTOrta 2:32pm  @RobertFalls201 Who then do you find yourself talking to?

GwydionS 2:31pm   The fifth question: why is this Twitter chat different than all other Twitter chats? (Had to ask.)

Klange 2:31pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201 @petermarksdrama I’m following!

RobertFalls201 2:30pm  I don’t think so. Originally thought I’d be talking with subs and @GoodmanTheatre #followers, but turns out that’s not the case…

HESherman 2:30pm   B4, people had to write or e-mail you, or maybe spot you in lobby, @petermarksdrama & @RobertFalls201. Now you’re avail nationally

Dloehr 2:30pm   @michaeldove @SMLois @hesherman @petermarksdrama @robertfalls201 Having survived #celebbowling for another day, I’m here.

Michaeldove 2:29pm   @SMLois @hesherman @petermarksdrama @robertfalls201 HERE, as well~

HESherman 2:29pm   @mariselatorta Wherever the conversation takes us. Starting with AD’s and critics being more accessible to audience, public.

RobertFalls201 2:28pm  I’m here. Bells on. Ready to make history.

SMLois 2:28pm   @HESherman @petermarksdrama @robertfalls201 following along here

HESherman 2:28pm   I’ll toss this out for both @petermarkdrama & @RobertFalls201: has using social media made you more accessible to general audience?

MariselaTOrta 2:27pm  @HESherman What’s the topic you three will be discussing?

Petermarksdrama 2:27pm  @HESherman @RobertFalls201 (raises hand) Present!

HESherman 2:26pm   @petermarksdrama @RobertFalls201 Anyone home? Ready to chat?

I have opined in the past about the dark arts of theatrical billing, marketing and publicity in such posts as This Blog is Prior to Broadway and Blurb. Now, as the holidays approach, I have decided to give you a special gift.

You no longer need to try to parse that brochure, that post card, that press item as just another member of the uninformed masses. No, you can read between the lines by converting shopworn phrases that fill ads, direct mail and online solicitations by using this handy-dandy list, which will surely have me drummed out of the American Academy of Arts Euphemists, a secret society of which you will find no other evidence (we’re that good). Read and learn.

1. Comedy = it’s funny, or intends to be.

2.  Drama = it’s not funny, or doesn’t intend to be.

3. Comedy-drama = there are laughs, but it’s serious minded.

4.  Dark comedy = there are laughs, but it’s really sort of creepy.

5. Black comedy = a) it’s funny, but you wouldn’t bring your mother, or b) it’s really not funny, but we don’t want to admit that and call it a drama.

6.  “It’s about the human condition” = a) we don’t understand it at all, or b) if we told you what it’s actually about, you wouldn’t come.

7.  Play with music = there may be a few songs, but don’t get too excited or expect a cast album.

8.  Musical = it has a bunch of songs and dance.

9.  Musical drama = it has songs, but it’s serious and there’s probably not much dancing.

10.  Music theatre = it’s serious, likely has no hummable tunes, and has movement.

11.  Movement = there’s sort of some dance-like stuff, but don’t expect a production number. (See also, “subliminal choreography,” coined by Ben Brantley in New York Times review of Once.)

12.  Annual tradition = it pays the bills.

13. New version of our annual tradition, A Christmas Carol = a) the royalties on this script are lower than the old one or, b) our artistic director didn’t see why the theatre has to pay someone else royalties for an edit of a public domain novel.

14.  New holiday favorite = a) we’re tired of doing A Christmas Carol but we have to pay the bills so you’re getting this instead, or b) why did Dickens have to use so many characters? This has just one elf. (See also, “One-man Christmas Carol.”)(See also “One-man Christmas Carol adapted and directed by our artistic director.”) (See also, “One-man Christmas Carol adapted by, directed by and featuring our artistic director.”

15.  Crowd-pleasing = the critics won’t or don’t like it. (See also, “281 shows. 281 standing ovations.”)

16.  Heart-warming = tear-jerking.

17.  Brechtian = not heart-warming.

18.  Classic of world literature = a) you should like this because smarter people than you say it’s good, and/or b) didn’t you read this in school?

19.  Rediscovered gem = no one has produced this in decades, maybe centuries, and you never read it in school.

20.  “In the tradition of…” = it’s reminiscent of these other plays that were hits, but isn’t as good as them.

21.  Updated = standard script of a well-known classic lightly sprinkled with jarring references to the Geico gecko, Twitter, and current political candidates, with no one credited for said emendations.

22.  Hip = we dare you to say you don’t understand and/or like it.

23.  Current = people swear.

24. Daring = people swear a lot.

25.  “In the tradition of David Mamet” = people swear constantly.

26.  Family friendly = no one swears.

27.  Family drama = everyone harbors resentments which emerge during birthday/holiday/vacation.

28.  Regional premiere = it’s been done in many other theatres, just not in the immediate area, which may only be a 60 mile radius of the theatre.

29.  Broadway premiere = it’s been done almost everywhere, possibly for years, just not in a Broadway-designated theatre.

30.  New York hit = it was produced somewhere in Manhattan.

31.  New York actor = they live in New York, but aren’t very well-known there.

32.  Broadway actor = they were once in a Broadway show.

33.  Newcomer = just graduated.

34.  Broadway star = terrific actor, but not necessarily a household name or guaranteed box office draw.

35.  Film and/or TV star = may or may not have stage skills or even experience, but everyone knows who they are and wants to see them in the flesh.

36.  Produced in association with [commercial producer] = they gave us a lot of money.

37.  Suggested by Shakespeare’s _____________ = this ain’t Shakespeare. Purists likely to be miserable.

38.  Translated by = this person actually speaks the language used in the original script.

39.  Adapted by = a) this person doesn’t speak the original language in which the play was written or b) this person had made some tweaks to original play, but it’s still pretty much the play you remember.

40.  Freely adapted = you may have trouble recognizing the original play, often because it is now hip or daring.

41.  With a new book = we’ve kept the score, but a) have made significant changes to the story, including removing all of the casual racism that was common in musicals from the 20s and 30s, and b) convinced the family of the original bookwriter that their parent’s work really wasn’t any good and stood in the way of the score ever being heard on stage again.

42.  Two-piano orchestration = You think we can afford all of these actors and an orchestra? Just be happy you’re getting a musical you’ve heard of.

43.  Chamber musical = One piano, maybe a violin, and you’ve never heard of the show. Might be music theater.

44.  Concert-style presentation of a play = scripts on music stands and no one has memorized it, but you’re still paying full price. Cast may be dressed formally, despite actual setting of the piece.

45.  Originally conceived by = if not named in any other credit, this person had an idea but didn’t actually create any part of what’s on stage, is no longer speaking to anyone with billing and may be bringing, or has already brought, legal action (see also: “based on an idea by”).

46.  $30 under 30 = a discount predicated upon our average audience member’s age being at least twice this number.

47.  “__________.com raves” = no print, TV or radio critic liked it.

48.  Limited seating available = we’re selling pretty well, but not so well that we can afford to stop advertising.

49.  Final weeks = a) non-profit meaning: it was always a limited run, but we’ve got lots of tickets left to sell so please buy them, or b) commercial meaning: if you don’t start buying tickets soon, these will be our final weeks.

50.  Extended by popular demand = a) we left extra space in the production schedule because we thought you’d like this one, and b) this is going to help us close our projected deficit for the season.

Have you been bamboozled by, or guilty of obfuscating through, promotional euphemisms? I hope you’ll share other examples below, for the sake of theatergoing humanity.

Some are immortalized in stone, others in song.

I, however, now have something truly unique: my very own limerick courtesy of Lin-Manuel Miranda, Tony-winning author and star of the musical In The Heights. Here is the only poem (that I am aware of) ever written in my honor, as a result of my tweeting and blogging:

And here is a man @HESherman,

he writes about Ibsen and Clurman.

He fights for his craft

with every draft,

each column a solemn fun sermon.

It may only be December 1st, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the most exciting thing that will happen to me all day, all week and all month. Muchas gracias, mi amigo.

A blog post from the magazine Chatelaine, a publication/site heretofore unknown to me, has set Twitter abuzz with the assertion that a recent study (albeit highly unscientific) shows that people are happiest when having sex, exercising and going to the theatre.

The immediate impulse to cheer for the home team (theatre, of course; get out of the gutter and the gym) rapidly gives way to amusement about the company we keep in this investigation, and creative minds are no doubt at work pondering how to unite these diverse interests into a single happiness-generating activity to supersede all others.  It has already been suggested by others that chocolate might be added to the mix. Needless to say, I would be happy to tackle the research and development on this challenging artistic and social issue (if you know what I mean).

But I foresee a significant problem already, based on a business which has previously tried to merge several of life’s basic pleasures.

Once, perhaps 20 years ago, I dined at a Connecticut outpost of the Hooters restaurant chain, which has successfully combined pulchritude and food to the delight of many and the ire of probably just as many more. Without going into detail, I can attest to the fact that the chain’s signature attractions were in ample supply – but that the food was rather dire, and the accompanying sightseeing did not make up for it. Indeed, I have never again crossed the threshold of any of said establishments, for fear that I would develop a Pavlovian response that correlated attractive women with stomach-churning revulsion.

So even if we manage to address the not insignificant challenges of melding the top three pleasure-givers, as first identified by the respected sociological journal Marie Claire and popularized by Chateleine, I worry that we might well give rise to an entirely new set of psychosexual responses that would be our undoing. Imagine if a particularly successful coupling of sex and exercise took place, say, at a performance of a play the not-entirely-inappropriate Strindberg? The fear of a rise in Strindberg fetishists should be enough to give anyone pause (except, of course, psychanalysts, who would be jumping on their couches for joy). What if this multifaceted entertainment took on, say, O’Neill’s Strange Interlude? As the TV commercials warn us, after four hours, you should call your doctor, and that would result in a series of concurrent and perhaps amusing calls to EMTs for exhaustion and muscle cramps. Even if the theatre of choice were comedy, imagine the dysfunctions that would arise if one required activity at the farcical level of Noises Off to achieve fulfillment.

I will be setting up a think-tank/laboratory to explore this in greater detail, since success in combining these elements would surely sustain the fabulous invalid ad infinitum. But if science fiction has taught us nothing else, perhaps some elements of nature are best left untampered with, and maybe we’ll just have to stick with putting on great shows. Dammit.

Once upon a time, perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, I read a really fascinating article which posited that the arts would get more coverage in the media if they opened themselves up and provided greater access to the media. It suggested that the arts were working too hard to “control the story” at every possible turn and that as a result, we received only perfunctory coverage. Why, asked the article, which I believe had been presented as a speech at a conference of arts journalists, couldn’t the arts be more like sports, which gave the press access to practice sessions, to the locker rooms, in addition to the game itself?

Now I’m remembering this article (how I wish I still had it) at a temporal remove, so it would do no good to try to refute many of the points that made up its argument, which was perhaps hyperbolic, or even tongue in cheek, in the first place. But the issue of access remains with me, as someone who used to be one of the guardians who sought media coverage yet attempted to control every interaction between the artists at work in my theatre and those who would write about them.

I’m singing a somewhat different tune these days, although I’m no longer a publicist. While I never placed theatre in an ivory tower, I did respect that the artistic process shouldn’t be constantly opened up to scrutiny at every turn, and that to do so might well be detrimental. But I was doing my job in the very earliest days of the internet, and certainly before blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the like transformed every individual in a given production, and on the staff, into a broadcaster of news, gossip and personal opinion, readily accessible to not just the press, but to audiences as well. Consequently, the issue of access has fundamentally changed, in both positive and negative ways.

Several weeks ago, my Twitter sparring partner Peter Marks took exception to the fact that Arena Stage was holding a summit of some three dozen industry leaders to explore the issue of new play production in America. Prompted by a press release announcing the event, which listed the theatre notables expected to attend, Peter sought to report on the two day “convening” but was rebuffed. After protracted discussions, he did not attend; he subsequently set down his thoughts about access in a piece for The Washington Post.

When first made aware of the situation, I stood squarely (but silently) with Peter, assuming that the November event mirrored Arena’s January convening, where the participants numbered over 100, the public was invited and panels were streamed live. But the recent event was by invitation only and, had it not been announced by press release, might have actually taken place unnoticed.

The January meeting, for which a summary report was just issued, became infamous for remarks about supply and demand in the theatre industry as voiced by NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman. News of those comments came fast and furious onto my Twitter stream as he spoke and, I confess, I called the theatre desk at The New York Times to suggest they might want to read what I was seeing (of which they were unaware), fueling what became an industry furor. To the best of my knowledge, no such news came out of the more intimate November convening, perhaps because of a shared commitment to privacy among the participants, but more likely due to the lack of tweeters and bloggers amongst our artistic and management leaders

While trying to keep any conversation in this day and age from reaching the public is difficult, I do believe that there are some conversations which can be most productive when people can speak in complete candor, which public or press presence can immediately mitigate. No one should interpret every closed-door meeting to be nefarious, nor should they cease because of pressure for unfettered inclusion (I should note that I know of several in the non-profit community who resent not having been invited as well). I’m not advocating exclusion, but privacy has its merits. TDF new play study, Outrageous Fortune, was not discounted upon its publication because it emerged from private conversations and used unsourced quotes, after all.

On the other hand…

Recently, a theatre in New York held a public panel on the arts, an event to which the public was invited to attend for a moderate price. Although I am not a journalist, I inquired about whether I might attend and “live-blog” the discussion, in the interest of sharing the conversation with a wider audience. I was rebuffed by the press office, being told that the theatre wanted to keep its event intimate and quiet. Because I have many personal relationships at the organization and because I am not a journalist, I did not pursue this further.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have asked. After all, this was a public event and anyone there could have tweeted or written about what took place. If I hadn’t wanted to bring my laptop and access a wi-fi connection for contemporaneous reportage, surely nothing would have stopped me from reporting via iPhone tweets (save for an eagle-eyed usher, perhaps). If I did not consider myself part of the theatre community, if I didn’t have friends I might offend, I might well have barreled ahead and, having seen no reports of the event, maybe I should have. I do consider it disingenuous to label something as a public forum and then suggest that only those physically present should have any access to what occurs. A very different case than what transpired at Arena.

All of this brings me around to the buzzword “transparency.” In both of the examples cited, the events were not fully transparent; I agree with one company’s position, while I’m mildly resentful of the other’s. I think transparency is, overall, positive, but it isn’t necessarily an all-access pass. Indeed, some may question why in my latter example, I’m not naming names — in the interest of transparency. I do so because I know the company in question will see this, may well be prompted to consider their future approach and I don’t wish to embarrass them or reveal private communications; I name Arena because the incident is already part of the public discourse.

Let me share a third example, in which the media plays no role. At Hartford Stage in the late 80s, a benefit for donors of a certain level, which proved quite popular, was the opportunity to observe tech rehearsals. With as many as 75 donors at the back of the theatre, the rehearsals proceeded, but a flaw in the plan was quickly discovered: the attendees were bothered that they couldn’t clearly hear the director’s instructions to the actors, the designers and the crew. As a result, the director was fitted with a body mic, to be turned on and off at will, which would allow everyone to hear directives more clearly. While it may have saved on vocal strain, and was perhaps incidental, it did have the effect of transforming that rehearsal into a sort of performance, where with every booming pronouncement, the show’s production team and company were reminded of the patrons at the back, whose presence had impacted upon process, whether imperceptibly or fundamentally we’ll never know.

Smart phones, ever-smaller computers, social networks, the rise of the citizen reporter and critic, the persistence of the mainstream media all promise to insure that we are living in an ever more transparent world. We have seen the impact upon politics and governing (not always the same thing) and every day we see society evolving to address the new openness, whether cultivated or abhorred. While our dressing rooms may remain off limits, we may well be reaching a point where little else in the creative process can be protected, and where surely the field will benefit from broader, open conversation in so many instances.

Perhaps rehearsal rooms will be fitted with the one-way mirrors employed by police dramas (and presumably the actual police), so that rehearsals can be observed, but with those rehearsing none the wiser. Perhaps every pre-show and post-show discussion, every panel and forum, will be streamed or recorded for public consumption. Perhaps the inspiration of first rehearsals and the very first table read of a script will be opened up either live or through technology. Perhaps we can demystify the process of theatre so that more people can appreciate its magic (and no, that’s not an oxymoron).

Let’s face it: we’re heading in a direction where transparency is unavoidable. Would we do better to hold on to the shutters from the inside, waiting in fear for outside forces to rip them from our hands, or to open them (and the doors) as often as we can, perhaps supporting the argument for those times when a little privacy may be of value? The way may not be completely clear, but only with unobscured vision will we succeed in managing this transformation.