fbpx 21st Century Literary Office Convening - Day # 2 | HowlRound Theatre Commons

21st Century Literary Office Convening - Day # 2

Nuts & Bolts

The “Sprawl” and the “Pile” The group reconvened this morning for a series of round table conversations. First up, a conversation titled “What’s Literary in the 21st Century Literary Office and Do We Need a New Name?” David Dower suggested the literary office has become a catch all space in the theatre with an increasingly long list of tasks and the result was a “sprawl.” Is this what the participants at the table are experiencing? David moderated the conversation with Lauren Gunderson (Playwright), Elizabeth Frankel (Literary Manager, The Public Theater), Joy Meads (Literary Associate, Center Theater Group), Madeleine Oldham (Director of The Ground Floor, Berkeley Rep), Amrita Ramanan (Literary Manager, Arena Stage), John Baker (Literary Manager, Woolly Mammoth), Pat Flick (Associate Artistic Director, Orlando Shakespeare Theater), Ilana Brownstein (Director of New Work, Company One) and Jojo Ruf (General Manager, National New Play Network).

As everybody talked about how they spend their days, most people at the table spend the majority of their time reading scripts, scouting in the community, and maintaining relationships with playwrights and agents. Amrita Ramanan stood alone as the Literary Manager who spent the majority of her time working on audience engagement and enrichment although Joy Meads argued that the audience engagement is crucial in season planning. At Woolly Mammoth, those activities are run by the Connectivity Department, which works with the Literary and Marketing teams. At Berkeley Rep, they are the responsibility of the Multi-Media Manager in conversation with the Literary Team. Conversation turned to “the pile.” Orlando Shakespeare Festival has found artists from the pile but many others have had less success. There was a feeling that maintaining open submissions is an irreplaceable service to the community. “The pile” isn’t “soul-sucking” when there is enough staff to manage it or when it feels like “the pile” is a realistic avenue for plays to find production. As the playwright representative, Lauren Gunderson advocated avoiding “the pile” at large institutions, fostering relationships with literary managers and artistic directors. She found her start in submitting to development labs whose mission is to find new voices. Lauren also talked about the literary office extending invitations. Invitations to the audience by way of lobby engagement, etc. and invitations to the playwright. Literary offices can be a haven for playwrights to turn to for help navigating each unique institution. The round table ended and the conversation amongst the breakout groups ran the gamut.

Groups spent time talking about soliciting for development and festivals versus production, how can the literary minds be most effectively used (it is often not in the rehearsal room), audience vent sessions, whether we’re training people for jobs that exist, the importance of developing relationships, and writing authentic pass letters. One group spent the time making a laundry list of everything their literary offices are actually doing. Here’s the list of the “sprawl”: Season planning, reading plays, scouting, managing writer’s groups, playwright relationships, playwright advocacy, readings, workshops, dramaturgy, audience connectivity, lobby experience, post-show conversations, study guides, program notes, newsletters, marketing support, grant writing, catering, various meetings & administrative tasks.

Is there a problem? After a quick lunch, John Glore (Associate Artistic Director, South Coast Rep), Charles Haugland (Artistic Programs and Dramaturgy, Huntington Theatre Company), Christian Parker (Associate Artistic Director, Atlantic Theater Company), Tanya Palmer (Director of New Play Development, Goodman Theatre), Martin Kettling (Literary Manager, Eugene O’Neill Theater Center), Ignacia Delgado (Coordinator, Sundance Theater Institute Program), Raphael Martin (Literary and Humanities Manager, Soho Repertory Theatre), Heather McDonald (Playwright), Liz Engelman (Freelance Dramaturg), and Nancy Barnett (Freelance) gathered around the table to discuss whether literary managers are gatekeepers (as suggested by Outrageous Fortune, the recent closed submission conversation at Arena, etc.) or “yes men.” Most of the representatives at the table understood the idea of the “gatekeeper” but rejected the idea that there are people standing around blocking the gate. Liz suggested that a home is more apt metaphor, with the literary office serving as a living room. There is not room for everyone at every theatre, choices have to be made, but literary offices are working tirelessly to open the door to find the artists whose work speaks to specific mission. The “gatekeeper” metaphor is more apt when the work of the literary office is not directly aligned with the Artistic Director’s understanding of the programs and there is more of a potential for “the pile” to pile up. When the literary office has a host of opportunities for playwrights (festivals, productions, workshops, etc.), there is less of a “gatekeeper” feeling. Conversation shifted to focus on the subjective reality of script analysis. There was a consensus that literary managers are fast to own up to the subjectivity when they love projects but are less likely to do so when they don’t connect to the piece.

Liz suggested that a home is more apt metaphor, with the literary office serving as a living room.

Each of the literary offices represented made efforts to diversify their readers to prevent scripts from slipping through the cracks because the aesthetic and content of the piece don’t align with the taste of the literary manager. How can we humanize our correspondence with playwrights? People not buildings are rejecting scripts. The discussion raised the question: Is there a problem? Writers are being discovered and plays are being produced. The perception of a problem could come from the fact that submission is just one of several routes that plays find production. The primacy of personal relationships was stressed yet again. The lack of diversity amongst writers and on our stages was cited as a major problem. To bring the group into the breakouts, Heather McDonald suggested maybe that we’re doing things right now but could benefit by adapting to the shifting story in the 21st century? Again the breakouts were incredibly varied. Topics of conversation included authentic rejection letters (are rejection letters even necessary?), lack of diversity, the challenges of doing it right for everybody, and reading less plays more deeply.

Dramaturgs, Literary Managers, and the Rehearsal Room The final round table of the weekend commenced with David asking Janine Sobeck (Vice President of Communications, LMDA), Polly Carl (Director, American Voices New Play Institute), Deborah Stein (Playwright), Emily Morse (Director of Artistic Development, New Dramatists), Jerry Patch (Director of Artistic Development, Manhattan Theater Club), Danielle Mages Amato (Literary Manager and Dramaturg, The Old Globe), Julie Felise Dubiner (Associate Director of American Revolutions: the United States History Cycle, Oregon Shakespeare Festival), Karen Zacarias (Playwright), Rachel Chavkin (Artistic Director, TEAM), Erik Ramsey (Associate Professor of Playwriting, Ohio University), and Amy Freed (Playwright) for insight into the distinctions between dramaturgs and literary managers and to talk about the relationship to the rehearsal room. There was a general feeling that dramaturgs are an incredible resource to the playwright during a production process but the preexisting relationship with the artist and familiarity with the playwright’s voice is undervalued. While artistic directors celebrate dramaturgy, they don’t always see the value of a dramaturg, which prevents them from successfully integrating themselves into conversations with collaborators early into the process. How can dramaturgs be more assertive in finding a place for themselves amongst the creative team? There was debate over what percentage of a dramaturg’s work is done before the rehearsal process begins and what role they can play in the rehearsal room. Distinctions were drawn between passion projects and assignments. Opinions were mixed when trying to draw the line between literary managers and dramaturgs. An inability define two distinct roles may be due in part to university trained dramaturgs being thrust into literary management positions for which they have no formal training. Key to both titles is deep, authentic relationships with playwrights and an ability to help navigate an institution. Some representatives seemed equally interested in audience engagement and production dramaturgy while others favored the rehearsal room. The inability to define specific roles and tasks was tied to the inability to define dramaturgy- not necessarily a problem to be fixed but a virtue to be celebrated. The idea of nimbleness- the ability to quickly adapt to each process- was seen as key to a successful position. There was a question as to whether art or economics was at the core of many of the large institutions. Returning to Amy Freed suggested that perhaps the “baby needs to be born” or reborn to revive the importance of artistic memory, cultural memory and theatrical intelligence. The necessity of humanity and authentic communication was a recurring theme. As the roundtable wrapped up, it was articulated that academic and professional training is less important in cultivating successful artistic collaborations than passion and knowledge.

Values, Challenges, and Bright Spots With no breakout group, we moved right into the final full group conversation of the convening with Heather McDonald explaining Simon Sinek’s book, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. The thesis is that most entrepreneurs start with “the what” and move to “the how” but that those who are most successful (she noted the Wright brothers) never lose sight of “the why.” With this in mind, David asked the participants to think about what would go into terms of creating a guide as to what to bring to the next generation. Conversation focused on creating a national database for script submissions, how to distribute audience engagement work, bringing playwrights more fully into the theatres (in terms of marketing, script reading, etc.), literary managers/dramaturgs being assertive in supporting artists and tailoring their own positions to best suit the needs of the institutions, staying nimble, best serving the local community, and finding joy. To close, David asked each participant to write down three values intrinsic to the literary office, one practice to interrogate for change, and bright spots in the community. There was great variety in the responses. To get the full list, check out the video posted below.

Here is a condensed list of values: Curiosity, Generosity, Authenticity, Advocacy, Intellectual integrity and rigor, Nimbleness, Connectivity Things to challenge: Making assumptions, Culture of narcissism and risk avoidance, Academic context of training, Culture of guilt, Unexamined activity, Silent acceptance of soul “suck-ery”, Cookie cutter development and production processes And current bright spots: Kennedy Center’s commissioning ideas before they become plays, The world premiere losing its power, Denver Center for commissioning and fostering a plethora of Latino/a voices, the O’Neill Center’s engagement of designers in the development process, the McCarter Theater’s writing retreat, NNPN’s collaborative literary management, Mixed Blood’s radical hospitality, Kansas City Rep taking the institution-wide initiative to learn about devised work, 13P for circumventing literary management altogether. The convening ended with readings of excerpts from four plays that were "stuck at the gate" and didn't find a production despite being championed by the literary manager or dramaturg: Bay of Fundy by Sherry Kramer, The Etymology of Bird by Zakiyyah Alexander, The Further Adventures of Suzanne and Monica by Alex Lewin, What to Listen For by Kathleen Tolan

Bookmark this page

Log in to add a bookmark

Comments

2
Add Comment

The article is just the start of the conversation—we want to know what you think about this subject, too! HowlRound is a space for knowledge-sharing, and we welcome spirited, thoughtful, and on-topic dialogue. Find our full comments policy here

Newest First

I'm surprised there are not more comments posted after this convening. It was indeed a wonderful gift, and as a new playwright I received a lot of valuable information. It was also nice to have a human face to a process that can sometimes seem distant, detached, uncertain. I left viewing all the videos feeling somehow more connected, more a part of a larger story, even if I was sitting solo at my computer. So thank you to all involved. I have greater appreciation for all that you do and are attempting to do. A few comments on certain things expressed. Someone mentioned live streaming of "knowledge sessions". It was a wonderful idea and I hope you follow thru with it. A representative from Steppenwolf mentioned his 50 something friend who was a playwright and did not have an MFA and thus certain doors were closed to him. I also hope this is something that is looked at in the future. Just because someone has an MFA does not mean they will be a good playwright. I'm sure there are many writers out there for whatever reason that do not have an MFA and deserve to be read, met, and to cultivate relationship with. This representative also said "I dont read a playwright I haven't met." While it's nice that he offers 30 minutes one Friday a month to open his door for meeting playwrights, it leaves a lot of playwrights across the United States out in the cold. I personally don't have the funds to be flying across the continent to visit various open door policies. I do appreciate the daunting 'pile' that certain companies feel necessitates the closing of submissions. Not knowing the "quality" of the scripts that that are received, I can only imagine the crossing of eyes in even contemplating going thru them. And yet that does not mean that there may be gold there. I can also understand the necessity of submissions not coming from relationship with an agent or Literary Manager needing to be limited to samples from the script. However, I do feel that 10 pages is simply insufficient and would suggest theatre companies enlarge it to 15 pages. This would allow for a longer scene to be read in its entirety, or samples from two different sections of the play to give a fuller scope of the writing, plot development etc. I found the conversation around the distinction of dramaturg and literary manager quite interesting, but must admit the dramaturg still seems a mysterious advocate. Also appreciated the brief conversation regarding checks for quality vs esthetic tastes and allowing access for new voices. I think more could be explored in that area. I look forward to more of these types of offerings.

Lauren Gunderson ROCKS! Her words resonated so deeply with me. AVOID THE PILE!

Also, I would like to go on record and say that I think the advice to playwrights to look at a theater's mission statement and plays produced is a bit misleading. Instead, I've found that looking at the list of the PLAYWRIGHTS they've produced or engaged is far more telling and helpful. If I see names that are unfamiliar then I am encouraged. If I have to Google the playwright then that is a positive sign.

That said, here is an area in which HONESTY and transparency comes into play. I wish theaters would be more honest about the types of playwrights they seek to produce and engage. More detailed and specific. Perhaps you want playwrights with a certain amount of professional and production experience. Just being honest about that might help reduce the PILE. It might upset people but at least you're being honest.... and you're not wasting people's time and they're not wasting yours. In all the submission pages I've read, and all the listings in the Dramatist Guild Sourcebook, I've never read a listing that set EXPERIENCE as a submission criteria. Based on what that level of experience is would cut down on those that can apply. Then as Lauren stated, they can seek out the wonderful developmental programs looking for new voices. As a rule, I no longer submit to theaters. But I submit to as many developmental programs as possible. I love that they have deadlines and response timelines and procedures, which makes me feel more secure that some meaningful activity and consideration is taking place with my script. I do not have that same feeling with theaters.

That said, I would like to applaud those theaters that feel open submissions is central to what they do, However, I would like to remind them that relationships can be just as important as
productions and readings. Sometimes I feel there is a misconception on the part of theaters and lit offices that playwrights only want productions or developmental opps. Instead, especially early in our careers, we want an artistic "sofa to crash on." Not even an artistic home, just a place to crash while we figure out some stuff... for a weekend even.... invite us in... make us feel welcome... educate us a little about how things work... shine a little light. Then send us on our way just as long as the experience was meaningful and authentic.

Thank you for this convening and streaming it live. I learned so much. This was such a wonderful gift.

Peace.