tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post363337480127182736..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Active, Passive, and Active NonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-49362824548102257132007-08-02T23:16:00.000-04:002007-08-02T23:16:00.000-04:00Scott, I apologize for taking up so much time and ...Scott, I apologize for taking up so much time and bandwidth today, but there is one other thing to consider that a friend just reminded me about: the influence of two married Christians from Texas on the entire textbook industry for years and years.<BR/><BR/>http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=about.htm<BR/><BR/>As an educator, I'm sure that's something you find worrisome. Is this a fair example of "regional values" being imposed by fiat on an entire nation? I think it is. I of course am not asking you to "distance yourself" from it (that would be astoundingly silly and stupid), but to consider it as part of the whole, part of the "culture wars" in which writers, editors, educators, and artists have been engaged by non-members of their community for many, many years. So not all the balance of power favors the leftie northwestern liberal media elite.<BR/><BR/>KerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-57653795508127196202007-08-02T16:39:00.000-04:002007-08-02T16:39:00.000-04:00It does partially answer my question, though, agai...It does partially answer my question, though, again, I would like some specific examples offered of what cultural artifacts you think contain such damning and repetitive use of stereotypes.<BR/><BR/>Outside of lazy sketch comedy artists (the "Appalachian ER" recurring sketch from SNL comes to mind), I can't think of people who routinely draw upon lowest-common-denominator images of rural life or southerners in their work. (And most of those lazy short-hand stereotypes are applied equally by these hacks to urban Italians, blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.) Now, we could argue an ABSENCE of rural life in mass media. But that could -- could -- also be a reflection of the fact that people in Hollywood also "write what they know." And increasingly, the populations in the U.S. are urban and suburban. I'm not arguing for a tyranny of the majority -- but surely you recognize how problematic it is when people outside a community attempt to speak for it or write for it? I have some knowledge of rural life based on the fact that my mother grew up on a farm and several of her relatives are still farmers. But rural life in central Illinois probably doesn't closely resemble rural life in the Carolinas or Alabama, and I would be hesitant to write about that world unless I spent a lot of time there first.<BR/><BR/>This, again, speaks to why a lot of people in urban areas who read your blog got upset at your broad generalizations (and it appears not to be the first time they've cropped up here). I didn't like people in San Francisco telling me about what a racist horrible city Chicago is (not that the race problem isn't here, of course, but San Francisco is far from the liberal egalitarian mecca some of its denizens imagine), when they had never spent any time in Chicago and were basing their statements largely on the race riots of the 60s, the Elder Daley's comments on Martin Luther King Jr., etc. You know -- things that had happened 40 years ago.<BR/><BR/>So surely you can understand why people in New York, in particular, would be upset at your characterizations of their theater community (and regardless of your subsequent widening of the terms of discussion, it did initially start out pretty pointedly as an attack on New York theater, and you have made similar comments in the past). Even if you did live there at one point and feel that your impressions are valid based on that, communities change over time. I certainly wouldn't go to North Carolina and expect to find lynchings and cross burnings in full force, for example. So I don't think it's unreasonable for people in New York to ask "So what have your recent experiences been like in New York that has left such a sour taste in your mouth?"<BR/><BR/>Kerry<BR/><BR/>P.S. A (soon-to-be-former) Chicago playwright you should check out is Brett Neveu, who has written several terrific plays about small-town life. He is from Iowa originally and is on his way to LA. I particularly recommend "Eric LaRue," about the aftermath of a school shooting, and "American Dead," which is really about a small midwestern farm town dying on the vine -- a play I saw, ironically enough, the same week the NY Times had an article on just that phenomenon. (See! They did notice!)<BR/><BR/>Tracy Letts' new play at Steppenwolf, "August: Osage County" is also a terrific exploration of midwest family dysfunction. Yes, there is incest in it. No, it's not like you might imagine. And the family is from an academic background, so they're not just salt-of-the-earth farm stereotypes. Just sayin'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-44168046101067354282007-08-02T15:28:00.000-04:002007-08-02T15:28:00.000-04:00Adam -- My focus on NY is more on NY as the seat o...Adam -- My focus on NY is more on NY as the seat of power, rather than individuals. You are right that OOB and the theatre in general is less likely ot fall back on stereotypes. But I would also argue that theatre tends to create many more stories about the urban experience than the rural, and more about the northern experience than the southern. And there isn't anything particularly surprising about that -- people write what they know. What is problematic is when the topics being written about and performed start losing diversity -- that isn't good for the theatre or for the culture. And when it does become narrow, then it is more acceptable to use condescension to portray experiences outside your own.<BR/><BR/>I would say, in reference to Kerry's Frank McCourt reference, that there is a difference between writing from personal experience and writing about something you know only secondhand, or as a stereotype. <BR/><BR/>I also just realized, Kerry, that I failed to answer your other question about what determines a stereotype. In many ways, the definition I offered on Tuesday is a good starting place. A stereotype is:<BR/><BR/>a. an exaggerated image<BR/>b. of a subordinate group<BR/>c. created and perpetuated by a dominant group<BR/>d. and repeated throughout the culture without significant balancing<BR/><BR/>So it isn't just one thing, but a repeated image. And so forth. Does that answer your question, Kerry?Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-77075095581467209552007-08-02T15:01:00.000-04:002007-08-02T15:01:00.000-04:00I think what many of us were reacting against was ...I think what many of us were reacting against was that we felt we were being stereotyped as liberal geographically bigoted New Yorkers while at the same time you were railing against stereotypes against southerners.<BR/><BR/>I think you are right actually about much of the media--tv and film. they are, after all, built in LA and in NYC. But I don't really think the New York theatre scene or theatre in general has the same inherent problem. Especially the off off theatre scene and regional scene that i think us bloggers live and thrive in.<BR/><BR/>It is true that sterotypes exist because they are based on fact. But also stereotype writing is bad writing. and it's writing that ignores humanity.<BR/><BR/>New York theatre has its share of bad writing of course and so does theatre in general, but I'm optimistic about new writing and new writers for the theatre right now. And these people are not all new yorkers nor do they all live in new york or write about new york. I just want to put that out there.Adam Szymkowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10195622524268234675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-38536294326689675022007-08-02T14:10:00.000-04:002007-08-02T14:10:00.000-04:00Kerry -- Interesting questions you ask. WEB Dubois...Kerry -- Interesting questions you ask. WEB Dubois encountered the same one during the Harlem Renaissance when Langston Hughes rose up and said, in "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain," that he was tired of writing with white people in mind, and tired of caring what white people thought of black people, and trying of trying to "be white." He just wanted to write about all kinds of black people -- poor, criminal, lazy, whatever. Dubois warned that the battle wasn't over, that many white people were using the fact that a few poets like Hughes were getting published as a reason to declare the racial problem over, and ended up saying that he didn't give a damn for art for arts sake because all art is propaganda!<BR/><BR/>Well, I wouldn't go as far as Dubois, and I also think Hughes had a great attitude (basically, "If white people are pleased, we are glad; if they are not, it doesn't matter, because we are proud black men writing good poetry"). But I have often expressed the belief that an artist is responsible to more than themselves -- that what they put out in the world should make the world better.<BR/><BR/>That said, to lay the responsibility for balance and alternative images on the backs of individual artists isn't right, because it shifts the onus of responsibility from the system to the individual. In a cultural situation where there were many portrayals of differing views of the south, for instance, one could be less concerned about stereotypes. But when this is not the case, then each use of a stereotype adds another straw to the cultural camel's back.<BR/><BR/>As far as encountering prejudice in daily life, I do what I can, and not as much as I might. But again, that is at the level of the individual, and I am speaking here about the level of the system. I'm not trying to cop out on that question, but rather to separate the two strands.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-20050390234396017252007-08-02T13:34:00.000-04:002007-08-02T13:34:00.000-04:00But now I must ask: is it the inherent responsibil...But now I must ask: is it the inherent responsibility of an artist to provide "alternative images" and "balance?" Is Alice Walker (or Toni Morrison, or Suzan-Lori Parks, or Kia Cothron) to be held lacking if they fail to provide what an outsider to their world deems "balance" to their stories? After all, Walker was also berated for trafficking in "stereotypes" of brutal black men. Yet such men do exist -- is it her responsibility to provide "the antidote" to a situation (male violence against women) that she didn't create? (In a much less significant vein -- I could get up in arms at all the stereotypical images of hard-drinking Irish and Scots out there, but coming from a long line of such, when I read, say, Frank McCourt, I don't think "Oh, here we go with the dissolute Irish Da again!" I think "Well, he's writing what he knows." That it plays into an unfortunate stereotype isn't his fault. Nor is he required to provide "balance" -- he's an artist, not a network news outfit.)<BR/><BR/>And I'd still like an answer to the broader question -- how do you make the intellectual determination as to what is a stereotype? Not "Oh, this makes me uncomfortable or angry, therefore it must be bad." I really want to know how you determine that. I would trust that if one of your students chose to evaluate a piece of work based on a fragment (as you did with the video that started this whole thing in the first place), you would question their academic rigor. <BR/><BR/>As a side note: how, in the past, have you handled people you've encountered in rural or southern communities who may have expressed negative attitudes toward New Yorkers or northerners or urban dwellers? (Referencing here in part Joshua's note from god-knows-where in all of this that he has encountered people who use "New York" as code for "Jewish" or "Gay" -- just as Nancy Pelosi's alleged "San Francisco values" were used as code by those on the right for "sexual libertines who hate America.") Surely you've come across them. Do you call them out on it? How? Have you found, in other words, an effective offline strategy for countering those you've met in the course of daily life who use negative stereotypes based on regionalism?<BR/><BR/>KerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-87256490741071980372007-08-02T13:00:00.000-04:002007-08-02T13:00:00.000-04:00David -- Pretty good. Be careful -- you'll be accu...David -- Pretty good. Be careful -- you'll be accused of being crazy.<BR/><BR/>I would also add one thing: while I might have to say that <I>The Bluest Eye</I> also traffics in certain "tropes," which you note (although it is set in Ohio, not the south), it balances those tropes within the work itself. Thus, the McTeer family provides a balance to the Breedloves that shifts our focus away from stereotypes because it provides an alternative image. <BR/><BR/>I have great admiration for <I>The Color Purple,</I> by the way, and I have said so, but within the context of this discussion of specific stereotypical subject matter, it isn't to be seen as the antidote, the balance.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-82511870377584355242007-08-02T12:47:00.000-04:002007-08-02T12:47:00.000-04:00Kerry,If I'm correctly following Scott's thinking ...Kerry,<BR/><BR/>If I'm correctly following Scott's thinking (Scott, please correct me here, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) I think the answer to your questions has to do with the difference between <I>content</I> and <I>form</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>The Bluest Eye</I> illustrates, in its <I>content</I>, the effects on an individual of internalized stereotypes. <BR/><BR/>The <I>content</I> of <I>The Color Purple</I> is not stereotypical, and by itself it is not <I>formally</I> stereotypical. But when you place it in a long line of plays (movie, tv shows etc) which consistently represent the South as racist, incestuous and violent (without offering other examples of what the South is as a culture) then it becomes, in <I>form</I> but not <I>content</I>, a stereotype of life in the South.<BR/><BR/>(By that reasoning, of course, one could say that <I>The Bluest Eye</I> is also <I>formally</I> stereotypical, if one also felt that there was a similar dearth in literature of alternate depictions of Southern life.)<BR/><BR/>Yes? No?<BR/><BR/>David MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-8727168076385095582007-08-02T12:28:00.000-04:002007-08-02T12:28:00.000-04:00Scott, you say in a comment above that "The Color ...Scott, you say in a comment above that "The Color Purple" traffics in stereotypes and elsewhere you've mentioned that the inclusion of incest in its storyline continues a negative stereotype of the prevalence of incest in the South/rural communities. Yet you also hold up Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" as emblematic of how internalized self-hatred, derived from dominant cultural paradigms, affects minorities/disempowered communities. (I believe that was the gist of your argument -- please correct me if I'm wrong.) Yet as you undoubtedly know, incest is also at the heart of "The Bluest Eye."<BR/><BR/>So -- is Morrison trafficking in stereotypes, too? And if so, what makes it less objectionable for her to do so than for Alice Walker to have done so in her story? More to the point -- who gets to be the final arbiter of what is or is not a stereotype? Or is this like the famous saying on obscenity -- "you know it when you see it?"<BR/><BR/>Not trying to be snarky -- like many others trying to follow this discussion, I find myself confused by the seemingly shifting sands of your rhetorical inconsistencies. This is just one that really stood out for me, because though I haven't seen the musical of "The Color Purple," I think both Walker and Morrison achieved something fine and lasting in those respective books, and it's hard for me to think of Celie or Pecola as stereotypes in any way.<BR/><BR/>KerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-19112996175352804212007-08-02T07:48:00.000-04:002007-08-02T07:48:00.000-04:00Paul, Ben, Gary, David M, Hillary, Tony, Alison, I...Paul, Ben, Gary, David M, Hillary, Tony, Alison, Isaac, Freeman, et. al. - I'd be happy to continue this discussion at your blogs, at my blog (slowlearner.typepad.com), or over email (mac dot rogers at gmail dot com), should you wish to.macrogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763086848960021250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-13546941081570226582007-08-02T06:54:00.000-04:002007-08-02T06:54:00.000-04:00All I was pointing out was that a good thinker, li...All I was pointing out was that a good thinker, like Theatre Worker, is clear about the terms under discussion. And Scott isn't: it's theatre culture, it's media, it's cultural hegemony, it's this, it's that, steretype is ok in one moment but not the next, etc etc. That's why he's impossible to argue with, and why discussions here seem to end up in such a kerfuffle of personal insult.<BR/><BR/>It's a pity, because underneath all that balderdash, Scott has a point. I'd suggest a more fruitful place to begin would be John Berger. Who says, among many other interesting things, that the greatest division in the contemporary world is between urban and rural communities. I think Berger's right (Berger is for the rural, btw) and there are some interesting places to begin discussion there. But unfortunately, Berger is not American, but English, and worse still, he lives in France, so he might be counted as irrelevant to this conversation.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-17057307816926341082007-08-02T01:22:00.000-04:002007-08-02T01:22:00.000-04:00I'd like to add that Alison Croggon is Australian....I'd like to add that Alison Croggon is Australian.<BR/><BR/>I'm also Australian and I think Matt from rural Pennsylvania's conclusion is spot on. And Scott, if you read it in relation to Alison's post, it might help illuminate the point that you couldn't grasp when you responded to her earlier in this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-58748891903562419862007-08-02T01:20:00.000-04:002007-08-02T01:20:00.000-04:00David,I do agree, there's a lot more to this than ...David,<BR/><BR/>I do agree, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye, and thanks for raising the points that you have. I was merely trying to address the points to the level that we currently seem to be running on (which is not a judgment aimed at either side, just an observation that we seem to be arguing <I>about</I> the topic rather than <I>on</I> the topic). <BR/><BR/>I really don't have any good answers, and I was being perfectly honest in saying that I'm not terribly interested in the problem. Sure, I took minor exception at <I>Iowa 08</I> (and sure, I did so not having seen the show), but I called it as such and was content. And sure, I will continue to take note whenever Iowa gets noticed on a large scale. But I don't really feel that the lack has created that large of a hole in my soul, so I'm not going to spend much time worrying about it.<BR/><BR/>However, I look through these comments and I see Scott getting mobbed for what seems to me to be a select choice of what may or may not have been poor word selection that has little to due with the issue he is raising. He has a valid concern; the importance of it, as Freeman points out, is certainly up for argument. I don't see that argument taking place. I see hurt feelings and retaliation and I was trying to bring it back around.<BR/><BR/>Which is a long way of saying: very good points, sincere thanks for the consideration, I hope it can help further the discussion, but like Freeman, it's just not my thing.<BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/>These are the sorts of non-issues that I think are killing any chance of a true discussion. I see myself as both an Iowan and a Chicagoan, amongst many other societal roles. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that you only feel one cultural identity and that is based on your point of origin, but if that's the case, fine.<BR/><BR/>But these points of order and selective readings and calls for hard fact are stopping the real discourse dead in it's tracks. I've made my attempt to get this back on track, I won't get dragged into the frivolities.<BR/><BR/>And, truly, Mark, none of that or the above is meant as an affront to you or the NY blogosphere; simply to unfortunate depths to which what could have been a lively and interesting debate has been plunged.Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-24052902644980588502007-08-01T23:28:00.000-04:002007-08-01T23:28:00.000-04:00>The NY blogosphere needs to take a second from yo...>The NY blogosphere needs to take a second from your railing for individualism and realize that there is a common thread amongst you all: you are from New York<BR/><BR/>Point of order: Freeman is from rural Pennsylvania, I am from northern Minnesota and Joshua is from Iowa. I do not know of any participant in this conversation that is "from" New York.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16073241969401141732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-65352788902836587992007-08-01T23:12:00.000-04:002007-08-01T23:12:00.000-04:00After reading this response to Isaac..."Isaac, I g...After reading this response to Isaac...<BR/><BR/>"Isaac, I get tired to kowtowing to the delicate sensitivities of NY bloggers. All this whining is about a small part of the original post. What I am talking about are the seats of cultural power in this country. You may or may not be sitting on that seat, Isaac, but it wasn't you or Matt or George or Mac that I was singling out. I'm talking about power relations working within the larger culture -- power that is centered in NYC and LA. If you want to make that about you, and to block out an argument because you feel wounded, then that's the choice you make. But it is a choice, make no mistake about it."<BR/><BR/>...I'm sort of embarrassed to have given the discussion as much time and attention as I have. <BR/><BR/>It's a childish, dismissive response which, if nothing else, lumps New Yorkers together by their region. For anyone bothering to think about the very topic of this discussion, that's at best ironic, and at worst hypocritical. It undercuts to me any validity the discussion might have had, and that validity was already tenuous.<BR/><BR/>My conclusion is, essentially, that the issue brought up the in original post hasn't been illustrated effectively, to put it politely. I don't agree that New York-centrism (a popular topic on "Theatre Ideas") and Regionalism are serious issues worthy of this much consideration. They might make Scott personally feel peevish, but that's really not something I need to involve myself in. It seems very much like an overblown frustration, and not a societal problem akin to racism or cultural prejudice.Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01183078884824734105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-85588777860911762822007-08-01T23:03:00.000-04:002007-08-01T23:03:00.000-04:00I'm not that Ben Kessler. It's rather confusing t...I'm not that Ben Kessler. It's rather confusing that there are two pissed-off guys out there with the same name, I know. :) Also, my doppelganger has much more Google visibility than I do, which sucks.Ben Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15012744146048630638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-34904583459369493242007-08-01T22:44:00.000-04:002007-08-01T22:44:00.000-04:00Scott –Thanks so much for your response. What I a...Scott –<BR/><BR/>Thanks so much for your response. What I asked for was just a couple specific examples of work that exemplified what you called “the NYC aesthetic” that is “openly scornful and dismissive of experiences and lifestyles that take place west of the Hudson.”<BR/><BR/>What you GAVE me were examples of work that you considered guilty of “reinforcing stereotypes.” So I can’t tell whether you think those two things are one and the same, whether you’re now backpedaling and softening your terminology, or whether you’ve chosen to ignore my request. All of the above is of course within your right – it IS your blog after all – but I want to be clear what it is I’m responding to.<BR/><BR/>Working on the assumption that you ARE trying to answer my question, I’ll assume that the three examples you gave are in fact example of the NYC aesthetic that you find so widespread, rampant and derogatory. Since that is what I asked for. (If not, would you mind giving me an example of THAT, since it WAS the gist of your original post, and the thing you claim to see everywhere.)<BR/><BR/>110 Degrees in the Shade – I agree that it’s pretty offensive, but it’s also a corny old musical that’s almost 50 years old. Yes, it was produced this season, but I think most everyone in the audience can contextualize the work as the outdated warhorse it is. It’s clearly not a very good example of the current attitudes and aesthetics of New York City-based art-makers. I don’t suspect it was fifty years ago, frankly.<BR/><BR/>Mississippi Burning – you wrote a lovely analysis of a fact-based movie from two decades ago. Again, not the best example of the current attitudes and aesthetics of New York City-based art-makers.<BR/><BR/>The Color Purple – Yes, a currently running musical, so I guess that’s fair. And it certainly traffics in stereotypes (in particular of African American men) but for the life of me I don’t know what makes this show uniquely New York. In fact, I would personally categorize it as one of the LEAST New Yorky shows on the boards.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the Color Purple happens to be running on Broadway, but it’s based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Southern writer Alice Walker (born and raised in Eatonton, GA) and adapted for the stage by the Pulitzer Prize winning Southern playwright Marsha Norman (born and raised in Louisville, KY.) The songs are by Detroit songwriters Allee Willis and Stephen Bray. And the show was directed by Chicago-based director Gary Griffin. The musical premiered at the Alliance Theater in Atlanta, GA before eventually coming to New York. So while I certainly can agree that there are some stereotypes in there, for the life of me I can’t see how those stereotypes are a result of New Yorkers’ scornful anti-Southern attitudes and aesthetics. I don’t think any of the creators are even New Yorkers. (Marsha Norman may be a transplant, but my god is there a MORE Southern playwright than Marsha Norman? Maybe Beth Henley, but that’s it.)<BR/><BR/>You may be right about non-New Yorkers being woefully under-represented on New York stages – though I don’t know if that’s accurate or not. But for the life of me, I personally don’t see the blatant (or even subtle) examples of what you call “geographism.” You are obviously passionate, and downright enraged by it, so please please please I beg of you, give me your very best example, just ONE example, one CONTEMPORARY example of a show that not only reinforces stereotypes – but the show that to you best exemplifies the “the NYC aesthetic” that is “openly scornful and dismissive of experiences and lifestyles that take place west of the Hudson.”<BR/><BR/>I am really just trying to figure out SPECIFICALLY what it is you keep referring to. <BR/><BR/>Thank you again.<BR/><BR/>GaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-54275990469157392892007-08-01T22:32:00.000-04:002007-08-01T22:32:00.000-04:00For the last 6 months I've been working of the tou...For the last 6 months I've been working of the tour of a show by a young playwright here in New York. She's Asian American, and a year or two back, when she was an up-and-coming figure on the downtown scene, she would have these meetings with artistic directors. And they would tell her how much they liked her work, were interested in producing something, etc, and then inevitably ask her whether she had any plays about her identity as an Asian-American. This can from artistic directors of Asian-American theater companies, and from white ADs of "general" theater companies.<BR/><BR/>This pissed her off to no end. Her white (and especially white male) peers were allowed to write any damn play they wanted, but because she was Asian she was expected to write solely about her identity as an Asian-American (even better if she would write something about her identity as an Asian-American <I>Woman</I>. Finally she had enough of this, and decided, "Fine, you want an Identity Play, I'll give you an Identity Play," and she wrote a ballsy, brash, complicated script unlike any other Identity Play I've seen. It was fantastically successful in New York, and now we're touring it all over the world.<BR/><BR/>Some observations:<BR/><BR/>1) Absolutely there is stereotyping, even perhaps racism, operating here. (If it is racism it's of a terribly postmodern sort, since it's a racism born out of a profound and sincere attempt to correct the racism of the past, to foster mutual understanding, etc. Very Michel Foucault.) Her artistic options were being curtailed by the powers that be based solely on her race. It is internalized racism (they don't mean to be racist, in fact they're trying to be the opposite) and it is present in both the white ADs and the Asian-American ADs.<BR/><BR/>2) She wrote this play as a big "fuck you" to the entire concept of Identity Plays, to the stereotype that all she can write about is her ethnic or racial identity -- and it was her big breakout play, her most successful show up to that point. She was revolting against the system, but the system still managed to put her back into the stereotype, and rewarded her for it. Again, see Foucault.<BR/><BR/>3) All that aside, it is hard for me to ignore the fact that <I>she hated the idea that she was expected to write about her membership in this group.</I> To be sure, she has the ability to do so, she has the inside scoop, and she did it very well (IMHO). But this trap she found herself in, where she's expected to "represent for her people" in order to achieve some broader culture balance of white to non-white perspectives -- this was profoundly oppressive to her.<BR/><BR/>So who's supposed to write those plays about Iowa? I mean sure, I agree with you that it would be lovely to hear more voices on our stage from around the country, but it sounds like you're saying (because of your examples about not seeing many plays set in the Midwest or South on stages in New York) that if we had a cadre of fabulous playwrights from Iowa and Georgia and Ohio and Louisiana, all with shows running non-stop; but if none of them were set in Iowa, none had the sound of Georgian voices and accents on stage, none were directly addressing life in Louisiana; it sounds like this would not meet your criteria for being examples of the broader geographic culture of the United States. Am I misunderstanding you? Is it in your opinion enough that those playwrights were having their voices heard? They are, after all, Midwestern and Southern voices, even if they aren't speaking directly about Midwestern and Southern things.<BR/><BR/>David MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-83505931814592241042007-08-01T21:39:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:39:00.000-04:00Ben,Are you this Ben Kessler:http://www.noroomforc...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Are you this Ben Kessler:<BR/>http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Articles/Graduation-Speech-Selfish-contraception-020.htm<BR/>?parabasishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12476856869466695694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-62916888303807969792007-08-01T21:16:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:16:00.000-04:00Even including film and television, your argument ...Even including film and television, your argument doesn't hold water . . . there is not one NY ideology, shoot, if there was, I'd admit it . . . there are NY cultural tendencies, just as there are Iowa cultural tendencies (and Nebraskan and Minnesota) but in New York you have many cultures and therefore, many different types of ideologies and identities . . . the idea that there is ONLY ONE just doesn't compute with the world I've work in, here in the arts, for the last 12 or 14 years . . . <BR/><BR/>I will confess, and I'm not accusing you of this, mind you, I will confess that the only time I've EVER heard anyone complain about a NEW YORK arts ideology from a rural person here, what was really being said was:<BR/><BR/>1) Too Jewish<BR/>or<BR/>2) Too gay<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that's what you're doing, I'm just pointing out that the only time I've heard this complaint has been from people I viewed as bigots themselves . . . <BR/><BR/>Which may explain why tempers are up. I also offer up that I know many, many writers from places not New York who have done well for themselves . . . writers not just of theatre but of many things, and artists and so on . . . <BR/><BR/>My wife is Japanese and a designer, and she loves it here . . . her views are very different, definitely unique and not New York but, in a way, it is because New York is a hodge-podge of cultures. <BR/><BR/>The fact remains that, for every film you trot out that makes fun of rural folk, there's one that makes fun of New Yorkers, and there's also one that does't make fun of rural folk . . . there are many voices in the arts, some listen well and express themselves well, and some don't. <BR/><BR/>So mull that. <BR/><BR/>And Scott, how can you claim, from where you sit, to be an authority on "New York arts ideology"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-27389748841531523172007-08-01T20:37:00.000-04:002007-08-01T20:37:00.000-04:00Joshua, I am going to leave the link to your post,...Joshua, I am going to leave the link to your post, because I think that's fair. Even though you are proposing to boycott my blog, I will leave the link up because that is fair.<BR/><BR/>And while I obviously disagree with pretty much everything you wrote, I will only address one thing I consider a misconception: yes, my initial post took off from a theatre production, but "New York aesthetic" paragraph did not confine itself to theatre -- in fact, it doesn't even mention theatre. Had I a chance to edit, I would have used the word "ideology" rather than "aesthetic," because aesthetic implies something about form rather than content. But otherwise, the paragraph and, indeed, the rest of the original post was pretty broadly defined. In fact, it doesn't single out theatre at all. I welcome anyone who wants to look at the original post to find references to theatre beyond the <I>Iowa 08</I> jumping off place. Let's focus on the text, not on your interpretation of the text.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-34436078393518860632007-08-01T20:20:00.000-04:002007-08-01T20:20:00.000-04:00Paul, I'm an Iowan, and though I currently live in...Paul, <BR/><BR/>I'm an Iowan, and though I currently live in New York, I'm definitely not a fan of the city . . . and will probably move when my wife learns to drive. <BR/><BR/>That being said, he's not speaking of New Yorkers, but New York Theatre . . . which has presented Horton Foote, Tennessee Williams, Naomi Wallace, Sam Shepard, scads of folks from all places, including the south. <BR/><BR/>He's speaking of something, New York Theatre, which he doesn't attend, only reads about in the paper, and his assumptions aren't based on what he knows, but what he thinks he knows - trust me, I'm as sensitive to bigoted slights as anyone, he's off base here . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-62543959117164233082007-08-01T20:16:00.000-04:002007-08-01T20:16:00.000-04:00Scott,I'm still moderately on your page (moderatel...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I'm still moderately on your page (moderately because I obviously am not as impassioned as your are), but the anti-redneck racist portrayal seems to be a case that could go all its own here, and doesn't seem to mesh well with the greater picture of rural America. Of course, my roots are firmly rural, and you have a good deal of Southern, so that alone is enough to explain the gap in our leanings. I am tempted to say that it also explains a lot of the gap between you and your firing squad as well, but am loathe to lest I get presented with a blindfold and last cigarette myself.<BR/><BR/>Aw hell, I'll do it anyway. The NY blogosphere needs to take a second from your railing for individualism and realize that there is a common thread amongst you all: you are from New York, and at the risk of sounding painfully obvious, there is an identification factor involved. Whatever your definition of the common New Yorker is, you nonetheless relate to art set in or portraying aspects of New York. And why not? You're New Yorkers! I would imagine the same holds true on the borough level as well; I know it does on a moderate scale for Chicago neighborhoods.<BR/><BR/>Here's where the problem begins in my mind: If you, as a New Yorker, find a depiction of yourself that you see as completely wrong-headed (perhaps, and I only say perhaps, in some of Scott's word choice in recent days), you can rally and cry foul and move on, because it's inevitable that there is a new depiction for you to consume right around the corner.<BR/><BR/>Me? I identify with Iowans. And, believe me, when we see or hear Iowa break into the pop culture, ears perk, because it just don't happen all that often. And when, for example, I don't associate myself at all with baseball in cornfields (because say what you will, but that's all anyone took out of that movie -- even "Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa." is only catchphrase, never a sentiment, for Iowans and non-Iowans alike... but especially non-Iowans), then it's a big fat opportunity to see identification with my home presented in mainstream culture pissed down the drain. And there just ain't many opportunities like that. <BR/><BR/>That's the main problem -- not that Iowa (or what have you) is portrayed in a hateful light, but that a wide majority of the time, as far as the mainstream culture is concerned, we don't even exist.<BR/><BR/>As to the answer? Well, you see, that's where I'm no help. Yeah, bunches of shows set in, on, and about Iowa would be neat, but it's just not a problem I have any interest in tackling. Personally, my time would be better spent bringing theatre to Iowa than Iowa to the theatre. But just because I'm not actively working to solve a problem doesn't mean I won't acknowledge that it exists, or that I won't support Scott's efforts to correct it.Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-62052628529674291522007-08-01T20:10:00.000-04:002007-08-01T20:10:00.000-04:00http://writerjoshuajames.com/dailydojo/?p=347Is wh...http://writerjoshuajames.com/dailydojo/?p=347<BR/><BR/>Is what I have to say to that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-87388663159357743122007-08-01T19:57:00.000-04:002007-08-01T19:57:00.000-04:00Thanks, David -- even though I think Ben overdid i...Thanks, David -- even though I think Ben overdid it just a wee bit.<BR/><BR/>Isaac, I get tired to kowtowing to the delicate sensitivities of NY bloggers. All this whining is about a small part of the original post. What I am talking about are the seats of cultural power in this country. You may or may not be sitting on that seat, Isaac, but it wasn't you or Matt or George or Mac that I was singling out. I'm talking about power relations working within the larger culture -- power that is centered in NYC and LA. If you want to make that about you, and to block out an argument because you feel wounded, then that's the choice you make. But it is a choice, make no mistake about it.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.com