As usual, I concur with your observations. I've run into a recent string of gatekeepers for the first time ever. But, then "times-they-are a-changin'."
Recently, every theatrical literary manager I've had contact with regarding submissions, has been female, most ethnic and some LGBTQ. As you may guess, I am none of those things. Some of these gatekeepers blatantly publish a desire or preference for submission that is specifically play subjects regarding females, or of racial or LGBTQ issues- or from exclusively writers who are one or more of these things. And I add, everyone of them is a playwright themselves, seeking opportunity for themselves. (Usually providing them one new premiere of their own work every 1-3 years.)
Furthermore, if you look at the submitted play selections they make, even when they do not advertise this bias, it is exactly this; plays on the experiences of women, ethnic experience or experiences of the LGBTQ community.
I get it, really. After decades of what must be a presumed bias in theater, I guess the assumption that play selection favored straight, white-only male writers, these women are practicing a long needed balancing act of reverse discrimination to provide much needed opportunity to a previously excluded and disenfranchised group of writers. And it doesn't matter that at age 70, with my submissions, they practice ageism too.
I was at first incensed that they would practice this reverse discrimination, I assumed well-educated gatekeepers like these would look past that and judge material by it's quality. But, then I realized that most have little education or experience to make such quality judgement. (Kind of like most Broadway producers.) None have spent decades practicing, learning from mistakes and honing craft. Most are merely diploma-based students struggling to find opportunity for their own works while earning a wage controlling the gate to favor their preferences..
Well, these things tend to bounce back, in cycles. Already there is good evidence that these preferential selections are losing audience base, the majority of annual member-patrons not identifying with the subject matter and growing weary of the social-political rebuke and task-taking these often angry diatribes blatantly attempt to foist upon them. Audiences in Portland and Ashland have voiced weariness to this persistent onslaught of programming. (And no, this was not discriminatory rhetoric, but the reaction to programming fatigue.)
And then they wonder why their companies are bleeding out money and going into bankruptcy. Simply stated, they put their bias agenda ahead of the program desires of their market audiences.
Well, this is, indeed, the flavor of the month. I am happy for new voices to be heard, a little less so by this discrimination. I give these gatekeepers much kudos. It used to be that those who can't write (achieve opportunity and success) would teach. (And most still do.) But, now, a subset simply take control of the company to see opportunity is theirs to take and bestow on their favorites. Brilliant!
Were I playwright more than composer, I would be moved to write the perfect Geo S. Kaufman satire this situation suggests: the travails of a playwright intentionally writing and submitting a fictional history play that hits every cliche of these preferential demands and then forced to pretend to be a disenfranchised playwright selected to see a production of the selected work through. (Or maybe lop off the latter part and just submit the work under a female, gay, ethnic nom-de-plume.) Oh, well, I will accept partnership offers, as composer, if this idea warrants becoming a musical. Ha!
In some ways, isn't the recent film "American Fiction" sort of that satire with a slightly different angle? (Full disclosure: I have only read about it, not seen it yet.) Gatekeepers by definition are supposed to let some in and keep others out. This has always been highly arbitrary, usually while claiming universality. But at root, it is an exercise of pure power, which is why I find it objectionable regardless of its form. Thanks for commenting, and welcome back!
As usual, I concur with your observations. I've run into a recent string of gatekeepers for the first time ever. But, then "times-they-are a-changin'."
Recently, every theatrical literary manager I've had contact with regarding submissions, has been female, most ethnic and some LGBTQ. As you may guess, I am none of those things. Some of these gatekeepers blatantly publish a desire or preference for submission that is specifically play subjects regarding females, or of racial or LGBTQ issues- or from exclusively writers who are one or more of these things. And I add, everyone of them is a playwright themselves, seeking opportunity for themselves. (Usually providing them one new premiere of their own work every 1-3 years.)
Furthermore, if you look at the submitted play selections they make, even when they do not advertise this bias, it is exactly this; plays on the experiences of women, ethnic experience or experiences of the LGBTQ community.
I get it, really. After decades of what must be a presumed bias in theater, I guess the assumption that play selection favored straight, white-only male writers, these women are practicing a long needed balancing act of reverse discrimination to provide much needed opportunity to a previously excluded and disenfranchised group of writers. And it doesn't matter that at age 70, with my submissions, they practice ageism too.
I was at first incensed that they would practice this reverse discrimination, I assumed well-educated gatekeepers like these would look past that and judge material by it's quality. But, then I realized that most have little education or experience to make such quality judgement. (Kind of like most Broadway producers.) None have spent decades practicing, learning from mistakes and honing craft. Most are merely diploma-based students struggling to find opportunity for their own works while earning a wage controlling the gate to favor their preferences..
Well, these things tend to bounce back, in cycles. Already there is good evidence that these preferential selections are losing audience base, the majority of annual member-patrons not identifying with the subject matter and growing weary of the social-political rebuke and task-taking these often angry diatribes blatantly attempt to foist upon them. Audiences in Portland and Ashland have voiced weariness to this persistent onslaught of programming. (And no, this was not discriminatory rhetoric, but the reaction to programming fatigue.)
And then they wonder why their companies are bleeding out money and going into bankruptcy. Simply stated, they put their bias agenda ahead of the program desires of their market audiences.
Well, this is, indeed, the flavor of the month. I am happy for new voices to be heard, a little less so by this discrimination. I give these gatekeepers much kudos. It used to be that those who can't write (achieve opportunity and success) would teach. (And most still do.) But, now, a subset simply take control of the company to see opportunity is theirs to take and bestow on their favorites. Brilliant!
Were I playwright more than composer, I would be moved to write the perfect Geo S. Kaufman satire this situation suggests: the travails of a playwright intentionally writing and submitting a fictional history play that hits every cliche of these preferential demands and then forced to pretend to be a disenfranchised playwright selected to see a production of the selected work through. (Or maybe lop off the latter part and just submit the work under a female, gay, ethnic nom-de-plume.) Oh, well, I will accept partnership offers, as composer, if this idea warrants becoming a musical. Ha!
In some ways, isn't the recent film "American Fiction" sort of that satire with a slightly different angle? (Full disclosure: I have only read about it, not seen it yet.) Gatekeepers by definition are supposed to let some in and keep others out. This has always been highly arbitrary, usually while claiming universality. But at root, it is an exercise of pure power, which is why I find it objectionable regardless of its form. Thanks for commenting, and welcome back!