Comments for Smith & Kraus Publishers http://smithandkraus.com/wp Where Life Meets Theater Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:30:03 -0500 hourly 1 Comment on Los Angeles by Larry Loebell http://smithandkraus.com/wp/2009/10/20/los-angeles-3/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Larry Loebell Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:30:03 +0000 http://smithandkraus.com/wp/?p=107#comment-23 As the former literary manager and dramaturg at InterAct Theater Company (and, in the interest of full disclosure, a playwright whose work has been published in Smith and Krause anthologies -- encountered this post on the S&K website, though it may have also been re-posted on other sites) I want to suggest that even assuming literary manages spend all of their time on direct playwright consideration -- that is reading scripts and writing letters of solicitation or rejection, at an average small theater that does 3 or 4 plays a season (where it would be unlikely that more than one or two plays a season would be new plays) more than 98% of the work considered will be rejected. Some of that work will be good work that simply does not fit the mission or needs of the theater. I suspect that if you were able to poll the small percentage of submitting playwrights who end up in relationships with a specific theater they would virtually all say that they encountered literary managers who cared, some of whom they may even have had "love fests" with. But the question is, what should the literary manager do with his time if his or her responsibility to his job is to read perhaps 150 or more plays a year? In my tenure at InterAct it was my goal to write a personal letter in response to every query and submission, but despite my best intentions, it did not always happen in a timely fashion or sometimes at all. It didn't happen because the higher priority was having and maintaining relationships with playwrights whose work we were going to pursue . Other things also took precedence. Reading took precedence. Talking to my AD to advocate for the new plays I wanted to see our theater produce took precedence. Writing letters to playwrights we were rejecting but whose future work we wanted to see took precedence. These things take time away from other things. These are simply the facts of life in the economy of understaffed small and even larger theaters. As hard as it might be for a playwright to see no response as no, it may very likely be that. But the fact of no response does not mean the LM doesn't care. In fact, the LM probably cares a lot, is probably doing her or his job by building relationships with the playwrights to whom the company has said yes. As someone who has been on both sides of the literary manager table, as sending playwright and as receiving LM, I would suggest that playwrights do two things if they do not hear about a play in a timely (six months to a year) fashion. First, write an email or note to the LM and ask if the play is still in consideration. If there is no response to this, move on. As much as we would all like to have our work done by every theater we send it to, that is not going to happen. But I am relatively assured by both my experience as a playwright and my experience as a literary manager, that if a company wants to do a playwright's work, that company's literary manager will find the playwright, and work to enter into a productive relationship. In other words, will respond professionally and with "care." Finally, the fact that a playwright has had positive "caring" responses from some literary managers does not mean that the ones he or she has not heard from do not care. That conclusion would be spurious and unfair, and would ignore the realities of the new play producing world. Larry Loebell, Playwright and Dramaturg Former Literary Manager, InterAct Theater Company, Philadelphia, PA As the former literary manager and dramaturg at InterAct Theater Company (and, in the interest of full disclosure, a playwright whose work has been published in Smith and Krause anthologies — encountered this post on the S&K website, though it may have also been re-posted on other sites) I want to suggest that even assuming literary manages spend all of their time on direct playwright consideration — that is reading scripts and writing letters of solicitation or rejection, at an average small theater that does 3 or 4 plays a season (where it would be unlikely that more than one or two plays a season would be new plays) more than 98% of the work considered will be rejected. Some of that work will be good work that simply does not fit the mission or needs of the theater. I suspect that if you were able to poll the small percentage of submitting playwrights who end up in relationships with a specific theater they would virtually all say that they encountered literary managers who cared, some of whom they may even have had “love fests” with. But the question is, what should the literary manager do with his time if his or her responsibility to his job is to read perhaps 150 or more plays a year? In my tenure at InterAct it was my goal to write a personal letter in response to every query and submission, but despite my best intentions, it did not always happen in a timely fashion or sometimes at all. It didn’t happen because the higher priority was having and maintaining relationships with playwrights whose work we were going to pursue . Other things also took precedence. Reading took precedence. Talking to my AD to advocate for the new plays I wanted to see our theater produce took precedence. Writing letters to playwrights we were rejecting but whose future work we wanted to see took precedence. These things take time away from other things. These are simply the facts of life in the economy of understaffed small and even larger theaters. As hard as it might be for a playwright to see no response as no, it may very likely be that. But the fact of no response does not mean the LM doesn’t care. In fact, the LM probably cares a lot, is probably doing her or his job by building relationships with the playwrights to whom the company has said yes. As someone who has been on both sides of the literary manager table, as sending playwright and as receiving LM, I would suggest that playwrights do two things if they do not hear about a play in a timely (six months to a year) fashion. First, write an email or note to the LM and ask if the play is still in consideration. If there is no response to this, move on. As much as we would all like to have our work done by every theater we send it to, that is not going to happen. But I am relatively assured by both my experience as a playwright and my experience as a literary manager, that if a company wants to do a playwright’s work, that company’s literary manager will find the playwright, and work to enter into a productive relationship. In other words, will respond professionally and with “care.” Finally, the fact that a playwright has had positive “caring” responses from some literary managers does not mean that the ones he or she has not heard from do not care. That conclusion would be spurious and unfair, and would ignore the realities of the new play producing world.

Larry Loebell, Playwright and Dramaturg
Former Literary Manager, InterAct Theater Company, Philadelphia, PA

]]>