Who's Lazy?

There's this Howlround article that's circulating again (from 2011) where playwright Mat Smart breaks down why emerging playwrights are failing.  Even though this was written over two years ago, it was recently reposted on Howlround and then circulated on a Playwrights group on Facebook where people got all up in arms.

I can't say I agree with him entirely because I think there are factors that contribute to success and failure and one of those is our own personal definition of those terms.

But one of the things he says is that we are lazy.  And what's the first thing you say when someone calls you lazy?

Fuck you!  I'm not lazy.  You're lazy.  Asshole.

Or something to that effect.  I'm the first person to look inward and try to figure out what I can do that I'm not doing.  I'm overly critical in that regard.

What's wrong with me?

And by the way, I always think I'm lazy.  I always think it's my fault that I'm not succeeding.  So my problem is not accountability.  But I think some of that is a huge waste of time.  Sometimes you are doing everything you can be doing and you're just subject to an industry that operates a certain way.  I do think the conversation is different if you're a man or a woman or a minority or any combination of those three.  But since Mat Smart broke it down for all of us and put us on blast, I'm going to break down his article.

There is a widespread defeatist attitude among “emerging” playwrights that the system is broken. It’s impossible to make a living. We don’t have enough time to write after making rent. Sexism, racism, commercialism, stupidism runs rampant in established theaters (i.e., theaters we can actually make money at). Development opportunities are imperfect, too short, too finite. Theaters just need to do our plays already. We’ll do all the work we need to do on the script in rehearsal, trust us; your audience will come, trust us; you won’t take a bath on my play, just do it already—no really, the theater will die if you don’t support new work, assholes. Dear Artistic Director of a Major Regional Theater That Will Only Do New Plays by Playwrights Who Have Won Pulitzers: Fuck you. Sincerely, The Future of Theater That You Are Killing. 

I do think the system is broken.  I am guilty of everything that Mat accuses me of in this first paragraph.  But I don't just depend on the system to get my work out there.  I don't know if I'm a playwright who will ever operate within "the system."  And why do I need "the system" to tell me if I'm doing good work or not.  Well, I need it to win the Pulitzer, the Tony, the Obie and countless other awards that I would love on my mantel piece and that I could use as leverage to get prestigious large lump sums of money that famous and noted playwrights get.  But if my happiness as a playwright is based on whether or not I'm approved of by a broken system, then I'm giving too much of my power away and I'm in the business of being important instead of the business of being a writer.

And I'm just not as angry as the person he's speaking about.

On a bad day, that is what we “emerging” playwrights will say. I am not qualified to speak for all “emerging” playwrights, but this is often how I feel and what I hear over coffee or whiskey or the internet. I am not qualified to speak for all “emerging” playwrights because I am a straight, white male, and I don’t have a trust fund. I live on the $19,000 to $31,000 I make per year from a combination of playwriting royalties, commissions, fellowships, teaching, and working part-time at a real estate company. I am not qualified to speak for all “emerging” playwrights because I like to write linear plays with dramatic action and a climax where the protagonist makes a decision that changes him or her irrevocably. The diversity of we—the “emerging” playwright—is vast and necessary and I am unable to speak for all of us. However, this is what I believe, with all due respect to my peers:

our general laziness,
inability to commit,
defeatist attitude,
lack of talent,
and unwillingness to truly listen and change—
are the real reasons we—the “emerging” playwright—fail.

First of all, he says he's not qualified to speak for everybody, but he's feeling entitled enough to speak for a lot of people.  And I think he's just qualifying his statement so he doesn't come off as a dick.  I say be a dick!  It's fine.  So I'm just skipping to this last bit.

Laziness: Last year I wrote three new pilots (including several drafts) and several drafts of a new play.  That play hasn't been produced yet and neither have those pilots.  I submitted to a bunch of play development workshops and didn't get into any of them, although I did get some honorable mentions.  I did get a couple of readings that year and some this year as well.  And my father, who I was the major caretaker for, died.  You can't call that lazy.  This year, I wrote a new pilot and rewrote two plays.  I knew that this year would be slower in some regards because all of the mourning I was putting off was going to happen this year.  And I'm doing some growth in other areas.  I started a new play.  I have a complete outline for another play that I want to start.  And I have been reading and watching lots of films for that play I'm working on.  Sometimes the writing is not actual fingers on keys.  Sometimes it's thinking about it and journaling about it and blogging and talking to friends.  Fran Lebowitz says that you have to be out in life and socialize in order to get writing done.  You have to get out of your own head.  I'm also networking my ass off and taking meetings and lunches.  I'm meeting with friends to write every week and I'm in writers groups.  So if the definition of lazy is that I'm not locked in a room six days a week for eight hours a day…then yes, I guess I'm lazy.  But I'm also not trying to get water from the same old dried up well.

Defeatist attitude: Well, some people are just negative and they think this negativity makes them more serious or gives them the appearance of being hard working and dedicated because they're never satisfied.  Mat's right here.  That's a shitty attitude and has a lot to do with why you're not getting anywhere.

Lack of Talent: Well, here's the thing no one wants to say.  Or maybe Mat Smart wants to say because he wants people to get out of the race so he can get there faster.  Could a "defeatist" attitude also mean that you want to defeat everyone because you're hyper competitive?  In that case, I might be a defeatist. Mat's right.  Some people suck and they'll never get anywhere.  But we also don't operate in a meritocracy.  There are plenty of talentless people (that's what we call out competition…on a bad day) who are huge successes.  There are people who aren't as good as us who are having better careers.  I don't think that's sour grapes.  Because I don't think talent is always a prerequisite.  And audiences respond to plays for countless other reasons than being well-written or well-constructed.  Some people write technically proficient plays that are boring as hell.  But I don't think it's fair to say that lack of talent is a reason someone isn't successful.  Who's standard are we looking at?  And if we're taking someone who didn't go to NYU/Yale/Columbia/Brown/Julliard/UCSD/New School/Northwestern out of it…well, let's just assume we are.  Because Mat Smart might not be talking about you.  Because to "the system" you don't exist.  So quit now!  And I can say that as someone who went to one of those schools.  But you see, that's the problem with "the system."

Unwillingness to truly listen or change: Okay, I can get on board with this to some degree.  I think there are writers who are just stubborn and who think they came out of the womb a miniature, fully formed Edward Albee at his prime.  And if you think your play is perfect as it is, then you will never get any better.  But I do think there are theaters who don't always ask the right questions of a writer.  I think there are institutions who are also unwilling to listen or change because they own the building (the proverbial building, as opposed to the physical one in some cases).  And to be fair, if it's their money, it's their rules.  But it's not always their money.  It's the money of various trusts and institutions that exist for play development and they're just the custodians of that funding.  But they're still in charge of it.  Here's where I think we can make some strides to adjust the system or play in a new system adjacent to the existing one: If we use our money or resources towards alternatives, then maybe the system will be forced to listen and change because we're giving ourselves more options.  I think that can be as grassroots as self-producing or putting on cheap, public readings.  I know we want the cache that a certain seal of approval will give us.  But what happens when you are just chasing the system is that you become disgruntled, disillusioned, bitter and frustrated.  And that seeps into your writing whether you want it to or not.  And that is the real real reason playwrights fail.

This is already getting to be too long, so I'm going to touch on a few points that Mat makes in his article.  It's time for a speed round.

We—the “emerging” playwrights—are fucking lazy. This is what we don’t want you to know, Dear Artistic Director. Most of us don’t really know how to keep working on a play. Not what it really takes. To get a play where it needs to be—to get a theater to pull the trigger on a new script—you have to be relentless, indefatigable. You have to love the actual working on the thing—the actual writing—so much that there is an inevitability about it all….There must be a sense that “I am going down with the ship.” And frankly, it is a commitment that I don’t see many emerging playwrights make. 

Here's a question Mat doesn't ask: Does this Artistic Director decide how good I am? The answer is yes within the system we're talking about.  And some writers rewrite their script and put in the time, but the theatre doesn't do the play.  Then they have to engage in another relationship with another AD and undo everything they did to please that AD.  It's like the person who changes themselves in relationships to make someone else happy.  But when does that writer get to please themselves?  But I agree with him about "going down with the ship."  You have to stick by your work at all costs.

What if you rewrote and rewrote your ass off?  And worked on that script for months until it was exactly the way you want it?  What if you had a trusted group of advisors--an eclectic mix of writers, friends, literary staff and audience members who just know what they like--giving you their feedback?  And what if at the end of this rigorous process you ended up with a play you could stand behind?  What if that was the definition of success in the theatre world?  What if those were the plays that were going up and being seen nationally and internationally?  Would this conversation be irrelevant?  What if we stopped being people pleasers in our role as writer and truly made it about the work?

There's a notion in Kabbalah that the two partners can't make their relationship work if they're just focused on each other.  But if they're both focused on God, forming a triangular relationship, then there's a strength, foundation and a structure there.  What if we used that example?  What if the work was God?  What if we put the work first?

All right, I'm not even going to go further with breaking down Mat's article because frankly, I'm tired of it.  I don't think it's applicable to me personally.  I think he makes some valid points for some writers.  And if his point is that we're not working hard enough, then his point has been taken.  So once we solve that issue where are we?

I think playwrights fail for too many reasons to count.  But some of them include work ethic and others include our choice to buy into a system that doesn't serve everyone because no system can serve everyone.  If we are aware of the inherent prejudice in "the system"…and I'm not even talking just a white prejudice (which also includes white guilt, by the way).  I'm mainly talking the prejudice that exists because most emerging playwrights working today who are on the radar of major theaters are from one of the schools I mentioned earlier.  And it can reflect a certain mentality or at least taste level.  If you fall outside of that because you didn't go to one of those schools, you're left out of the conversation.

The major problem I have with this article is that it comes from a place of blame and of what we're not doing instead of telling us what we can do.  In other words (thank you Bethenny Frankel), it is not coming from a Place of Yes.

Work Harder Than Everyone in the Room (or your circle)
Don't Pay Attention to What Other People Are Doing
Get Your Work Out There
Be Your Biggest Fan
Understand What the Note Is

I'll explain more of what I mean in another post, but let's just digest that for now.  That is what will lead to your success.  That is what will lead to good work.  The other stuff isn't up to us.