A piece of theatre blog history, Megan Vaughan's book on theatre blogs

-History of theatre blogging cf. economic blogs

-What does a playwright need?

-My own small part in the history of theatre blogs

-David Eldridge vs Chris Goode redux 

There’s a new book on the history and influence of theatre blogs by Megan Vaughan, Theatre Blogging: The Emergence of a Critical Culture. Recommend if you are interested in blogging or have read any of the early days theatre blogs.  

Turns out I’m part of a tiny piece of internet history being amongst the first wave of theatre bloggers. 

Vaughan writes:

“...In 2005, playwrights Benjamin Yeoh (Theatre and Writing) and Stephen Sharkey (O, Poor Robinson Crusoe!) started new theatre blogs, while director Paul Miller (My London Life) decided to concentrate his personal, journal-style blog on theatre. They were joined by Ben Ellis (Parachute of A Playwright), an Australian playwright based in the UK at the time, and Andy Field (The Arcades Project), who was initially a student in Edinburgh but would move down to London within a year. In 2006 they were followed by theatremaker Chris Goode (Thompson’s Bank of Communicable Desire), and David Eldridge (One Writer and His Dog), whose recollections began this chapter. 

While those UK bloggers were all artists of one flavour or another, 2006 was also the year in which two audience members, Andrew and Phil, became so infuriated by the Old Vic’s production of Resurrection Blues that they only went back after the interval because they had ‘always wanted to boo at the end of a show’ (West End Whingers 2006). While the booing was purportedly cathartic in some respects, it didn’t quite relieve the pain of the experience for Andrew and Phil, who started their irreverent review blog, West End Whingers, just a couple of days later. [BY: Quite a few of us ended up meeting up in real life and the WEW ended up coming to my own play - which was nervy as it was my theatre blog friends]  

A month after that, Natasha Tripney, a freshly graduated writer who had begun contributing to The Stage and music website MusicOMH, started her blog, Interval Drinks. The London theatre blogosphere was gradually catching up with New York and Melbourne, just as the New York bloggers were experiencing their first moment in the spotlight…”

This phenomenon was echoed within the Economics blogosphere. 

In 2005, Mark Thoma started his economics blog - that Noah Smith charts, link end - which spawned a similar wave in economics.  That those economics blogs have spawned even wider influence than theatre is mostly to do with the size of the “market” but the shape of the progress is the same.   

A democratisation of ideas, a faster moving debate by interested professionals and amateurs: fierce opinions thrashed in almost real time. 

I think Megan Vaughan argues that blogs are alive and well in their new forms.  I think blogs are alive but that peak blogging in its old form has been eroded by podcasts, twitter and the like. (I think she agrees) 

For me it’s a moderate shame - as I loved blogs so much - maybe blogs will resurge in some form at some time - and certainly they are still valuable - maybe some time of new  forums or smaller communities or the hyper-meta-blogs like Tyler Cowen’s or Star Slate Codex (it’s noticeable to me that Patrick Collison thinks good blogs could need more incentives… see end)

Vaughan selects a number of important blog reviews and debates to include in her book and it’s recommended for that f you are interested (despite the high price of c. £25).

Personally, I would have loved some interviews with the many current bloggers and practitioners who are still around and were blogging at the time.  Maybe there will be a follow up. 

At the time the memories I have most clearly are the intense debates between David Eldridge and Chris Goode about theatre (simplistically) “devised and ensemble” vs “writer-led”. She covers this and the subsequent podcast in 2018 where they somewhat reconcile. But she doesn’t convey the intensity of the debate I felt as a young theatre maker. Two voices I highly respected debating it out and seeing those debates echo in theatres and makers and spaces of the time.  I don’t think I was the only one. 

As a recent arrival in Twitter land, I can see some of that still now - but not in the nuance of before and it seems that it’s more noisy now in an inferior way as oppose to more diverse - which it is as well. 

I will leave you with one of my first 2005 blogs - redux -  May 2005:

I’m studying under Jane Bodie (a great playwright) as part of the Royal Court Writers’ programme. One of the questions we are asking is:

Qualities that that playwrights need?

I think it’s a question writers should come back to, every now and again, whether they write plays or in another medium. Of course, there’s no “correct” answer, and whatever answer one does have will probably change day-to-day, year-to-year, relationship-to-relationship…

We came up with (amongst others):

life, language, experience, imagination, sadness, joy, emotional access, flair,

perception

observation

analysis

commitment

articulation

Interestingly, Jane suggests articulation is the one thing she can teach something of. The rest might be unteachable.

Today I would strongly add:

Empathy

Curiosity

And it almost goes without saying an idea of how people communicate. 

Links:

My £1K microgrants programme

Amazon link to Megan Vaughan’s book @churlishmeg

Noah Smith’s tribute to Mark Thoma and history of economics blogs 

Jane Bodie 

Chris Goode + David Eldridge on podcast, blog here.

Chris Goode on Twitter @beescope

David Eldridge on Twitter @deldridgewriter

Patrick Collinson Questions:

Could there be more good blogs?

It seems that they heyday of of blogging is passing. If so, that's unfortunate. Blogs can be a remarkably efficient mechanism for disseminating ideas and facilitating discussion and debate. Twitter is good, too, but there's lots that blogs are great for that Twitter can't replace.

Part of the problem with blogs is that they're less rewarding than Facebook and Twitter: your post may perhaps get some thoughtful responses but it doesn't get immediate likes. And part of the problem is, of course, that writing a good post is much harder than writing a witty tweet.

Are there incentive structure tweaks that yield more good blogging?

Follow me on Twitter below:

State of the National Theatre

Does  the UK’s National Theatre reflect the UK? Divisions over Brexit, elite metropolitans vs countryside; populism/commercial vs artistic; identity wars - gender; state funding vs commercial funding. Leftist vs Rightist. Small state vs large state. [Not so far as to look at State Capacity Liberterians, cf. Dominic Cummings (?) H/T Tyler Cowen]

Helen Lewis takes on these ideas in a review of the National Theatre as an organisation and its conflicts with a dose of the Arts Council (after an interesting take on how the state effectively subsidises the commercial by allowing artists to develop in the state sector first).

Lewis notes the new language at Arts Council of “relevance” instead of “excellence” although with some push back that one can be both excellent and relevant.

Many commentators (theatre practitioners in my feed) on Twitter have critiqued the binary and polarised juxtapositions - which reflect debates on gender, and Brexit; and places David Hare (as a proponent of canon, traditionalists and, supposedly, an elite; remain) opposite Stella Duffy (as community, Leave). 

Comments like: 

NT primarily artistic or social? Can’t it be both?

Excellence or relevance? I write plays to be both.

I think those comments have validity, but I don’t think Lewis was proposing the nuance or spectrum here.

Lewis was asking if the conflicts at the NT reflected conflicts at a nation(s) state level. That the NT itself is a state of the nation play. And in that, Lewis draws some comparisons that do seem to reflect this idea. (Toilets one battle ground). This I think is interesting for non-theatre makers. Or, once you move past the opposing construct, it gives some intriguing insights into the conflicts that an organisation like the NT has.

Do our institutions reflect our society? Often institutions are more ossified and slower moving than where society is, in my observations. So the idea that the NT is of its time (and that some of its debates eg Peter Hall vs the Unions) stretch back in history.

On that idea, if the left did win the battle of culture and the NT is a result of that, but if the right have won the ideas on market economics - a binary that I’m not entirely sure I agree - and are currently re-shaping institutional funding - does the NT survive because it is as cherished as the NHS or as important as science funding; or does it decay attacked by left and right (cf. BBC) for losing of relevance - neither excellent nor popular rather than both excellent and popular?

Given Lewis interviewed some of our major theatre figures like Stella Duffy, David Hare, Rufus Norris, Dan Rebellato - I would have loved longer notes and insights into what they actually thought.

Full article in the Atlantic here.

Lewis’ take on subsidised theatre subsidising commercial.


Wendell Pierce

…In Pierce’s vision, art “changes people’s humanity, it changes the air in the room, it changes everything. People always ask me, ‘Well, give me an example of that.’” Then, sat in an armchair, with a coffee in one hand, Pierce embarks on the story of Charles L Black, a white lawyer from Texas, who saw Louis Armstrong play jazz in 1931, and two decades later joined the legal team that would help tear down racial segregation. “He always talked about how he had never seen genius in a black man before. I like to think that moment of art was the thing that changed his humanity — that it was not just an intellectual decision.”…”

From FT interview of actor, Wendell Pierce. Pierce is currently (1 Nov) in Death of a Salesman in London.

Advice from Cormac McCarthy on writing science papers

This from Nature. Aimed at science papers but useful to dwell on for all types of writing. Note his writing has a pared back style, and I sense that underlies his advice. He is world class, so it works!

Use minimalism to achieve clarity. While you are writing, ask yourself: is it possible to preserve my original message without that punctuation mark, that word, that sentence, that paragraph or that section? Remove extra words or commas whenever you can.

• Decide on your paper’s theme and two or three points you want every reader to remember. This theme and these points form the single thread that runs through your piece. The words, sentences, paragraphs and sections are the needlework that holds it together. If something isn’t needed to help the reader to understand the main theme, omit it.

• Limit each paragraph to a single message. A single sentence can be a paragraph. Each paragraph should explore that message by first asking a question and then progressing to an idea, and sometimes to an answer. It’s also perfectly fine to raise questions in a paragraph and leave them unanswered.

• Keep sentences short, simply constructed and direct. Concise, clear sentences work well for scientific explanations. Minimize clauses, compound sentences and transition words — such as ‘however’ or ‘thus’ — so that the reader can focus on the main message.

• Don’t slow the reader down. Avoid footnotes because they break the flow of thoughts and send your eyes darting back and forth while your hands are turning pages or clicking on links. Try to avoid jargon, buzzwords or overly technical language. And don’t use the same word repeatedly — it’s boring.

• Don’t over-elaborate. Only use an adjective if it’s relevant. Your paper is not a dialogue with the readers’ potential questions, so don’t go overboard anticipating them. Don’t say the same thing in three different ways in any single section. Don’t say both ‘elucidate’ and ‘elaborate’. Just choose one, or you risk that your readers will give up.

• And don’t worry too much about readers who want to find a way to argue about every tangential point and list all possible qualifications for every statement. Just enjoy writing.

• With regard to grammar, spoken language and common sense are generally better guides for a first draft than rule books. It’s more important to be understood than it is to form a grammatically perfect sentence.

• Commas denote a pause in speaking. The phrase “In contrast” at the start of a sentence needs a comma to emphasize that the sentence is distinguished from the previous one, not to distinguish the first two words of the sentence from the rest of the sentence. Speak the sentence aloud to find pauses.

• Dashes should emphasize the clauses you consider most important — without using bold or italics — and not only for defining terms. (Parentheses can present clauses more quietly and gently than commas.) Don’t lean on semicolons as a crutch to join loosely linked ideas. This only encourages bad writing. You can occasionally use contractions such as isn’t, don’t, it’s and shouldn’t. Don’t be overly formal. And don’t use exclamation marks to call attention to the significance of a point. You could say ‘surprisingly’ or ‘intriguingly’ instead, but don’t overdo it. Use these words only once or twice per paper.

• Inject questions and less-formal language to break up tone and maintain a friendly feeling. Colloquial expressions can be good for this, but they shouldn’t be too narrowly tied to a region. Similarly, use a personal tone because it can help to engage a reader. Impersonal, passive text doesn’t fool anyone into thinking you’re being objective: “Earth is the centre of this Solar System” isn’t any more objective or factual than “We are at the centre of our Solar System.”

• Choose concrete language and examples. If you must talk about arbitrary colours of an abstract sphere, it’s more gripping to speak of this sphere as a red balloon or a blue billiard ball.

• Avoid placing equations in the middle of sentences. Mathematics is not the same as English, and we shouldn’t pretend it is. To separate equations from text, you can use line breaks, white space, supplementary sections, intuitive notation and clear explanations of how to translate from assumptions to equations and back to results.

• When you think you’re done, read your work aloud to yourself or a friend. Find a good editor you can trust and who will spend real time and thought on your work. Try to make life as easy as possible for your editing friends. Number pages and double space.