Play Submission Blitz: Progress Report

I'm a quarter of the way through my project of submitting a play-a-day for a year. For those who are old jocks, I’ll cut through the BS and go straight to the score board. At the end of the first quarter (3 months):
· Wins (commitments to produce) – 0
· Losses (outright rejections) – 17
· Runners on Base (theatres requesting full scripts and/or considering production) – 7
· Missing in Action (no response whatever) – 73

I know this doesn’t look too good, but given most theatres’ lengthy decision processes and the fact that my queries (not even scripts in most cases) have only been in their hands for an average of 7 weeks, I’m not sure it would be reasonable to expect any commitments at this point . . . especially since, with just a few exceptions, I’m only submitting to prominent professional theatres. Of the seven theaters that have requested full scripts or have told me they're considering scripts they've already received for production, two are LORT theatres, two are National New Play Network Theatres, one is a very prominent New York company, and the remaining two are well-respected Equity companies.

So, on balance, I'm encouraged. If after a year of this I get productions on as few as two prominent stages, I’ll consider my efforts to have been worthwhile. Three will delight me. And four will force my family to intervene with mood stabilizers to bring me down. But, all of that is a long way down the road, because, as I mentioned above, the lengthy decision cycle for most theatres probably means that I won’t be able to fully judge the impact of what I’m doing until 18 to 24 months from now.

I should also mention some of the feedback I've received from other playwrights largely as the result of my experiment being mentioned by The Dramatists Guild's Gary Garrison in his periodic e-newsletter. (Please note that I have not yet seen the newsletter myself because of an apparent addressing problem at the Guild, so if anyone can forward the newsletter in which I'm mentioned to me, I'll be grateful.)

The feedback has fallen into three categories:

• Enthusiastic "You go girl's" (Yeah, I'm a guy, but you know what I mean.)


• Doubtful, but friendly "Best of luck's"


• Sympathetic, but pointed advice that I'm "spinning my wheels" and shouldn't waste my time.

What's remarkable to me is that, in all the responses I've received and the advice I've been given, no one has yet raised what to me should be the central question -- are my plays good enough to be worth the effort? Because, if they are -- and I obviously think so -- then the advice I need from those who are telling me to stop is, if not this, then what SHOULD I do?

Consider my situation, which is shared by many playwrights. I have no agent; I didn't go to a drama school or "study with" anyone of any prominence or who has vast connections; and I live in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. In short, all I have to stand on are my plays and the success they've achieved when produced. But, if I can't get them read, then I don't even have that to stand on. So, please, to those of you who tell me not to waste my time and who haven't read my plays, consider the implication of your advice that I should stop.

You're saying that, regardless of how artistically or commercially worthy my plays may be, the system is so stacked against playwrights like me that it simply will not recognize quality or allow it to rise to the surface. If that's the case, then theatre has a profound structural problem that goes way beyond one whacked out wannabe hoopie playwright from West Virginia.

So, to help readers of this blog and of the Dramatists Guild newsletter more fairly evaluate the sanity or insanity of what I'm doing, this week (as soon as I can get some technical help) I'll post PDF's of the five plays I'm promoting as well as my bio. Then everyone can judge for himself or herself whether my quest is quixotic.

I hope you'll continue to let me know what you think.