Submission 136 / Day 134

VALU-MART to Pillsbury House Theatre (Minneapolis)

God bless Pillsbury House Theatre. The people there are a gift to playwrights. Not only do they accept full script submissions from unknowns such as myself, but they prefer to receive them via email! That more theatres do not allow email submissions, especially those that accept only queries and synopses, is silly and wasteful. If a theatre is going to accept submissions, it ought to do so in the most efficient way possible. And the only beneficiary of requiring hard-copy scripts to be sent throught the mail is the U. S. Postal Service.

I realize that many people prefer to read plays in hard-copy form rather than on a screen and that printing emailed scripts requires effort and incurs cost . . . but, if that's the problem, then theatres should simply charge playwrights five dollars or some nominal fee. A five dollar fee would significantly exceed the theatre's actual cost to print either a script or a synopsis and it would represent a significant savings for playwrights for whom the combined costs of printing, envelopes, covers, binding, and postage are around $10 per script . . . and that doesn't yet take into account the time required of the playwright to do the assembly and deliver to the post office.

Of course, an unstated truth is that many theatres rely on the costs playwrights must bear to discourage submissions. But, if using cost as a means managing submissions is sensible (and I have doubts) then it would be far better for the penalty to be paid to the theatre rather than the post office and envelope manufacturers.

. . . . . .

Also, in response to a couple of comments I've received concerning my play submission campaign. The campaign isn't about me wanting to become a playwright -- I already am -- and it's not about a desire to become famous or gain notoriety. It's about the plays. I believe they have worth . . . value, not just for me, but for audiences, and they should be seen.

I understand that there is a certain degree of presumptuousness, even arrogance in that statement. But, it contains no more arrogance than is exhibited by anyone who writes a play or a book. Merely doing so carries with it the implicit assumption that what is being written is worth other peoples' time and money. So, having gone to the trouble of writing these plays in which I profoundly believe, it would be nonsense for me to do anything but make as much of an effort to see them reach the largest possible audience.


That said, there is a reason for the comments I received. There are in fact people . . . just go to any writers gathering . . . whose only aspiration is to be "published" or "produced", regardless of what they have to write to achieve that exalted status. Some people would happily write the labels for soup cans if soup can labels were considered a form of "publication". Even the redoubtable Moss Hart was driven more by a passion for being "in theatre" and specifically "on broadway" than he was by any aspiration to produce work of intrinsic or edifying value.

That doesn't mean Moss Hart's plays aren't wonderful. They are. But , as I read his autobiography and discover that he wrote six plays that went unproduced before delivering his first hit and also learn that he was able to set those plays aside without feeling as though something of value had been lost, I realize that we're cut from different cloth. And I say that in full recognition of the fact that in any comparison with Moss Hart, I lose.

One other thing. Today BENEATH SHELTON LAUREL got the ziggy . . . the black spot from the folks at Geva. For those keeping count, that's rejection #24. But, there are still 112 other theatres that may say "Yes!"