By way of an explanation

In my previous post I said I was giving up reviewing plays because of a lack of "institutional support." As a way of elaborating on the point, here is an excerpt from an email I wrote to a member of the committee that gives out grants for research and creative work in my university.

The context: I submitted two grant proposals in November. Last week this committee member emailed me to ask for additional information regarding the first proposal, about finishing a book of creative nonfiction. I replied and asked if my other proposal, a request for a de-load in order to watch plays and write reviews, had been rejected. She said yes, because "writing columns for a newspaper" was not covered by the grants. Part of my response:

I expected it, though I'm still disappointed. I'm disappointed that the committee doesn't see a difference between writing a column and writing a review (which means actually going to watch a performance then writing about it intelligently). I suppose this is a gray area now, what with the acceptance of creative work in the grants program being a fairly recent phenomenon. A piece aimed at publication in a newspaper is different from one meant for an academic journal. But it's hard for me to believe that the intellectual demands are different. And certainly the readership reached by a widely read newspaper is not that of academic journals. I would expect that a piece in a newspaper would have a stronger impact on the theater community, both practitioners and viewers. The knowledge "created" would then have more utility in this medium. If we believe that the latter venue (the academic journal) is superior, perhaps it is because we are looking at creative work with the optics of science, a point of view which doesn't seem fair.

Reading that paragraph in my previous post in which I announce the end of my reviewing, I realize that I worded it too dramatically. I was probably still stung by the bad news.

What I meant to say was, I can't spend the time I did in 2008 watching all the plays that I did (65 performances of more than 50 productions) without some kind of support from my school. I am, after all, a full-time teacher, and this profession is not one I would like to give up soon. The demands of playgoing are high; the time and effort of scheduling, traveling, and watching are a significant addition to the time I spend on my work. There's been a palpable deterioration in the quality of my schoolwork since I began covering theater. And though I watched a lot of productions last year, I didn't write on many of them. My output of reviews strikes me as paltry considering the number I watched.

In short, I'm doing both things in a half-assed way. I'm not being fair to either. So though I love both, one must go. (And I haven't mentioned yet my creative writing, of both nonfiction and fiction, which is important to me and which came to a standstill when the current schoolyear began, plus a sideline that helps me earn a little more.)

Which is why I've decided to give up trying to be a regular theater critic (and Philstage juror too). This doesn't mean that I will stop watching. Only, that I will be much more selective in my viewing. I will still write when I can, but I make no promises.

I hope this makes things clearer. Thanks to everyone who expressed concern. Really, I appreciate it.