The continuing saga

In previous posts (the abrupt version here and the lengthier explanatory one here) I said that I would stop writing about theater or at least watch less and write less. I also said that I've applied for support from my university, Ateneo de Manila, through the Loyola Schools (formerly the College of Arts and Sciences) grants for research and creative work. I sent two proposals, one to finish writing a book of creative nonfiction pieces (my MA creative writing thesis, essentially) and publish it, the other to watch plays and publish reviews of them in The Philippine Star.

All proposals for the grants are due in November. A few weeks ago the committee deciding on the grants emailed me to ask for more information on the first proposal (the nonfiction book). I then asked if the second proposal had been denied. It was. I emailed a reply expressing my disappointment (which is what the explanatory post was for).

Here's what has happened since.

The committee representative replied, saying that, yes, they don't think writing for a newspaper is less intellectually demanding than writing for a scholarly journal, except that there is no peer review. If the committee backed me with a grant, the school would, in effect, approve of what I were to write without having the opportunity to put what I write through peer review. In short, they would have to take it on trust that my writing is scholarly. A fair point, I think. She did also say that my proposal was unusual; they hadn't seen anything like in at least three years.

So I took up Karen's suggestion in the comments to that last post and emailed, asking, what if I were to put the columns together in a book? Here is in part what I wrote:

I don't know if this is too late, but would it make a difference to my theater reviews proposal if I rewrote it to say that I intend to publish the reviews in a book at a later time? Not sure when. I would think that I would need some 40 to 50 reviews before they are worth putting together in a book. I have 14 reviews of 24 productions. Another 26 articles this year and I will have 40 at the end. (In my proposal I propose to write 25.) Perhaps I can also add several essays on larger topics, such as the current state of Philippine theater.

If the proposal can still be considered with these changes, please let me know and I will make the revisions.

A few days later came the response: the committee is concerned that play reviews are by nature "dated" and are better printed in newspapers or magazines rather than books. The rejection of my proposal was reiterated.

And so I wrote, a little peeved:

I don't understand why it's a concern that the reviews might be "dated." They will be dated only if we're thinking of ticket sales. The performing arts are, by their nature, ephemeral. Writing about them is one way of documenting a performance, writing which becomes a valuable resource to future writers and researchers of the art.

This problem of datedness hasn't stopped major critics from compiling their reviews of specific plays. Last year I read Millennial Stages: Essays and Reviews 2001–2005, a wonderful book by the preeminent theater scholar Robert Brustein, founder of the Yale Drama School. The long middle section is a compilation of reviews of some forty plays in some twenty-five essays. The first section contains essays on contemporary issues in theater; the third contains reviews of books on theater and profiles of important stage personalities (like Marlon Brando). In his more than forty years of writing on theater, Brustein has published compilations of his play reviews. Other critics such as Richard Gilman and Walter Kerr have done the same. So why is this a problem for us?

I was getting a little unnerved. The fact that I had to make the above explanation didn't sit well with me.

Then I got another email, this time on my first proposal (on the book of nonfiction). I had said, in my addendum, that I wanted to write, among other things, on memory. The committee representative said they wanted further elaboration, to wit: what "framework(s)" will I use, and what "literature" will I cite? The concern is that the works will be "largely personal reflections and accounts."

Well, that was it for me. I wrote back:

I do not understand the concerns of the [Research] Council. You ask for "frameworks" that I will use or refer to. Do you ask the same question of poets or fictionists who also write about memory? I do not approach my literary nonfiction as if it was academic research; I do not begin with a framework then search. The act is creative; I search first, then an insight comes to me. I do not begin knowing where to look or what I'm looking for. Otherwise, why write? The creative act of writing is an act of discovery. I recognize what I'm looking for only in the act of looking for it. To a scientist, this may be nonsense. To me, it makes perfect sense.

Besides, what is this problem with my work possibly being "largely personal reflections or accounts"? Has no one on the council ever read literary or creative nonfiction? I am not a twelve-year-old with a blog. My largely personal reflections and accounts are far different in quality. The samples I submitted to you — "Many Mansions," which won first prize for the Essay in English at the 2000 Palanca Awards; "A Soundtrack to the Eighties," which was published in the Philippines Free Press; and "Pilgrim of the Healing Hand," published in the maiden issue of UP's Likhaan, the only piece of creative nonfiction that merited publication (the other two pieces of nonfiction were criticism) — are all deeply personal.

If the council believes that my writing is not good enough to be backed by a university grant, then fine. If the problem is a lack of quality, then all right. But if the council believes that my writing doesn't deserve a grant because it is mostly personal, then that is a problem, because in effect the council has rejected most kinds of literary nonfiction before they can even be offered for consideration. (Question: has the council ever rejected proposals for poetry or fiction because they were "largely personal reflections or accounts"?)

I have nothing to add to what I have submitted to the council. Moreover, this exchange of emails over my two proposals has dismayed me and made we wonder if the council appreciates or even understands the kind of creative work that I do.

That was Thursday night. Friday I received a civil email from her thanking me for my "candid" response and saying she would take up my concerns with the committee.

And this is where things stand. I thought the book proposal was a good one; my chairperson endorsed it and even added a note explaining creative nonfiction as a literary genre. So I thought it was the second one I would have to fight for. Now I'm not sure what my chances are for either.

In any case, this will all be resolved soon. The grants are announced in February, at the same time that awards are given out for outstanding scholarly and creative work of the past year. I will know where I stand, what the next twelve to eighteen months or so will look like, and what kind of writing I will be able to do aside from my schoolwork.

Again, thanks for your concern.