No One Edits Poets

A few weeks ago, I went to see a play.  Sitting next to me was a woman who, it turned out, was a senior editor at a publishing company.  She had decided to subscribe to a few theaters to learn more about theatre as an art form, something she felt under-versed in.  We got to talking.  She learned I was a director and a blogger writing about theatre issues, we talking about the publishing industry and the theater we were currently sitting it.

After the show, it turned out she lived three further stops on the F train, so we rode back to Brooklyn together and talked about the show.

It turns out, we both agreed about the show.  There were specific moments that showed a lot of promise, and a lot of stuff surrounding those moments that didn't work.  We were in agreement about what those moments were as well.

And then she asked me, "So, I don't get it. Who in the theater is responsible for editing the plays?  Who tells a playwright, `no, that moment doesn't work, you need to elaborate on this, cut that' etc.?"

And my response was... "Well, on some level no one and on another level lots of people" and then I tried to explain some of how new play development works in theatre, about dramaturgs and literary managers and artistic directors and the writer-director relationship,and workshops and readings and the whole shebang. Or as much of it as I could outline in fifteen minutes.

She was surprised, to say the least.  She then talked about her world where before accepting a proposal and giving an advance (roughly their world version of a commission) they would insist on a detailed outline and a sample chapter and then work with the writer to get that outline to the point where it would eventually turn into something they'd agree to publish.  Or how with fiction the editing process can end up with the publisher insisting on some fairly large changes to a text.

I think I brought this up in an earlier post, but I just find it interesting how different the attitudes towards development of work are in different disciplines. Very few novelists would say the kind of stuff that Richard Nelson said at ART/NY where he proclaimed that a theater insisting on multiple drafts in a commission contract was a mark of deep disrespect to a writer.  I'm not saying things are better in any one discipline over another, but I find it interesting how the conventions of developing a new work, the normative behaviors, the expectations etc. change depending on what art form we're talking about. And I think these differences may challenge some of the assumptions we all have on how this whole thing is supposed to work.

So I brought this up with a novelist friend of mine who has a book coming out soon. We also talked about the recent Wells Tower interview in the NYTimes where Tower basically credits his editor with vastly improving his writing style:

The book is a lot of things, in other words, but, given the subject matter of the stories, which range from marital infidelity to a boy’s mistreatment at the hands of his stepfather to the dismemberment of a moose to Viking mutilation, you would not expect anybody to call it cute. Yet when Mr. Tower submitted the finished manuscript to Courtney Hodell, his editor at Farrar, Straus & Giroux, the words “too adorable” were among those she wrote most frequently in the margins. And she didn’t mean it as a compliment.

“Initially, there was a lot more corn-pone-ing and self-consciously vernacular language, cute little moments,” Mr. Tower said in an interview the other day, adding that he reined all that in upon revision. “So I actually didn’t sit down to write a bleak collection. When I look back at the early stories, it seemed much more like a ‘Hee Haw’ episode.”

I can't think of an interview with a playwright that contains a similar moment of gratitude vis-a-vis a lit manager or dramaturg.  Because the conventions of collaboration are very different. 

Anyway, novelist friend and I were talking.  He said, "Well, one thing is a play is then further mediated through a production and a novel is not, and so they're going to have different styles of approach. And of course, there are novelists who refuse to be edited, and if they're successful enough they can get away with it."

I then asked him if money had something to do with.  Their being more money and more opportunity in the publishing world and whether or not that has somehow created this system.  

He said: "I don't know, but I wonder.  Of course, when you think about it, when you write a screenplay you don't even own your work but it's where you'll make the most money. So maybe there's some kind of inverse ratio between money and control, because when you make less money your fulfillment and personal investment in it and kind of all you got" And then he paused and with a mischevous grin said... "I mean, no one edits poets".

I'm interested in people's thoughts about this. I know a lot of playwrights read this blog, and writers who have experience in multiple forms (screenplays, plays, books etc.): (And again let me say I'm not sure what I think about all of this, I'm just asking some questions to get conversation going)... What have your experiences been across the forms? Should theaters be more heavy-handed in helping craft the plays they produce and if not why not?  What do you think about all of this? One of the issues I brought up with the editor was the issue of developing plays, working on them and then not doing them... if we somehow fixed that issue, would some of the other NPD issues in terms of notes and rewrites and workshopping fall by the wayside?

And not just writers. What about you directors and producers out there? What about you current and former lit managers? Artistic directors? What up, everyone?!

Comments

[99]

I come at this from both sides of the table in theatre: I've taken notes from lit managers, directors and theatre staff and given notes to playwrights as a staff person and dramaturg. I think the generally collaborative nature of the work we do prevents the kind of one-on-one intense relationship I hear about in the literary world. The closest parallel is the playwright-director relationship, though, sometimes, in practice, the director becomes the go-between for the theatre staff (sometimes it's the dramaturg).

Part of what's different, culturally, is the particular place that playwrights hold. Legally/officially, the theatre can't actually demand any changes. They choose to produce the finished product. Of course, the reality is much, much different, especially in the "development" phase, which often just means "make this play into something we'll produce...maybe."

One of the big differences is the commitment. If what I've heard is accurate, and if I'm understanding what this editor is saying, the publishers commit to publish this book. Or, at least, they commit to talking about it. All of the notes are in line with that. That's a huge difference. Even in the best commissioning circumstance, it's all an elaborate dance to get that commitment out of a theatre that's trying hard not to give you any commitment. If they committed to producing the work, then, yeah, I think the dynamic changes pretty drastically. In a way, everyone can focus on making the most effective play possible, not just jumping through hoops to jump.

[Director]

I think there's also a fundamental difference between producing a play and publishing a book. You can produce a play that you wrote for free (or close to it). You can't get a book published for free -- even self-publishing costs a lot of money up-front.

Like 99 said, it's a matter of commitment. A publisher can demand edits, because they're committing X number of dollars to get this novel on bookshelves, and they're committing to selling Y copies over Z years.

A play that you write, nine times out of ten, is produced once, for one theatre, in one city, for one very small population.

[Tony]

But isn't a huge source of conflict in theatres the act of telling writers they won't produce it without x changes?

Publishers do that all the time.

It's a great question.

[Joshua James]

"But isn't a huge source of conflict in theatres the act of telling writers they won't produce it without x changes?"

I've been told that.

I told them I'd commit to the changes they wanted if they committed to a full production, not a staged reading.

They wouldn't do it. It was just a holding pattern, I think.

The difference between a theatre doing that and a film company telling me to rewrite a screenplay is that the film company will pay me for a rewrite ...

I've gotten some great notes and learned everything I know from people who gave me dramaturgical feedback, directors and the like.

But it's a double edged sword, not everyone knows everything, and I've had plays ruined by directors, too, who rewrote me without my permission because they felt that they could.

So ... I don't know the answer.

[malachy walsh]

The novelist who pointed out the differences in "mediation" between a book and a play's final product (a book and a performance) is worth paying attention to.

I do believe that there are some Maxwell Perkins/Thomas Wolfe relationships in theatre. Shepard's relationship with Woodruff and then Chaikin come to mind. Gregory Mosher has produced or directed 23 Mamet plays. Bogart has done a lot of Mee work. Then there are relationships between writers and acting companies - the Steppenwolf has several, as has the Magic in SF, MCC (LaBute), and MTC to name a few.

I think if we really look, there is more that is like book publishing here than meets the eye.

It's also worth noting, that while I agree many playwrites don't often give it up for the dramaturg and other collaborators as publicly as they complain, it does happen. The Young Jean Lee interview you posted about early in the month contained a note about how she writes and incorporates commentary from others. In a note to the published version of The Clean House, Ruhl thanks Ed Sobel very specifically for helping her make cuts.

Play development has certainly become it's own thing, but I also think we put a lot more emphasis on it than maybe we should. In a way, all NPD seems to me to be a formalization of what has always happened in the theatre: we collaborate at nearly every moment in the process.

This formalization has given us all something very concrete to react to and against in ways that are both good and bad.

Just some thoughts to chew on.

On a personal note, some plays I'm willing to take comments on for revision. Some I'm not. I'm pretty clear about which is which when it comes up.

[RVCBard]

The difference between a theatre doing that and a film company telling me to rewrite a screenplay is that the film company will pay me for a rewrite ...

Exactly.

I'm a copywriter, and I find it interesting that, when working with clients, they expect me to know how to do my job and defer to my expertise when it comes to developing copy that meets their goals. Funnily enough, they pay better, and I do better work for them too.

[Tony]

RVC, is there a difference between meeting their goals and meeting the writers goals.

That is another huge source of tension.

[RVCBard]

Tony,

In copywriting, that dichotomy doesn't really exist. When I'm working with a client, my first goal is to get paid. My second goal is to give my client great value for the money they spend. My client's goals are usually to save time and make more money. All the details such as pay, turnaround, length and tone of the copy, ownership of the work, and so on are hammered out before I make the first keystroke. Sometimes clients don't have a clue, but most of them realize that they hire me as an expert with specialized knowledge that will generate more revenue for them.

This is very different from playwriting, where the result (a finished script) is already there before the playwright even knows if it will be produced, let alone by whom and for whom. So the relationship between playwrights and the people working on their plays starts out in a problematic way because instead of starting at the very beginning and working to the very end, the production usually starts at the place where the writing often ends.

[Sasha]

As a writer, (yeah, I think now that I was offered a scholarship for an MFA in Creative Writing I get to call myself that), and a former literary agency bitch, the whole editing, redrafting process is a subjective mess or crushed egos and confusion.
Criticism and feedback is never insulting if it comes from someone who knows what they're talking about. Unfortunately, many agents, in both theatre and just plain old books can't seem to pinpoint what makes any piece of writing good.
Most rewrites occur after someone has made a deal with the publisher or producer. The problem is you never know if the suggested rewrites are there to actually make the work better, or more marketable. A certain movie musical I will not name received rewrites because the focus group that watched it thought a character was too mean. Similarly, a novel may be rewritten to make it more appealing to a certain audience.
I think that's why writers look for mentors- so they can get the opinion of a person who doesn't have money as an ulterior motive.

[Alison Croggon]

I've never been in a position as a novelist where the publisher has told me to change my work. The courtesy is in the end that it's my novel. I've had both good and bad experiences with editors. It's a deeply personal relationship, and there's no greater misery than working with someone who demands changes without understanding the strengths of the book - and nothing better for your writing than working with a perceptive and tough editor. (It's not true, btw, that no one edits poets - I had a long editorial relationship in my younger years with a very good poetry editor, a former Jesuit who taught me how to be tough on my work, and publishers have always had input).

I don't think it's essentially very different from any other kind of collaborative writing process. A good director will be very like a good book editor, and a bad director will produce many of the same problems. And a writer who's not prepared to be self critical is at a disadvantage in both publishing and theatre.

[malachy walsh]

A quick note of error:

In looking over my edition of Sarah Ruhl's The Clean House and Other Plays, I see I've misstated her thanks, somehow mixing it up with a statement from another writer.

Ruhl thanks many many people who helped her - dramaturgs, directors and editors - in her playwriting journey, but not Ed Sobel.

But if you read the note, she clearly expresses gratitude to many who clearly made many suggestions.

I regret the error, but I think the point remains the same.

[George Hunka]

To follow up on what Alison said, one of the most remarkable editor/poet relationships of the 20th century was Ezra Pound's extensive work on T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land." There's a fascinating facsimile available of the original manuscript with notations in Pound's hand, the number of which often threaten to obscure the typewritten text beneath it.

[Josh]

I found Richard Nelson's comments really surprising, but maybe that's just because he's an "established" and not "emerging". I find that whenever I'm working on a production of a play I've written I end up taking (or at the very least considering) notes/edits from everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY. The art of making theater is collaborative above all else, so why should it be improper for a playwright to receive notes and edits?

[Marisela]

A tangent on poets:

I got my MFA in Poetry. We poets most definitely got feedback on our work [read poems] in our workshop class. By feedback, I mean my fellow poets commented on line breaks, rhythm, word choice, asked questions for clarity, and told me what really resonated with them.

Feedback was then either used or not in the next draft of the poem.

So yes, poets do get "editors" per se if they seek them out.

And I think the process of workshopping a poem pushes a poet to really work on their craft.

And to dovetail on what Allison said in her comment, I've also had poet mentors who acted as "editors" while I worked on my thesis [a book of poetry].

[99]

I wonder if this is both a relatively recent occurence and if it does have something to do with titles and terms. It also seems to me that there are significantly fewer collaborations on non-musical works, while, in the past, particularly the '30s, they were much, much more common. It seems like, over time, the roles in theatre have calcified and separated. The director is brought in only after the script is "finished." Ditto most dramaturgs. And, although most playwrights I know are in one group or another and have various playwrights giving notes and such on early drafts, we rarely hear of the kind of collaboration on the level of Pound/Eliot. "Editor" doesn't quite cover what Pound did for The Waste Land, but there was no question that it was Eliot's work. But, in the modern era, in the famous Rent case, it was credit that was at issue. And that seems to be the crux of it: who gets credit for the work. In my life, I've never heard of an editor suing a writer for a proper credit, no matter how much they'd affected the work. It seems a bit unthinkable, am I right? But the position of dramaturg, on a new play, is a bit more unfocused. The same goes for highly collaborative directors/playwright relationships. If a director insists that a certain ending or a certain line is the right line, where's the boundary between that and being a co-author? It seems that, when you call yourself a director or a dramaturg, you're cut out from the writing process, no matter how much you affect it.

[ellen]

what's most surprising, i think, has been how mediocre the advice i've had from people in lit manager/dramaturg positions has been. nearly all the great notes i've had have come from directors or fellow writers. i think maybe this is because most of the people who survive as lit managers are the ones who can knuckle down to efficiently reading and rejecting a few hundred (thousand!) scripts every year, who'll just accept the current ideology/aesthetic and who don't get into conflict with artistic directors. writing good plays isn't easy, and most of them, honestly, have never tried, and don't have much of a clue. the exceptions (sometimes) are the people taking time out from work as writers or directors, not the career bureaucrats. the problem is, it's these people who have, initially, the power to say, yes, or no, or revise like this..

perhaps the answer is to get rid of the full-time literary manager job entirely,and to replace the position by a group of part-time artists, and perhaps a part-time administrator. more expertise for the money, and a wider range of tastes would do no harm..

[Catherine]

I think there's a really huge difference between a long term "editorial" relationship between a playwright and a dramaturg or director and the sort of one week development processes among artists who've never met before. I think that Nelson was really criticizing the latter. Of course, all playwrights depend on feedback in one form or another, and every single playwright I know has trusted readers who've been with them a long time, trusted directors who help shape the work. The question for me, at least, is not should playwrights have stronger editors, but how can the community help nurture the strong, pre-existing "editorial" relationships among collaborators, rather than thrusting the in-house dramaturg on a writer she's never met and doesn't necessarily have an affinity for. What would this look like? It would be great if development programs would ask the writer who they'd like to work with. I've had the same exceptional dramaturg/editor since college. He's outrageously qualified professionally and has read every word I've ever written. Wouldn't it be nice to bring him to PlayPenn/O'Neill/Sundance with me?

[ellmarlew]

This is an excellent discussion.

If all the advice we (playwrights) received was right, and helped the play become better, and included instructions on how to implement it (if necessary), we'd be fools *not* to welcome it and take it. But that's not the case. (A camel is a horse designed by committee...)

There are tons of places in the process of writing a play where we get feedback, from our writing workshops to readings to talkbacks to relationships with lit managers and dramaturgs. But ultimately, it is me alone who has to have the humility to listen to all of the advice I can and the hubris to make the ultimate decisions on what to change and what to ignore. And ultimately it is my responsibility if my play succeeds or fails on the page. That's one of the things I like about being a playwright.

Also... a lot of times when someone wants to "fix" your play, what they *really* want to do is cut its balls off (so to speak). Smooth every edge. Take out all the scary bits. I want to be absolutely rigorous with myself and my play -- but not to cut out the parts that make it bold and true.

It's a very delicate balance. But I'd rather be doing this than anything else.

~Ellen
______________
EM Lewis
emlewis@usc.edu
______________