Lists

[Denis Salter]

Dear Michael,

Publishing houses publish anthologies that include plays that
they think will be/are being taught. Their people in the field
visit universities, asking Professors about which courses they
are teaching, and which they will be teaching; if Depts. have
detailed handbooks about their course offerings, these are studied
(close textual reading and all that) very carefully by the people
in the field and by their bosses. Often the benchmark is 'caution.'
I have about 12 U.S. published anthologies from over the last
30 years. Some are on Contemporary Drama; some are on World Drama
from Aeschylus to . . . whatever was startling in the U.S. theatre
(it's invariably the U.S. theatre) about, say, two years ago.
In the anthologies solely devoted to Contemporary Drama, there is
an emphasis, especially in the final quarter of these books, on
contemporary U.S. drama.  The reason for this is clear: they want
their anthology to be bought by U.S. professors teaching Contemporary
(World) Drama and/or Contemporary U.S. Drama.

The contents of my anthologies are startlingly, and worryingly,
similar. There is very little difference among them. Not only
are the same playwrights regularly included, but so, too, are the
same plays by these playwrights.  When you consult with some of
large anthology publishers, such as Harcourt Brace,
they will tell you that their volumes include the plays that have
been taught (for centuries you might think), that are being taught,
and that are likely to be taught in the endless future. The canonical
wars of the last decade and a half have had only the slighest
impact on what's in, what's out, and why.  The publishers will remind
you that these are the plays that Professors teach, and, since they
want vast numbers of their anthologies to be sold to colleges and
universities in the U.S. and in many countries abroad, they want
these plays included. I know a number of instances in which the
editors of these anthologies have tried to re-write the highlights
of drama, and the publishers have refused. Absolutely.  Or, in some
instances, they have been willing to let in, maybe, one play, but
seldom two. They are, after all, as they say, again and again, in
the business of printing not only anthologies but money. Lots of it.
If you argue back, saying Professors would perhaps be interested in
anthologies with the same playwrights but with some of their different
plays AND with plays and playwrights who are 'new', they will ask for
proof.  In my experience, that proof is hard to produce. Does this
mean that Professors just want to teach the plays they know upside,
and downside? Does this mean that students just want to
read and study the plays that they somehow know to be important--if
only because their Professors and the chosen anthologies tell them
so?
Yes, aesthetic values, discrete and otherwise, might be part
of the discussion; but I suspect a very very small part. What's in
is what has always been in; the status quo prevails. I once proposed
to HB a volume of Contemporary Drama/Theatre/Performance that might
not include plays from the U.S., France,
Germany, England/Ireland, Italy, and Scandinavia; nor would it necessar-
ily be made up entirely of plays from what they seemed to regard, if
their existing anthologies are anything to go by, as 'token'
countries: e.g. South Africa, Nigeria, and Canada.They turned the pro-
posal down.  Why? Well, again it was a money issue.  They said they
were worried that it might interfere with sales of their recently
published volume, *Modern Drama Plays/Criticism/Theory* edited by
Bill Worthen. I think, however, that what they were trying to say
was that Professors would favour the Worthen anthology because it
contains the old stand bys and because it includes some (not too
many now) 'new' plays from the contemporary repertoire, by which
I think they meant *Angels in America,* *Belle Reprieve* and
perhaps *Fires in the Mirror.*  They wouldn't, at least so
the reply seemed to suggest, make any money at all, in fact they
might lose a good deal of money, by agreeing to publish the kind
of anthology I had in mind. Does this mean that they continued to
believe that Professors would be unwilling to change their course
syllabi? Further, although it has not been my experience that too
many artistic directors read anthologies, perhaps they were fearful
of losing out on that particular 'market niche.' (I of course don't
mean that ADs don't read: the preference seems to be on the collected
works of a given author, on selected plays by individual authors, and
by works recommended to them by their dramaturges, if they have any.
ADs of course also are eager to know which plays, in this
case, contemporary ones, have been the latest big hits at, usually,
metropolitan centres.

Are the days of print anthologies over?  I doubt it. Will they give
way to websites?  I doubt it. And even if they were to give way, what
evidence is there to suggest that little more than the tried and
trued would be available digitally?  Soon, however, I expect that
print anthologies will come with a diskette or a CD placed safely
within a small inside jacket. Since this method might seem novel,
no doubt it would be a way to increase sales. What kinds of information
would be on the diskette or CD? Token (short) plays from token or
(in)visible countries, the ones that they daren't include in the
print portion of the anthology? Or more information about the tried
and true; an electronic mode of further disseminating what we now know,
not what we might yearn to know.

Denis.

I'd like to discuss the narrative of nation/representative play
issue with you, but some other time.


Denis Salter
Department of English
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 2T6
(514) 487 7309
E-Mail  CYWS at MUSICA.MCGILL.CA