actr + ?

[Denis Salter]

Ric's recent musings:
 
if I understand the model correctly, ACTR would remain intact,
the sun at one of many possible centres, and it would sponsor/
promote/develop/encourage/spawn a number of (inter)connected
fora: e.g. a discussion group for early modern d & t; another
for, say, the 19th C.; others on particular authors; others on
specific theoretical movements and isms; and others concerned
largely (solely?) with theatre practice.  I see a number of
advantages to this model: (1) instead of travelling outside the
the country to FIRT/IFTR, SAA, MLA, ASTR, Themes in Drama, ADS,
and so on, to give not just our Canadian but our non-Canadian
stuff, we could do so at home as well; (2) those who are concerned
to open ACTR up to other disciplines/periods/cultures would have a
venue for their work; (3) those who are concerned to protect
ACTR's integrity in relation to the study of d & t in *Canada*
would have no cause for alarm; (4) d & t in *Canada* would, as in
the case of Essays in Theatre, have an opportunity to foster
other kinds of theatre studies (tho' the ratio of Canadian to
non/Canadian material in EiTh would suggest that the immediate
parallel here would have to be carefully thought through); (5) the
kinds of affiliations and cost-savings that we have no choice but
to adopt would result, but not at the expense of the integrity of
the study of d & t in Canada; (6) there could be a number of fora
and workshops for those colleagues concerned mainly with performance
(as opposed to scholar/practitioners whose work has been showcased
recently at ACTR conferences) and they wouldn't have to set up a
separate organisation to do so at a time when money is in such short
supply; and (7) scholars from outside Canada would be able to come
here to develop their work on non-Canadian (and of course Canadian)
material.
--I find this model interesting, but only as long as I am assured that
the study of d & t in/of Canada is not being eroded . . . assimilated.
 
Denis