an old Canadian play: Marsh Hay

[GLEN NICHOLS]

> Date:          Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:19:42 -0400
> Reply-to:      Alan D Filewod <afilewod at UOGUELPH.CA>

> On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Denis Johnston wrote:
>
> > While it appears that many members of the LISTSERV are professionals, I
> > think you'd find few professionals among the membership of ACTR (if that's
> > what you mean by "association"). I think that, in recent years, the ACTR has
> > grown to focus more and more on theoretical concerns, an area in which few
> > professionals have any interest -- or patience.
> > Denis Johnston
> > Academy of the Shaw Festival
> > drj at shawfest.com
> >
>
> It may be that few "professionals" have patience for theory. But should
> they boast about it? Roll over, Shaw; Roll over, Brecht.
>

So, then,  what IS the relationship between practitioners (perhaps a better
term) and  theorists? And what role or roles should ACTR and\or
CANDRAMA play in uniting them?
 Denis's observation that I confused the ACTR
membership with that of this listserv is accurate.  Alan's pointed
notation that at least some practitioners are also interested in
theory is certainly hard to miss.  But together they raise an
interesting problem or two:
  a) why IS there a difference between ACTR and
CANDRAMA; notwithstanding the technical accessibility factor (indeed
the statistics, as Denis points out, would appear to fly in the face
and run counter to technological expectations --one would expect
"academics" to be "wired", whereas struggling practitioners.....)? Is
the listserv doing something, providing something that ACTR is not?

 b) if there is such a difference, would there perhaps be a partial
answer to membership problems if such questions as practice and
theory were addressed\discussed? Should ACTR be concerned with
interesting theatre people?

Glen