ACTR submissions

[Bruce Barton]

This may or may not be the correct forum for these comments (the general
parameters of discussion for this list is another set of issues worthy of
exploration), but here goes.
 
I received word today that my paper submission for this May's ACTR conference
has not been accepted because it "concerned material that was not related
to the Canadian context sufficiently for it to allow us to link it to the
mandate of the association."  Okay.  My request here is for clarity.  At
last year's General Meeting in Montreal, the precise nature of this
mandate was discussed at some length, although without resolution.  The
prospects for proposals that focus on topics and figures outside of
Canadian Theatre emerged as unclear, at best.  At that time I expressed
my standing interest in presenting, and noted that I had not submitted in
the past because my work deals primarily with American writers, companies, and
concerns.  I was, however, encouraged to submit for this year's
conference, and assured that the Executive was 'fairly flexible' (or
words to that effect) when considering submissions.  In addition,  there
were strong indications that these questions would be revisited, presumably
before the next round of submissions for this year's conference.
 
As I had not recently heard of any developments on this issue, I was
unsure of the status of any proposal I might submit.  However, as my work deals
with the interrelationship(s) of theatre and film, it seemed suitable for a
conference in which boundaries and borders are central topics of
discussion.  The fact that the principal subject of my exploration is an
American writer/director, however, led me to preface my submission with a
separate query regarding its aptness for ACTR.  As I received no
response (to either my e-mail or snail-mail inquiry), I presumed
(clearly mistakenly) that my submission would be considered for the
quality, as opposed to the nationality, of its content.
 
This is not a complaint against any of the hard-working members of
the Executive or Conference planners.  Nor is it a call for a radical
reorientation of ACTR's mandate.  It is, as already noted, a request
for clarity around a fundamental issue.  Proposals (for many of us, at least)
take time and energy--neither of which need be spent on unnecessary or
inappropriate submissions.  I will most certainly be at and participate
in this year's conference.  However, I regret not being a presenter, and
even more so that I had to wait several months to find out that I wasn't
even in the running.
 
For what its worth.
 
        Bruce Barton
        Dept. of English
        S.W.G.C. / Memorial U of NF