Ten Best

[Richard Plant]

Hello Gaetan:

Some people, academics or not, don't "shy away" from the discussion. We've
been involved in it for some time. I share both Reid's and Ric's
reservations about categories, canonical or otherwise, and the limitations
formed by them. To paraphrase a canonical voice, I like to know what I am
walling in and out when I make a wall. But I do know that I am walling in
and walling out in some form or another when I make a wall. How permeable
can that wall be? As someone who has been placed in the role of canonizer,
a creator of something seen to resemble "best" lists, I am thoroughly
conscious of the gap between what one sets out to do and what others
perceive one to be doing, or who employ what one has done in ways which
are not quite what had been envisioned. No doubt this is a case akin to
that playwrights find themselves in when a play is staged. It is
part of living in the everyday world.

But I note too that what you are now saying, "I want to know what plays
touched people ...," is significantly different from a list of "best"
plays. Does this suggest that you are "shying away" from the original
discussion prompt? Is a request for people to create a "best list" the way
to arrive at what you now want? It seems to me that this rather
simplifies the process involved in forming such critical distinctions as
you seek in discerning the "touching" plays and moves toward the foolishly
absolute "thumbs up, thumbs down" approach to criticism. It is a form that
I would associate with the polemical for/against. Interestingly for me, I
note that you speak of your rage and seem to associate decisions you make
concerning theatre, on this occasion, with that impulse. What an
interesting basis for criticism.

While lists of "ten best" are prevalent, they are crude instruments -- I'd
not say vulgar except in a limited sense -- built on very uncertain
foundations of arbitrary values. As points of discussion, when the
discussion can be seen clearly within the limited frames represented by
the values on which the choices are made, lists of "ten best" might be
mildly useful. They will reveal the values themselves when interrogated.
They are also useful within any institutional structure where some
hierarchical decisions are needed to uphold power and fulfil the
mandate of the institution. This can be seen in the world of commercial
enterprise where the simplification of value systems allows for the
centralization of specific aspects/values in representative commodities
which can be held up as important, "valuable" and objects of desire and
possession. The worlds of country music and movies tell us something of
that: set up an organization, such as the country music academy or the
film academy, broadcast its institutional status and its values, establish
an awards process which recognizes those values, and display these so that
people can see the process in action, and soon many people will buy into
the list of awards as meaningful. Some people more than others will
recognize the limitation of the meaningfulness. Collections of plays seem
to me to be much the same when set into an institutional structure, such
as an encyclopedia or anthology. This too is part of living in the
everyday world.

In the absence on the e-waves of an extended discussion of Canadian
theatre -- many of us have noted and commented on the lack of discussion
-- I sense that your request for "ten best" was a potentially provocative
but roundabout invitation for subscribers to develop a discourse focused
not on the ten best but on more meaningful critical distinctions which
uphold the value of Canadian theatre -- in contradistinction to poor old
Willie who comes in for quite a bit of flack these days. And, rightly so
in my view. He's in an overvalued play, as I have occasionally argued
with a colleague of mine -- who maintains his opinion despite my attacks.

A more useful exercise might be to discuss various plays more directly, if
what is wanted is attention to plays, and not to the value systems
inherent in "best lists".

Oh, yes. I almost forgot. In the interests of precise reference and clear
discussion, I wonder if you would outline exactly what you mean by
"academic"? That'll put the cat among the pigeons. (But maybe no one read
this far in such a long message -- the e-waves do not support lengthy
commentaries. I'd be more concise but lack skill. Writing this, Gaetan, has
 taken time out of Denison, et al, but in due course....)

Richard Plant
Dept of Drama, Queen's University
and
Graduate Centre for Study of Drama,
University of Toronto

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Gaetan Charlebois wrote:

> Hello Ric
>
> I absolutely see the reason academics would shy away from this which is
> precisely the reason I'm doing it. I want to hear (particularly in
> soliciting anecdotes) what plays have touched people and not what they think
> are "the greatest." I want people to explain what they see as the difference
> between what spoke to them in a performance of a Walker play compared to
> what spoke to them in the singing of "Music of the Night" at the Pantages.
>
> I also get grumpy at the fact we are willing to talk about Willy Loman in
> terms which differ (partiularly in a level of respect) from the way we talk
> about Germaine Lauzon or Zastrozzi. I want, finally (and this is the point
> of the whole damn enterprise and my life as a critic, to some extent) to
> shake things up: to proclaim that theatre lives in a real world that touches
> real people. A hit play, I'd be willing to bet, reaches a significantly
> bigger number of people than a Canadian best seller but we never read about
> a hit play in the A&E sections of the papers. (Think about it: Belles-soeurs
> at Canadian Stage, sold out for more than a month times however many
> productions the work has received over the years...) How many people were
> outraged by the Gzowski interview with Ann-Marie MacDonald where he acted
> like she didn't exist before Fall On Your Knees (though Goodnight... had
> been played all over the country, around the world and had reached and
> touched literally thousands of people).
>
> Finally, it all boils down to my rage when it comes to our love of
things
> Canadian: we never express it. As a cultural bastard, I can tell you that
> here, in Quebec, we have no trouble loving our Tremblays and Bouchards
> (Michel Marc, I mean) and Bouchers. And claiming that adoration in, I'll
> admit, occasionally purple prose.
>
> And, finally, it comes from correspondance with academics who declare huge
> respect and love for the works of Voaden or Denison or even Walker, but who
> sometimes act like applause or standing ovations for the works of these
> people (or including them in a top ten list) would be a vulgarization. I
> argue it is exactly the opposite. It's an audience "getting it" so to speak.
> It's the reason drama exists. It's the reason I go to theatre (and applaud,
> bravo and, God help me, occasionally boo).It's theatre: the only living
> expression of a culture.
>
> Forgive the rant.
>
> Gaetan
>
> ----------
> >From: Ric Knowles <rknowles at UOGUELPH.CA>
> >To: CANDRAMA at LISTSERV.UNB.CA
> >Subject: Re: Ten Best
> >Date: Mon, May 3, 1999, 8:36 PM
> >
>
> > Gaetan,
> >
> > One of the problems academic have circulates around the canonization of
> > particular works (and therefore values), and the ideological implications
> > of "best" (which tends to conflate moral and aesthetic senses of the
> > term). What can read like lack of interest is sometimes a deep-seated
> > unease about the whole enterprise. The most significant value of your
> > encyclopedia, as far as I'm concerned, is its (democratic) inclusiveness:
> > if you send it, we will post. And no "experts" decide the value of
> > whose contriutions (as was made clear in the stage management debate a
> > while back). I'd be happiest not to see the Canon of Canadian Drama
> > established--and this feeling may account for the lack of input from some
> > quarters. (This is not to attack those who do respond, or who don't
> > feel as I do, only to suggest that a lack of response may not indicate a
> > lack of interest, or lack of commitment to the field.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ric
> >
>