I believe Scott made that statement on a comment thread on David Cote's blog, if I recall . . . it may have been Catecism on a Hot Tin Roof, but I'm not sure.

Mr Excitement would know, he referenced it originally.

Here?

I couldn't find it there, but holy crap, there were 51 comments on that post. Is that a theatre-blog record?

I dunno, I've had almost 30 at times . . .

I'm not sure the exact place, myself . . . I know Walters also said something similiar on his Praxis interview . . . but Mr. Excitement would know exactly.

With Walters, it's hard to tell.

These days he says something to the effect that we need to dialogue with those we disagree with, some shit like that.

You got my email about my blog address changing?

You're going to have a hard time finding it, because I didn't say it. What I said was the stuff that you are quoting. It is being translated as something entirely different -- that playwrights should somehow write plays from viewpoints they abhor. What I have said is that people involved with theatre should make an attempt to have an open dialogue with people who don't share their own orientation, rather than dehumanize them. I am not talking about having a beer with a KKK member and being sensitive about his virulent racism, but rather just talking with somebody outside of the little arts clique where everybody says and thinks the same thing. In fact, what Josh says is right: we need to dialogue with those we disagree with. Why that is "some shit" is beyond me -- sounds like what artists do: investigate all parts of life. But apparently it is better to stay in our echo chamber and keep anything except our own image away from our consciousness.

I believe it was this statement:

No, but the arts community needs to care enough about the conservatives to dialogue with them and not just insult them. We’re digging our own grave! Half of America is conservative!

From Scott's praxis interview . . .
Which led us to believe that Scott wants us to write for conservatives, because they're half the community (which I would quibble, I don't think they're half, but whatever).

I agree that storytelling is dialogue - but in no way do I agree that writers HAVE to care about anyone who ISN'T their audience . . .

Conservatives don't dialogue with liberals, because we're not their audience . . .

Now, there are those stories and works that don't fall into the blue / red thing . . . but still the same applies . . . people who go to see HOSTEL aren't the same audience that goes to LITTLE WOMEN, and by no means should Eli Roth be forced to dialogue with that audience . . . any more than Sheila Callagahn should have to write or respect right-to-life fanatics . . .

A writer knows their audience . . . Scott's suggested that part of theatre's problem is that we don't try to speak to everyone, which is ironic because he also decries the lack of community artistic outreach that ONLY speaks to one small community (and he also decries nyc's populist entertainment, which entertain's both red and blue alike) . . .

Now that's how I read the above statement, and while I don't mind dialoguing with anyone who is reasonable, I don't really feel I have to right for people I don't respect . . . my stories are intended for those who I know are my audiences . . . if more people like my stories, all the better. If not, fine too.

I meant, have to "write" for those I don't respect.

And if I have to write or dialogue with our nation's conservatives, it doesn't serve the progressive smart folks who make up at least half the rest of the country.

And Al Gore would never had made his documentary on Global Warming, because it doesn't "respect" the conservative view that Global Warming is a myth and that all the evidence supporting GW has been made up . . . I could go on, but you get the gist.

And one more thing . . . simply because I've grown smart enough to reject objectionable ideas doesn't mean I'm writing in an echo chamber . . . it's simply that I'm growing as a person . . . I don't believe in Santa anymore, and so why should I write for those that still do?

It's a base assumption that because I don't write or dialogue with conservatives it's an echo chamber.

Talking to people does not mean adopting their viewpoints. Dialogue means an open exchange of ideas, one where both talking and listening occur. I feel that our society is polarized, and that is death for democracy. I think that too often the arts participates in that polarization, and sometimes deepens it. Al Gore could not have made his documentary if he hadn't listened to people whose opinions differed, because he would not have known what he was up against. And under the right circumstances -- for instance, an ongoing relationship between artists and audience -- people who see LITTLE WOMEN might see HOSTEL, and vice versa. And perhaps both groups might benefit from that.

Anyway, Slay, there's the offending quotation. I leave it to you to judge whether how it is being presented is an accurate representation.

You're arguing in circles, Scott . . . and while there are many, many different types of audiences, any writer is not obligated to dialogue with any he or she wishes not to . . . that's it.

Freedom of speech, baby . . . say what you want to WHO you want.

And why should a writer dialogue with an audience not interested in listening?

That's not to say someone shouldn't try if they want . . . I'm a guy whose play NEW TEXAS: OR NOW THAT THE WAR IS OVER, PARTY ON! premiered last year in Miami, Jeb Bush's backyard, and hammered Dubya viciously.

And actually, I want to hammer conservatives with reason and ideas through theatre . . . it does me no good to trumpet how silly christianity is to atheists.

But there's no need for me to write what THEY WANT, which is what the original quote said to me.

BTW, I DO listen to conservatives . . . I find what they say ridiculous . . . you've implied that because I make fun of them I don't listen . . . that's just not true.

One last thing:

You've suggested that Al Gore's AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is NOT polarizing . . . but it absolutely is, right down to the title . . . it's considered very polarizing to many conservatives, and been lambasted on Glen Beck, among others . . .

I don't know Joshua. I can see how you'd be offended by someone telling YOU what to write, but it doesn't seem that Scott's actually doing that. Clearly he thinks that someone needs to tackle this issue. Has he said that YOU're obligated to do so? (Again, let me insert that there's a lot of history to this conflict and I'm not familiar with all of it.) Clearly you're reading that he did, and clearly he says that's not what he meant, so yes, it's definitely a circular argument. Clearly hammering Scott isn't changing his mind, and clearly his repeated "I didn't say that" isn't changing yours.

Can we call it a draw? At this point I'm much more interested in hearing some specifics of each of your political agendas. Scott, I wanna know how we can talk to conservatives without throwing up in our mouths all the time. Joshua, I wanna hear how your play in Miami went over. When we did our political play(s), we were very frustrated by our inability to get people who disagreed with us to see it. Did you have a similar experience?

Personally, I think there are a lot of Republicans who deserve to be made fun of, and a lot of them that will never listen to a word I have to say, so screw them. I choose to believe that some Republicans and/or conservatives want a better world just like I do, even if we differ on a lot of the specifics, and even if the worst-case-scenario-Republicans in charge are busy muddying the issue. Here's a quotation from one of our recent shows.

"We need to actually be liberal, to view the world as being made up of varying points of view and to court those we would not normally meet for coffee ... We have to give up the Us/Them mentality. You know, the one we find so disgusting when employed by George W. Bush."

I'm not saying YOU need to do that, but somebody does, otherwise there's no way out.

I volunteer. It sounds like Scott does too. (But he's welcome to correct me on that.) And I understand that you, Joshua, and many others may call it a foolish, Quixotic quest and I'm okay with that. A lot of my friends think theatre is a foolish career choice, but I still talk to them.

I think the theatrosphere has definitively proven why the two things you're not supposed to discuss in public are politics and religion.

Addendum: In the same play, we said, "Sometimes you have to preach to the choir, if you want them to sing." (I think it's a quote from The West Wing.

I don't disagree with you on many things, Slay . . . but I would never tell you, you HAVE to write something to be successful, etc . . . nor would I say you SHOULDN'T care about conservatives . . . you know?

What makes this statement : No, but the arts community needs to care enough about the conservatives to dialogue with them and not just insult them. We’re digging our own grave! Half of America is conservative!

Problamatic is that it takes the assumption that everything that's wrong with theatre is based on the fact that liberals don't care about conservatives . . . it ignores the fact that many writers are neither conservative or liberal, many writers don't think about one or the other at all . . .

And it takes the position that, if I'm insulting a certain political ideal with my work, I'm not listening to those who champion it . . .

Which couldn't be further from the truth, I do listen . . . and what I hear from that group most often sickens me. But I listen. Because I don't respond with "respect", I'm accused of not "listening", which is a baseless assumption.

Now I would never tell Laura Axelrod she shouldn't write for or about a political idea that is opposite of mine (I wouldn't try and lecture Laura on anything, she's too good a writer) because that's codscending, which is what I believe Walter's above statement to be . . .

I mean, it's not only that statement, Scott's made many statements, some of which (in my opinion) directly contradict each other in context (I mean, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, not polarizing? Come on) . . . and really, I've had this discussion with Scott before and I haven't found it to be a positive, progressive thing . . . which he says is MY fault - LOL!

That's cool, I disagree and have even thrown a tantrum over it . . . I'm done with that.

Me, I'd love to win over conservatives - and have, in some cases . . . through humor.

I don't think Scott's above statement is the BEST way for me way of doing it, nor is it factually correct in many ways . . . the country is more progressive than it is conservative, and theatre (as a whole across the country) is FAR more conservative than it is progressive or liberal, far more . . .

But I love playing those venues that aren't, because I find more of my audience in those areas, for real . . . I usually do it thru confrontational humor . . . there are those who state I don't respect the political view of conservatives because of that humor and get huffy, and those who are too busy laughing be insulted and the next thing you know, I have a Republican fan.

So it's not that work shouldn't be available to conservatives or people one disagrees with . . . I'm talking that the method of delivery is up to me (or any writer who wants to reach their audience) . . . we can confront them however we feel is right for our intent, you know?

Hey, I've tangled with Scott on a number of issues, as has a one or two or three other bloggers . . . it's cool, we can disagree . . .

But I don't think his comment is based in the same place as the West Wing comment . . . if he'd said that, no one would be arguing about it, right?

He said that theatre is suffering because liberals are polarizing and polititizing it and not listening to conservatives.

I believe that statement to be factually incorrect.

Hey, if Scott wants to write plays that treats conservatives with respect, all power to him . . . I wouldn't tell him not to, that he's ruining theatre across the country . . . he can write or direct the kind of theatre he feels this country needs at anytime . . . he's not, though, he's basically telling other artists what to do and how to do it . . . So on that point, I disagree.

I'll email you or post about my other stuff in Miami soon . . . they've done a number of short political plays of mine, it's fun . . . I can send them to you sometime, if you wish . . .

I think it is important to recognize that the paragraph that Joshua is quoting is a response to a specific question:

"Do you think conservative, right-wing politics are somehow fundamentally at odds with the arts community?"

The answer was the paragraph Joshua is quoting: No, but the arts community needs to care enough about the conservatives to dialogue with them and not just insult them. We’re digging our own grave! Half of America is conservative!

It is an answer to a question about a fundamental disconnect between theatre and conservatives. I do not believe there is a fundamental disconnect, but rather a historical one that is being deepened. I don't believe that serves anyone, artist or audience, in our society.

Nowhere have I suggested that artists be "forced" or "obligated" to do anything -- Joshua is projecting that onto me, as you noted. (For reasons I don't understand, he seems to want to turn normative statements I make into policy statements apparently enforced by jackboot commandoes. Like anyone else in the theatrosphere, I am expressing my ideas and values, not making policy.) I am saying that dogmatism from the right or from the left is damaging to our society.

By the way, your comment is something I can whole-heartedly and enthusiastically endorse. Your question to me is a good one, and one that deserves a thoughtful answer. I'll try to do so, perhaps on my own blog rather than posting an eternal comment here. Thanks for the prompt.

This statement:

No, but the arts community needs to care enough about the conservatives to dialogue with them and not just insult them. We’re digging our own grave! Half of America is conservative!

Speaks for itself, even with the original question provided . . . we're digging our own graves if we don't avoid insulting conservatives?

NEEDS to care enough about conservatives?

I mean, I don't know what to say to it . . . how can I have an open dialogue if my response (cannot insult or lampoon or do anything that is in any way disrespectful) is already predetermined?

And that's what the above statement says, with or without the question attached to it.

I maintain I'm already in a open dialogue with conservative ideas . . .

Nor am I projecting . . . I'm dialoguing about one particular statement that I believe to be factual incorrect on a few levels and a tad bit condescending to writers who write about polarizing issues . . . we are free to polarize or not, if we choose, right?

I find the whole ideological framing of left/right unbelievably depressing. And in the end fundamentally hostile to art itself.

Which doesn't mean, btw, that I'm advocating an apolitical position, which is most usually the agenda of the right.

Joshua, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. . . but you seem to mean the hell out of it.

I didn't recall seeing your name in any of the actual posts. Which would lead me to think they may not be specifically about you.

Most people, and most audience members aren't the stereotype of a conservative or a liberal they're made out to be. So to some extent the argument is much ado about nothing.

Adamant refusal to listen to another viewpoint can be foolhardy. Suffice to say, we can't adequately critique what we don't know; what we refuse to see and hear. Arguing semantics is a waste of time.