I think it's worse than mere exclusion. To ask a playwright
to contribute money to a contest that may be biased against
the themes, structures, styles, genres, ethical positions,
policies or groups that the playwright him/her self may champion,
is simply wrong. The org holding the contest is using money
collected from all playwrights to reward and further the careers
of the playwrights they favor.
Now if the call was very specific, and if it were possible
to tell in advance that the winner would be someone whose
work the losers would themselves approve, then fine-- I'd
prefer that theatres not charge, for all the reasons listed
in the ICWP letter (which I recently sent out, to ill effect)
but I'd kick in a fee to a Good Cause and send along my well
wishes to the winner. But contests don't necessarily choose
plays that I think are well written, and not all well written
plays are Good in the sense that a Cause may be Good, and
beyond that there there are talented authors that I simply
do not wish to support. I don't mind if they beat me out in
a contest-- well, I do mind, but I get over it-- but although
I wouldn't try to censor them I also won't buy a ticket to
one of their plays nor buy their publications. I would hate
to think that my meager financial resources were going to
contribute to their success.
Flower shows have entry fees, but all the entries are seen
by the public even if they don't get a ribbon. Everyone can
note what the judges favored and what was rejected, and decide
whether the institution's judgment matches one's personal
judgment.
If the plays were all to be published.....
Or if, like Louisville, the winners have been published over
a number of years so that a writer has some notion of the
values of the judges......
I sent Stockyards some money, but not a script. I didn't
think any of my scripts fit their needs-- but I thought what
they said they wanted was what the theatre should be doing
more of, so I'll support it. (6/4/04)
This particular posting has caused more writer-rage than
anything I've seen in a long time. The idea that Women are
asking Writers to finance their fundraising efforts in the
name of Peace and Justice has sent up geysers of outrage all
along the email lists. It set me off, too-- but because I
was once long ago an actual Member of the venerable WILPF,
I didn't dash off a flame, but rather bit my tongue and declined
to submit 3 copies of one of my vast collection of unproduced
political screeds.
The fee and copies thing was in the original posting that
I got: at least it wasn't sprung on me after I'd submitted---
which I surely would have done if they hadn't asked a fee.
I've signed on to the No Fees pledge, so not paying them is
as firm a principle as any other item in my Socialist-Peacenik-Unitarian-Crusader-for-Justice
value system. Free Speech means no access fees: Pay for Play
systematically silences the poor.
I think this particular subset of the WILPL organization
imagines that playwrights make enough money from their writing
that they can deduct their expenses and/or charitable contributions
and that therefore their request is reasonable. We don't,
so it isn't.
by 
