Mead Hunter has me confused with someone else in this posting:
Wouldn’t it be grand to wield the power this writer ascribes to Literary Departments? If only, if only… Well, he jumps on a popular bandwagon. Pundits from Richard Nelson to Mike Daisey are pointing the finger at literary managers these days.
This is simply not true. I have not been "pointing the finger" at literary managers. My discussions on the state of American theater rarely delve into literary department hijinks--I spend more time thinking about economic development, artistic responsibility to community, and the creation (or noncreation) of artistic ensembles of all sorts.
I'm sure I occasionally say something about literary management, and I think there's a one-sentence reference in this essay, but so far as I recall that's pretty much all I've said in the last year or so, while simultaneously saying a hell of a lot about the American theater as a whole.
Personally? I’ve lobbied for both the above-mentioned writers frequently in the past, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. I’m rethinking that now.
I just want to be clear that this public disclaimer is not to get back in Mead's good graces—I just can't be fighting every battle, especially ones I haven't established positions in, over things I haven't been discussing.
Mead, I believe I clarified some months ago that I'm not blaming literary managers in some freaky, hyperbolic fashion for the state of all theater—I think we talked about it via email. I have no idea why you're saying this now, but it continues to not be true.