What defines an “open submission” policy?
In recent years the O’Neill Conference has taken to sending out an email to all the playwrights around the world who’ve ever submitted to them since they first began keeping track of such things. The content is usually essentially the same: a simple reminder that it’s that time of year again–time to print 3 copies of your best full-length, time to create a special title page with your name blotted out, time to recycle the sentiments of all the other statements of purpose from all the other years into something vaguely “fresh” and, of course, time to write a check for $35, made payable to you-know-who.
This year, however, something seems to have changed. Or so it seemed to the countless playwrights who spontaneously erupted into a cyber chorus of complaint heard on theatre blogs here, there and everywhere. What had changed, exactly? Maybe nothing. Maybe only tone. Or maybe, as it seemed to some of those from whom I received emails over the past week, a line had been crossed.
Here’s a quote from the email that’s particularly striking:
The O’Neill’s Open Submission process is unique in the field of developing works for the stage, requiring neither agent submission nor previous experience. This commitment to a truly democratic process has led to great discoveries of new artists and works, now iconic in American theater.
It is an open secret in the theatre world that of the dozen or so slots available each July, all but two or three are spoken for long before the first $35 check has cleared. Established producers with major clout routinely lobby the upper echelons of the O’Neill staff for a slot in what has become to new plays what Sundance is to independent film—a ravenously scrutinized stepping stone on the path to commercial success.
The question we ought to be asking ourselves as writers is not why the organizers of such events continue to allow them to be hijacked by commercial interests and veer off course from their original mission. No. I say, the question we ought to be asking is, how long are we going to allow ourselves to be complicit in the charade? If the O’Neill wants to be the launching pad for the next season of commercially produced new work, then they should say so. And, instead of turning to impoverished writers for $35 a piece, they ought to be charging the producers a hefty placement fee.
The reason this will never occur is simple and can be summed up in one word: grants. As long as the O’Neill succeeds in casting itself as a uniquely “democratic” task force bent on a mission of uncovering the as-yet-undiscovered talent of the unknown playwright, the grant money on which they depend will continue to flow.
And speaking of grants, shouldn’t that $35 be tax-deductible?
Related Articles
20 users responded in this post
Frankly, I think the O’Neill is even more disengenuous than this article would lead playwrights to believe. For one thing, I have submitted several plays over the course of my career, but I have NEVER received a notification that’s it’s time to submit. Year in and year out – if I want to submit a play, I have to dig up the deadline and requirements on my own. So they’re not even very democratic when it comes to their notifications.
Just a few years ago, many high-profile poetry contests would solicit entry fees, yet frequently name winners with close personal ties to the judges. There was an effort on the now defunct website, Foetry.com, to expose the corruption and fraudulent nature of these contests, and some of these campaigns were successful.
Playwrights have spoken amongst themselves, often through listservs and blogs about some of these ethically questionable competitions, but it has so far been decentralized. Should there be a centralized site where such dirty laundry is aired?
I think the O’Neill folks need to do two things:
Ask themselves if they have any interest in the works by working-class writers. (maybe ask themselves if any of them are working-class)
If so, hire a diversity trainer to come in and really teach them about class issues and diversity and especially help them understand the economic realities of a working-class artist. $35 is a guarantee against working-class submissions.
The O’Neill is not what it use to be with the demise of Lloyd Richards who served it without blemish. And Mr White who bled it dry with his high lving.
The current agency is a fatce
I can’t say whether the commercial theaters wrap up all but a few slots at the O’Neil Conference in advance. But it’s clear from my own experience that many of these “development opportunities” are an excuse for theaters to siphon off grant money to produce writers they already planned to produce. Similarly, artistic directors often serve on prize committees so they can steer the prizes to writers they regularly produce. For an example, see Martha Lavey’s influence on the Steinberg Trust’s emerging playwright awards (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/theater/18award.html?scp=1&sq=martha%20lavey&st=cse). Of course, this sort of practice goes on in every field, not just theater, but certainly no playwright should ever have to pay a fee to enter a rigged competition. Thanks to the Loop for keeping this issue in the spotlight!
Playwrights should refuse to pay entry fees for submitting their work. I no longer enter any contest that has a fee. And if a contest has become as “prestigious” as the O’Neil, then there is all the less need for an “entry fee.” And when there is publicity like this — that’s unethical. Too many shady practices going on behind the scenes — and artists wonder why “the arts” struggle. Truth and Honesty will always prevail.
Here’s another crooked practice among smaller theatre companies. To run a contest, and one of the winning entries is the contest co-ordinator. Ever heard of the term, conflict of interest? No one … absolutely, NO ONE, can claim their own work a “winner” in a contest. I’ve seen this happen in several contests (particularly Universities) and when I see this practice, I immediately eliminate them from my list — that’s very unethical and bad business practice.
Thanks for this information and for the commentary by those posting in response.
I recently did some research on a competition in my area and discovered that of the six “winners,” four had direct connections to the people sponsoring the “competition.” That it goes on nationally too is discouraging. I’ve just read 15 plays for a competition for which there were a mere 55 entries and the method used to make sure it remains as fair as possible are complex and the judging (by a diverse group of judges) goes through three different levels. The well-known saying, “Nobody said it was easy,” certainly applies here.
Here’s an excerpt of the email I sent Roland at the Dramatists Guild last week about his essay.
Roland- Good for you!!! I, for one, am getting sick of all of these bastards who claim to be reading submitted plays and will get back to you “in about a year”. The O’Neill appears only to be the most notorious of them. The Sandra Nordgren story the Guild highlighted last week is another famous case.
The Guild needs to take positive action on these kinds of discriminatory practices. For starters, instead of just telling members about these travesties,why not organize a boycott of the offenders — starting with the O’Neill? Let’s see how many grants offenders get when the word reaches the funders.
Thank you, Roland, Gary et al for loving playwrights! Your article eased the little pang I have whenever I think of the O’Neill. I’ve been a “finalist” a few times, which, now I’m sure (and I’d suspected it) meant that my plays were better than the “winners,” but I didn’t have the right friends. I went up one weekend to see what did win, and have never submitted again. The O’Neill has earned itself a place in “joke city.” We should none of us submit.
Rest in peace, Mr. Richards.
Thanks,
Janet Kenney
So, is this meant to be anonymous? Or are we meant to assume that Roland also wrote this? Not trying to be obtuse, just wondering if I’m missing anything. . .
In every other creative industry there’s a maxim: The money flows to the artist.
If the money is flowing the other way (artist to agent; artist to producer; artist to manager), then you’re almost certainly looking at a scam.
I’ve been amazed at the theater industry’s credulity for “reader’s fees” in any form or fashion. Because even if they’re being instituted with the best of intentions (and they’re usually not), the result is inevitable: Once you’re charging playwrights $35 a pop to read their scripts, you’re no longer in the business of producing plays. You’re in the business of convincing as many playwrights as possible to give you $35.
Playwrights should not be consumers who purchase a reader’s time. Rather, it is the readers who should be the consumers who purchase the playwrights’ work.
Imagine if you went to a car dealership and said, “Before I look at your cars, you’ll need to pay me a $35 drivers fee.” Do you think any car dealership on the planet would do that? Of course not. Because they understand that you’re the consumer — you pay them for their goods and services; not the other way around. And if they did pay you that fee, do you think it likely you’d buy a car from them? Or would you get into the habit of going around to as many car dealerships as possible to collect as many drivers fees as possible?
Every other industry recognizes these fees as scams and frauds. It’s time for playwrights to do the same.
Full disclosure: I’ve met the current director of the O’Neill, Wendy Goldberg, and she’s seen a production of my work (in grad school). I know one person who was chosen for the O’Neill off the slushpile who thoroughly deserved it (an amazing playwright), and another who was a finalist. From what I’ve heard, it really does take $35 per submission simply to break even on the open submissions policy.
$10 is my upper limit as a writer for submission fees, with four exceptions: The Warner Bros. TV Fellowship, The Nicholl Fellowship, the Bay Area Playwrights Festival, and the O’Neill. It’s the farthest thing from a fly-by-night operation there is. If they say they can’t break even without charging $35, I believe them.
I can’t speak to anybody else’s experience, and I understand the anger over fees that are seen as excessive, and over the fact that there aren’t as many open slots as advertised. But it seems like the O’Neill is still doing its best to keep some slots open to new playwrights.
Over the years I’ve been invited to the O’Neill a few times and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Since then I’ve read for the O’Neill when I could. I did it for free, hoping to find a good play to send their way. I don’t condemn the O’Neill for charging $35, but I do know that it is difficult for struggling playwrights to always have to pay a submission fee. Frankly, it could come to quite a sum if one submits to dozens of places. To be fair the O’Neill may get thousands of submissions and certainly in the high hundreds. These scripts each do require close, careful and honest reading by competent readers. Each script may be read by up to three readers. If you send 100 scripts to someone to read, it’s truly a chore. I once read for playwriting contests in New York State, Ohio, Philadelphia and, I think, if I remember correctly, Minnesota. I’ve also read for the NEA. It’s work, hard, exacting work. Sometimes, and I’m not exaggerating, when I lived in a basement apt. in New York City, I’d have scripts stacked all the way to the ceiling. This is definitely not voluntary work; it is work, often grueling because, to be fair to the playwright, you have to focus closely on the work, be attentive to what the writer is trying to do. I don’t think that any of the people who are complaining about the $35 submission fee would undertake to read several hundred scripts in a relatively short time just for the fun of it. The money is definitely not enriching the O’Neill. They have a difficult time getting qualified readers. Yes, the fee is certainly a hardship, but viciously attacking the O’Neill because it charges a fee doesn’t feel fair to me. Would you volunteer to read for free 150 scripts? 100? 50? What the fee does is ensure that each of the scripts will be read by more than one person. It would be nice if the O’Neill could get some donor to annually donate $ to pay readers, but… I do know that when writers send scripts along with synopsis, bios and character breakdowns to the average regional or New York theatre, she/he is cautioned that it’ll take 9 months to a year before they reply with a reject note. What’s the answer? I don’t know, but perhaps we playwrights can come up with an answer. There are, to be sure, some fly-by-night theatrical entities that sponsor contests and encourage entries simply to get the fees, but the O’Neill, I honestly believe, is not one of them.
OyamO
After working at the O’Neill this summmer, I can honestly tell you it is truly a place where creativity thrives and artistic endeavors are encouraged. Where else can you find yourself isolated on a beachfont estate being encouraged to do nothing but write and collaborate with other artists all day.
honestly, 35 dollars is a SMALL PRICE to pay for the experience you are submitting to get. This past year, there were playwrights with all different backgrounds selected. from someone who just graduated graduate school to a pulitzer prize winner. you have access to the BEST in the business. so stop being bitter. you have NO idea what kind of experience you are knocking…
While I do think it’s important not to be bitter – I think it is also important for people to know they are likely applying to openings that don’t really exist. And while I’ve known this for many years, I don’t know if it’s common knowledge. Playwrights who don’t apply are invited because they have an upcoming production and are put forward by a certain producer or theater. I don’t think that discredits what happens there but it certainly makes the fee not worth it to me to apply because that is a gamble I’m not willing to take on the potential of maybe one, maybe no open spots… But if others have $35 to gamble on that potential spot – I fully support their sense of hope.
I think many of the posters have lost sight of what appears to be an “open-secret” that many, if not most, of the slots at the O’Neill are already set aside before any of the plays that are to be read during the open submission process have been read for their merits.
If this charge is true, it is certainly unethical, and possibly even fraudulent.
At the very minimum, $35 should purchase an ethically sound review process.
The money is irrelevant, really. And we’re all sure the O’Neill is great. But this is a simple matter. The O’Neill should say clearly how many of the slots are really open — for example, how many plays really came out of the slush pile in each of the last ten years? That’s a straightforward question and there could be no good reason not to answer it with a direct reply.
In my state, lottery tickets only cost a dollar and you don’t have to prove you can format and mail a script to enter.
Speaking as someone who submitted to O’Neill 20-some years ago, recieved a bill for $5, which I thought was fraud then (as did all my publishing industry buddies), paid it anyway, and recieved an autographed rejection letter from Lloyd Richards.
I don’t currently value the signature of anyone currently at the O’Neill (or anywhere else) more than Mr. Richards, and I paid too much for his.
I can be rejected by nationally regarded career boosting producing organizations for free – I see no reason to pay for the privilege.
I applaud Roland, Gary and Loop writers for putting the spotlight on the O’Neil. But how long has this been going on? Speaking up does work. Grantors do not like adverse publicity and are likely already asking the O’Neil some difficult questions. Moreover, the O’Neil board is probably seeking counsel – do they have defined procedures, an ethics policy and is it followed? Also, their auditors might be reviewing their files and working papers just to be sure be they are secure, complete and in order. After all, there are state and federal consumer protection laws. These days, all non-profits with boards, and certainly any that run competitions requiring a fee of any sort, should define and adopt an ethics policy. Does the O’Neil have one? If not, why not?
Liz
[...] “open secret” post. Three sites render his claim of “theatre blogs here, there, and everywhere’” technically just an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Except that one of these blogs, THE [...]
Leave A Reply