MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084141282 · doi:10.1353/utq.2005.0116

Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy (review)

2004· article· en· W2084141282 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leslie Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaturgyReading (process)NewspaperConversationDramaHistoryArtMedia studiesVisual artsSociologyArt historyLiteratureLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy Leslie Katz (bio) Judith Rudakoff and Lynn M. Thomson. Between the Lines: The Process of Dramaturgy Playwrights Canada. iv, 334. $33.00 Since I started reading Between the Lines (peripatetically as is my habit), numerous newspaper and coffee vendors have asked me what it's about. Maybe it's the cover, with its mesa-coloured photograph of an open highway, but I'm more inclined to think it's the subheading that piques inquisitiveness, causing more than one person - out of a genuine thirst for information - to resurrect the question forwarded by Bert Cardullo in his 1995 collection: What Is Dramaturgy? Adopting a less scholarly tack than Cardullo, Rudakoff and Thomson engage diverse practitioners from Canada and the US in 'conversation' about their work. What emerges is a multifaceted picture of this curious profession which, from its origins in Europe, has steadily gained institutional status across North America. While initiated readers will be pleased to see familiar names, like Mark Bly and Anne Cattaneo in the US, Bill Glassco and Urjo Kareda in Canada, the uninitiated will be surprised to learn the comprehensive, often uncredited, role dramaturges have played in facilitating the creation of significant drama (including the work of David French in Canada and George C. Wolfe in the US). Refreshing all around are the ideas of dramaturges who dare to reformulate the basic ways in which plays are written and seen: in response to the geography of the Atlantic provinces, Jenny Munday proposes a delivery service that will send dramaturgical help directly to the playwright's home, while D.D. Kugler in the Western provinces suggests selling subscription tickets to 'the arc of a play,' so audience members can choose to attend anything from rehearsals to a finished production. The thirteen interviews tell an eclectic story, complicating the notion that dramaturges are essentially script readers or research assistants. As individuals discuss their contributions, the reader comes to appreciate the extent of their collaboration with - as Norman Frisch puts it [End Page 361] - 'the art stars' of late twentieth-century theatre. Looking at contemporary theatre history through the eyes of the dramaturge creates a turn, a displacement of the theatrical centre, and consequently affords a close-up look at the 'invisible' politics and processes integral to theatrical production. In their respective introductions, Rudakoff and Thomson stress the importance of establishing a dialogue across 'national borders.' In Canada, as Rudakoff states, dramaturgy is synonymous with the development of new plays, and thus crucially connected to the creation of a new body of national literature. While Thomson also seeks to discover a link between dramaturgy and national identity in the US, what proves more interesting is the ongoing effort, epitomized by production dramaturges at the New York Public Theatre and Los Angeles Festival, to keep pace with incoherent and restless regional identities. (A regrettable omission in Thomson's section is the vital theatre culture of Chicago.) Despite the promise of a comparative framework, the most urgent tensions emerge internally, between East and West, between cultural centres and less densely populated territories. By skirting other lines of potential conflict and pressure, such as those determined by professional borders (which might have been traversed by interviewing playwrights and directors about their experience working with dramaturges), the volume falls short of fully capitalizing on its border-crossing metaphor. Rudakoff and Thomson have targeted a group they call the North American 'pioneers,' the individuals who entered the fledgling profession in the 1970s, and subsequently contributed to its evolution through the 1980s and 1990s. Accordingly, readers may experience these 'aesthetic biographies' as belonging to a recent, but nonetheless nostalgic, past. Many interviewees, both north and south of the border, refer to the impact of television and new media on theatrical practice. None, however, belong to the newest crop of dramaturges whose responsibility it will be to reshape the profession in light of these technological and globalizing trends. In this way, the book mirrors the generation of its authors. A related constraint is that, as a result of trying to convey this history exclusively through interviews (primarily in-house anecdote and assumption), the material will appeal mostly to...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207