“Development”. That seems to be the buzz word at the moment. “Let’s develop…” – people, plays, the foyer, working practices – whatever there is to develop, people are interested in developing it. But what is development? And who is qualified and able to realise where development is needed and deliver it? What do you do to develop something? And who knows when it is developed? Could it be developed further, or is it really finished, developed to its fullest and ready to do whatever it was developed to do? This seems to be a minefield of debate and one that is of particular interest in the world of playwriting at the moment. Is there too much development or is development really a good thing?
As a playwright with some experience of submitting plays and receiving feedback from dramaturges and literary managers either through script-writing “competitions” or by sending them direct I can say that my work is not yet “commissionable” or “produce-able”. I am however, worthy of being “developed”. This means that someone believes that one day I could write a good play, or that one of the plays I’ve already written could be (with the right help) developed into something good. In short, I show promise. However, promise should not be confused with a promise to be produced, because the leap from page to stage is such a huge one in terms of cost and a theatre’s resources that few writers manage it.
As a result of being “develop-able” I am invited to discuss my work with a dramaturg, submit further plays for consideration (which probably get read quicker than before), and generally feel a bit closer to the theatre than I did before. I am attached to the theatre, not a Writer-On-Attachment, but a writer connected to the theatre because of my writing.
So what am I being developed for, and how many other playwrights are being developed at the same time? Are they nearer to being fully developed than I? Is their work ripe and ready for plucking from the tree of development? Who knows? Sharing who and what is being developed at any one time, seems to be somewhat secret (why?), with literary managers juggling several writers and projects, seeing who will come up with the right goods to coincide with the Artistic Director’s season or particular taste.
Where’s the transparency? How am I supposed to know what you (the literary manager) wants if you don’t tell me what else you’re developing, what the play that is getting produced is, who wrote it, and most importantly why you’ve chosen that play over mine. Can we see some of the considerations and decision-making processes that goes into deciding what plays and playwrights are developed, and what plays show enough promise to be developed and then translated from script to stage. I understand that development is necessary – not many plays are instantly worthy of production – but what really makes the difference? Will I ever be a fully developed playwright with a fully developed play, or will I always just be a name on a list on a page evidencing your support and development of a number of fledgling playwrights.
