1 Theatre Research in Canada/Recherches théâtrales au Canada has been doing its vital work for members of theatre and drama communities for thirty-four years. From the outset, the journal, along with the Association for Canadian Theatre Research/ l’Association de la recherche théâtrale au Canada, has been a valuable and sure indication that Canadian theatre and drama, as scholarly and educational discipline, is a reality, despite the views of a number of naysayers then and now. It quickly became the medium by which knowledge and research were shared and horizons expanded. Since those early days TRIC/RTAC has retained its original passion, vitality and flexibility in welcoming the study of theatre, drama, and performance and in applying theories and methodologies that have taken scholars, practitioners, and students in previously unexplored directions. The dynamic evolution of artistic and conceptual perspectives offered by the journal has never ceased.

2 Since 1980 I have welcomed each new issue; each time learning something new and feeling a renewed sense of community with colleagues across the country and beyond. The amazing thing that I discover as we continue on together in our shared artistic, scholarly, and pedagogical pursuits is that the more doors we succeed in opening on Canadian theatre and drama, the more there still remains to be discovered, appreciated and studied—all that is still missing in our already complex and rich conceptual field, missing by reason of geography, language, politics, class, ideology, history, and other tenacious socio-cultural norms or traditions. Because of the gaps caused by that which is missing, the symbiotic potential for innovative cross-fertilization and comparison still remains largely unexplored. The weighty presence of British, French, and American heritages and influences continues to be determining. Silos remain. How can we strengthen our knowledge about and recognition of all that is still missing in Canadian and Quebec theatre and drama?

3 The journal has already displayed dynamic flexibility and encouraged bold dialogue, exchange, and collaboration among us. Yet too many impermeable boundaries remain, boundaries that forestall the development of potentially exhilarating collaborations. We would do well by our graduate students in encouraging them to cast longer looks beyond known frontiers, to learn about and to develop informed critical opinions on what is happening outside the areas with which we are most familiar.

4 An important element from the start of TRIC/RTAC has been the Forum section, already envisioned by Plant and Saddlemyer in their first “Editorial”: “we hope [. . .] to provide a forum for the exchange of thoughtful and studied opinion, thereby encouraging the formation of an informed critical perspective within which to view Canadian theatre” (3). The Forum section has been used in thoughtful and challenging ways through the years. I am asking here whether we can build on what the Forum has already achieved in order to expand and invigorate “the exchange of thoughtful and studied opinion” past the closure of the single issue. Could we create a process whereby responses to challenging issues raised by Forum authors are further developed and explored in subsequent issues? Critical, constructive, and creative symbioses bringing together research, teaching, and practical areas that cross linguistic, ethnic, sexual, ability, class, spatial, theoretical or technological divides hold great potential for fruitful discoveries that could be seen by ourselves and others as exciting and dynamic components at work in the unique Canadian theatre context.

5 Saddlemyer and Plant and several audacious others offer us challenging models for the approaches we might take to encourage processes of dialogue, exchange, and critical comparison in research and teaching, thereby affirming the reality of that which still remains invisible and unacknowledged. They had to address vexing foundational questions back in the 1970s: is it possible to capture the stories, traits, practices, interests, targets, and truths of drama and theatre in a country as young, vast, and diverse as Canada? Do Canadian theatre and drama even exist in the same sense that British, French, or American theatre exists? Has there been reason to believe that Canadian theatre ever could be “as good as” those national theatres? Do historians and scholars of Canadian theatre have anything non-derivative to say? Saddlemyer and Plant were bold and confident enough to answer a resounding Yes!. And so they took the actions and formed the alliances necessary to found the Association and to create THIC/HTC. The community of passionate and engaged scholars, students, critics, practitioners, and spectators that exists today provides convincing evidence of the founders’ foresight and wisdom.

6 The strong belief in the virtual existence of a cultural reality that would call itself Canadian theatre and its history did not lead Association founders to emulate norms and practices in other national theatre research communities. They recognized from the start the inherent diversity of theatre and drama in Canada, along with the need for structural openness and operational flexibility. The introduction of special issues in the regular production of the journal is a reflection of such recognition of diversity. A large number of strong special issues has appeared bringing to light many facets of Canada’s unique cultural richness and an expanding range of languages and methodologies to study it. While these special issues have introduced fresh perspectives and opened new doors on Canadian theatre, they have not, paradoxically, led to stimulating dialogues and exchanges in the pages of the journal. Indeed, I find that they highlight the many solitudes that exist in the road allowances at the edge of Canada’s intercultural, patriarchal and eurocentric theatrical landscapes. This is a shame, for the material offered in the articles of the special issues is teeming—across distances and differences—with challenging ideas for an exchange of ideas within these solitudes that might produce a breach in the fences of received knowledge.

7 The first special issue of the journal, a collaboration between the Association and the Société d’histoire du théâtre au Québec, was devoted to francophone theatre (7.2 Fall/ automne 1986).The second special issue, “Les Femmes dans le Théâtre du Québec et du Canada/Women in the Theatre of Quebec and Canada” (8.1 Spring/printemps 1987, 3-7) contains Saddlemyer’s Forum piece on the still unresolved issue of the place of women on Canadian stages and in critical appreciation of their work. In “On the Necessity of Criticising Criticism” she addressed critically the “selective process at work in historical criticism.” She asked “What is missing from the picture?” (136). In her scathing and insightful overview of what is missing she notes:

How many others are still missing from our conceptual field by reason of their language, ethnicity, sexuality, class, disability, or location? And for how many others have we not yet developed appropriate and fruitful scholarly languages and methodologies? We can address these questions effectively only through sustained discussion.

8 The “Focus and Scope” statement of TRIC/RTAC highlights the enduring priority placed on exchange that is likely to produce the enhanced parameters we need to develop:

9 Are we, as individuals and collectively, taking these commitments as seriously as we might? Or are we a little too comfortable in the knowledge and aesthetic values we already hold?

10 Among many fine Forum pieces which have appeared in the journal, all of which would lend themselves to substantial, sustained, and critical exchange, I mention “This Discipline Which Is Not One” (16. 1-2 Spring & Fall/printemps et automne 1995) where organizer Knowles expressed his personal opinion and invited ten colleagues from a range of theatre areas to provide responses on the issue of practical theatre in an academic setting. Knowles’s approach provides a model for collaborative discussion across differences. I wonder how much further it could have gone had there been an open door inviting others to wade in on the matter in subsequent issues.

11 I am not suggesting here that TRIC/RTAC replace the Newsletter/Bulletin of CATR/ ACRT, which could also be a site for active exchange (although that potential has not yet been realized, despite efforts of, for example, editor Roberta Barker). Ideas and responses in the journal must retain the rigour of scholarly pieces. Yet they could well reflect ideas and research in progress in the same manner as the seminars and round tables of recent Congresses have so effectively done. I would like to see TRIC/RTAC explore ways for the new insight and interrogations brought through Forum pieces and special issues to sustain on an ongoing basis the integration of knowledge across diverse theatrical traditions and practices. This could help dissolve creatively solitudes and impermeable boundaries still found in knowledge about what we call Canadian and Quebec theatre and drama.