Richard Perkyns
I was somewhat surprised to read Robert Wallace's review essay Constructing a Canon in vol 10, no 2 (Fall 1989), since the three books discussed were published six years ago. It is gratifying that such a review is still called for, and suggests that there is an ongoing debate about the validity of anthologies and what constitutes the canon of plays to which Mr. Wallace refers. I would like to use your services to take up some of the issues raised by your reviewer, particularly since the number of questions he asks, albeit rhetorical, are worthy of answers.
In the first place it was disappointing to find Mr. Wallace dealing so much in generalities, particularly when he accuses me of vagueness in the organizing principles of my collection. Although he questions the right of the anthologist to make choices which might 'arbitrate and inculcate cultural values,' he offers little specific criticism of the individual selections of plays to validate his arguments. When he uses phrases like 'insidious influence' and 'cavalier attitude,' we poor maligned anthologists are almost portrayed as monsters forcing incontrovertible ideas upon ignorant and easily impressionable readers. I would categorically deny that the choice of plays in my anthology was in any way intended to force some kind of 'intellectual control' over teachers and students. On the contrary, I hoped to provide them with a springboard to stimulate their own ideas and knowledge which could then be expanded into a broader reading of drama from which they could form their own judgements. No one is forcing teachers to use anthologies or the public to buy them. If, as I hope, they find my collection a useful focal and reference point without having to approve of all the selections, then that is all I ask. I have never yet agreed with all the choices in other anthologies and I would not expect anyone to accept all mine without challenge or question.
Your reviewer accuses me of a 'fundamental contradiction' when I refer to 'the total Canadian ethos' yet attest to extensive regional differences.' Without getting into political arguments, I accept the paradox of Canada as unity in diversity, and I attempted to assemble a number of divergent themes, attitudes, cultures and traditions, but I still regard them all as essentially Canadian. This thematic approach, together with the perceived need for an annotated collection of Canadian plays suitable for classroom use, was, I thought, clearly outlined in my Preface, though Wallace states that 'only Wasserman takes care to outline the reasons for his collection.' Since on the next page Wallace mentions my response, like Wasserman's, to the needs of teachers, his statements appear more contradictory than mine.
No choices of anthologists can ever be definitive, in spite of Talonbooks' extravagant claims for Modern Canadian Plays (I trust these claims are the publishers' and not Jerry's!). Mr. Wallace questions my 50-year span. Since earlier Canadian drama was well represented in Anton Wagner's Canada's Lost Plays series, and what I consider the only other really significant pre-1930s full-length play, Marsh Hay, was published in Kalman's A Collection of Canadian Plays, 1934 seemed at the time a good starting-point. And since Canadian drama did not fully blossom until the early 1970s it seemed preferable to concentrate more on the later part of the period covered.
One area your reviewer totally neglects is the availability of plays to the anthologist. This problem is thoroughly discussed in Michael Scholar's excellent review essay on the same three anthologies in Canadian Drama, vol 11, no 1 (1985), pp 280-89 - in my opinion far and away the most sensitive and perceptive review of these books I have read. When preparing our collections, neither Richard Plant nor I could obtain rights for Talonbooks publications as Wasserman's anthology, though stalled at that time, was still in the offing. Many other individual plays were unavailable for a variety of reasons; my biggest regret (and I'm sure Jerry's since Richard Plant was not using French-Canadian plays) was that Michel Tremblay would not allow translations of his plays to appear in anthologies.
The inclusions of Robertson Davies had nothing to do with his reputation as a novelist; he already had a sound reputation as a dramatist at mid-century, a time unfavourable to playwrights because of the lack of a professional theatrical venue for their works, as it was for more experimental writers such as Voaden. I agree that John Murrell is just as deserving of inclusion as is John Herbert, but his most important works to date did not appear until their publication by Coach House Press in 1985 - a year after my book was published. I had in any case to finalize my selections in 1983.
By citing three 'rarely performed' plays in my collection Mr. Wallace claims that I give little regard to production values. In fact the one-act plays that comprise Drum Song have at times been individually performed; Dispossessed almost had an off-Broadway production which I don't think ever materialized but which would have given it international exposure; and Hill-Land would have been produced at the Kawartha Festival a few years ago had not economic conditions prevented it. Plays like Hill-Land, The Canadian Brothers and Drum Song in its entirety, with their large casts and complicated production requirements, are too experimental in form for regular theatre seasons and generally too expensive to mount. This does not mean that they are untheatrical or unworthy of revival; in my opinion the opposite is true.
If I had had total freedom of choice no doubt I would have made some different decisions. Even so, the selections would have reflected both personal preference and objective qualities to suit the total concept of the collection. Having used this and one other of the anthologies for teaching a Canadian drama course, I can testify to the interest and stimulation the plays have provided for students, who mostly have enough initiative to make their own decisions and not be brainwashed into believing that these are the definitive or even necessarily always the most important plays to study.
I would be interested to hear the reactions of my fellow anthologists, for if Mr. Wallace has done nothing more he may have stimulated us into further debate on a subject that is likely to foster continual argument or discussion. I was sorry I missed Jerry Wasserman's 'Canon' paper at the 1990 Learneds as it was clearly relevant to this topic, and I am sure both he and Richard Plant will still have broadsides to fire.
I would like to thank you for printing Geraldine Anthony's generous review of my book The Neptune Story in vol 11, no I (Spring 1990). I should, however, ask you if you would give me space to correct or clarify some slight misinformation.
Dr. Anthony says that no dates are given with playbills or photographs. In fact all cast-lists are consecutively arranged within the twenty-five seasons, and the dates of every season are given. In almost all cases photographs are contiguous either to playbills or to textual reference, so additional dating seemed redundant.
The reviewer also says that the date of and the reason for the closing of Second Stage in the early 1970s are not given. In fact it is made clear on p 71 that it ended in August 1974, and on p 76 that the withdrawal of L.I.P. grants was the reason for its demise, not the arrival of John Wood as artistic director. 'Some of the highlights of Second Stage' that eluded Sister Geraldine's reading are provided on pp 70-71.
The word 'touring' which the reviewer could not find in the Index is there on p 204 under the generic entry 'Neptune Theatre,' where 17 separate references to touring are listed.
Finally an update on Neptune North to clarify the shifting location: Tom Kerr and Glen Cairns started a second stage at Cunard Street Theatre in 1985-6 and Richard Ouzounian followed suit the following season. He shifted this attempt at alternative theatre to the larger James Dunn Theatre in 1988 for one production, Warm Wind in China. Tom Kerr took Neptune North back to the Cunard Theatre in his single return year as theatre director, 1989-90. Still doubting its economic viability there, new artistic director Linda Moore is in 1990-91 following Ouzounian's lead in using the Dunn Theatre to mount three plays for her alternative stage, now called Neptune Studio Series.