OMG first used in 1917 in a letter to Winston Churchill

OMG was used in a letter in Winston Churchill in 1917. 🤯

Adjustments.jpeg

John “Jacky” Fisher was an admiral and naval innovator, who began World War I as First Sea Lord but resigned in 1915.

“…During his time as Second Sea Lord (1902-3) Fisher began putting into practice his reforms for the navy; his major achievement at this time was the Selbourne Scheme of entry and training for officers in 1902, which was a common entry and training for all naval officers, and to ensure that in the age of mechanisation all officers would have a familiarity with engines. In 1903-4 Fisher was Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, from which position he could superintend the establishment of the Royal Naval College at Osborne, where new Cadets received their initial naval training. He also served on the Esher Committee, whose recommendations, accepted by the Cabinet, called for a reorganisation of the War Office, and Committee of Imperial Defence.

On the 21st October 1904, at the age of 63, Fisher became First Sea Lord. His main preoccupation was to prepare for the coming of the war with Germany, and developing a more powerful fleet He was responsible for the launch of the first ‘all big gun’ fast battleship, using the new turbine engines. HMS Dreadnought was launched in Portsmouth in 1906, combining great speed with immensely increased gun power. It rendered most of the fleet obsolete at one stroke. Fisher also oversaw the developments of the submarine with its torpedo weapons. The rapidly changing face of the navy brought hostile criticism from conservative parties both within the navy and without. His greatest rival, Lord Charles Beresford, appointed Commander in Chief of the Channel Fleet, became more and more estranged with Fisher and at odds with the Admiralty. Finally, when his command was terminated in 1909, he made public his criticisms of Fisher and his reforms. Fisher remained in office until January 1910 but was succeeded by Sir Arthur Wilson, who was sympathetic to his reforms. During his period in office, he was awarded with the Order of Merit in 1904, appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in 1908 and in 1909, was raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, a Norfolk estate.

In 1912 he became chairman of the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel. This had been another of his interests during his term in office and resulted in the adoption of using oil fuel in all new ships being constructed. In October 1914, he returned to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, in which time he was involved in ship construction. He became at odds with the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill over the proposed Dardenelles campaign. Fisher believed that the persistence in attacking the Dardanelles would jeopardise the success of the major naval strategy of the war, but was forced to concede and allow the campaign to take place. As the campaign unfolded and became clear that it was a hopeless one, he became more and more discontented and resigned his office in 1915. …”

OpenSpace as applied to Theatre and Climate

Guest Blog: A report on using Open Space to talk about Climate by Nina Klose

  • Open Space really works!

  • Participatory format unlocks and empowers

  • Final session led to actionable next steps

At the suggestion of my friend Ben Yeoh, I recently attended Improbable Theatre Company’s 15th annual weekend workshop on the future of theatre.  “Devoted and Disgruntled” had nothing to do with Climate Change. But the experience of being part of D&D15 allowed me to try out first-hand what it’s like to use Open Space facilitation.  

Harrison Owen developed Open Space (also called “OST”) in the 1980s as a way to get a large group of people to explore complex topics in creative ways that lead to actionable takeaways.

According to openspaceworld.org, “All of the issues that are MOST important to the participants will be raised.  All of the issues raised will be addressed by those participants most qualified and capable of getting something done on each of them.  In a time as short as one or two days, all of the most important ideas, discussion, data, recommendations, conclusions, questions for further study, and plans for immediate action will be documented and in the hands of participants when they leave.”  

Really, you have to try it yourself to understand how it can possibly work--but I’ll try to convey what it was like going to “Devoted and Disgruntled.”

“Prepare to be surprised,” warned a sign hanging overhead as I entered the Grand Hall of  Battersea’s former town hall, graced with vaulted ceilings, exposed brick walls, and an air of ruined grandeur.  Three hundred-and-some chairs stood in three concentric circles, leaving a large empty space in the middle. People were filing in, sitting in the circle, or catching up with friends in small groups around the hall.  By roughly 11 am--the scheduled start time--most of the chairs had been taken.

Phelim McDermott, co-founder of the Improbable Theatre Company, opened the space.  “Hello everybody, and welcome to ‘Devoted & Disgruntled 15: What are we going to do about Theatre and the Performing Arts?’ After fifteen years, the title ‘Devoted and disgruntled’ still gets laughs.” The weekend would be a chance for anyone to propose ideas for discussion, to meet like-minded people, and to come away with steps forward.  For starters, we would all contribute to creating the agenda.

Phelim gestured to the far end of the hall, where empty bulletin boards awaited topics any of us could suggest.  Saturday - Sessions 1, 2 and 3 were all empty; Sunday’s sessions, too, were a blank slate. “If you have a burning question, an idea or an issue, please! Come up here and write it down as a succinct, catchy title or a question.”

I had certainly come with questions: What is ‘Open Space’?  Can today’s event actually address my focus issue, Climate Change?

Phelim explained the key principles of OST: in this first phase, called “opening,” anyone could come up and suggest a topic or question, then schedule it for a break-out session at the end of the hall.  After that, discussion groups would form on all the topics, and the delegates would get down to business. All we needed to know for this to happen were the four principles of Open Space: Whoever comes are the right people.  Whenever it starts is the right time. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened. When it’s over, it’s over. And to make it all work, there is the “Law of Two Feet/Mobility”. The Law means that you can move anywhere at any point during the conference.  If you feel bored with the conversation you’re having, walk away. Join a different group, get a cup of coffee, chat to a friend. Break into song! Do a dance. The only limit is your own imagination.

While Phelim was talking, I was strategising.  I had paid my choose-your-own entry fee of £45, and I wanted to get my money’s worth, even though my focus issue is Climate, not Theatre.  And given I wanted to be home for dinner, I’d better make sure I got a slot in Session 1.  

I was the second person to volunteer a topic.

“Hi, I’m Nina.  I’d like to talk about Theatre + Climate Crisis.”

Dozens of other people got up after me.  Each of them wrote out a subject or question, read it out on the mic, and posted it under a session time on the agenda board.  There was space in the hall for 18 separate discussions during each 1.5-hour period, with a total of 7 different sessions scheduled over the two weekend days.  Topics varied widely:

“Where are the emerging non-commercial producer training programmes/networks?” Ben M.

“Theatre of the Supernatural (Ghosts welcome).” Patrick.

“National Library of Things - A New Production Model.” Ethan.

“Theatre & Racism - Stop Talking, Start Challenging/Changing.”  Shankuo.

“How? Theatre building a base to defeat the Tories.” Danny.

“How will I know when it’s time to start my group?” I asked a facilitator nervously.

“Don’t worry--you’ll know!  It will be time once everyone has finished suggesting topics.  They’ll move the chairs into circles. It will be obvious.”

Soon I noticed people moving the three concentric circles of chairs into a number of smaller circles, each marked by a flag fixed on a bamboo pole.  I walked over to the break-out circle I had chosen, and wrote out “THEATRE + CLIMATE CRISIS” on flipchart paper. A few people sat down, then a few more.  I suggested we go around the circle, introduce ourselves, and say something about our interest in Theatre and Climate. As more and more people joined, I kept having to break off for new arrivals to introduce themselves.  It was a varied group--but not that varied: mainly Londoners. Nearly all White, middle-class, ranging in age from 20s to 70s. Most, but not all, had some connection to theatre.

I jotted down notes as people gave their introductions: Jasmine - Sustainability charity. Rhiannon - Royal Ballet. Andrea - designer/activist.  Gregor - from Edinboro, actor. Barra - run 2 theatre companies, one aimed at families, the other at adults. Dan - performance & ecology. Ethan - production manager, doing a degree in mechanical engineering.

I worried that what typically happens in meetings would happen here: someone would hog all the attention and not let anyone else get a word in edgewise.  But the conversation flowed freely and easily. Most people added something to the discussion, though some mainly listened. Four or five people had more to say, building off each other’s ideas.

Two main topics began to emerge from the conversation: sustainability and story.  That is, how to produce theatre more sustainably? And how to tell stories of Climate Crisis, stories that raise awareness, inspire action, lead to change?

As I listened to people’s contributions, I suddenly realised where my own energy lay: how could we be using theatre to awaken people to the urgency of the Climate Crisis?  

The discussion led to ideas to share with each other and a wider audience: websites to visit, nonprofits that do sustainable theatre.  Check out Kris de Meyer’s TedX talk about polarised thinking. A book by Mary Robinson, Climate Justice Is a Manmade Problem with a Feminist Solution.  This coming Friday, come along to a session at the V&A on Theatre and Sustainability, someone announced. 

“How can we use Theatre to facilitate change?  Audiences already know it’s a crisis. But how do we activate them?”

“How about ‘audience after-care’ - offer ideas of small steps people can take after they leave the theatre.”

The time flew by surprisingly quickly.  

“Thanks for facilitating! It went great,” somebody said.  People added their names to an email list I suggested we start, then wandered off to get some lunch.  I used one of the laptops set up at the back of the hall to write up notes on the session. I felt energised: people had come to my session, and exchanged lots of ideas.  So this is how Open Space works! But what about the action plans?

Thanks to the Law of Mobility, and Phelim’s open invitation to “come and go as you please,” I stayed home on Sunday to spend time with the family.  But on Monday morning I decided to trek back to Battersea for the closing half-day, from 10:30 to 2:30.

I debated volunteering another topic when agenda-setting began on Monday.  But something held me back. I didn’t feel a burning desire to bring up any specific subject.  Maybe someone else would call a group that could use my energy. Several topics looked good, but I decided to start with Arne’s “Future-Forward Collective: what should it be?”  

I was the first person to arrive. Another woman, Loren, came over, and we all chatted for a minute, then started our discussion.

“What do you think Future Forward could/should mean?” Arne asked, in a very nice, open way. “Nina, you can go first, because you got here first.”

“When I heard you say Future Forward I thought Great!  That could be a theatre that does Climate actions. I’ve been thinking about whether Climate activism could really use more theatre in it.  Maybe street theatre. Maybe somewhere free. Outdoors. Maybe go and make theatre with audiences…”

Arne was taking notes.  “And what do you think, Loren?”

“It needs to include hope + imagination.  Rapid response, and more sustained response--making the shows of the future.  Throwing out idea-generation to the audience. And what about you, Arne? What do you think?  We can be scribes so you can talk, if you like,” Loren offered.

“I’m a director,” Arne said.  “And I’m really into Life Coaching these days.  One of the exercises we do is, you imagine a goal.  For instance, for me, it’s to put on a production at the Globe.  So what I do is I imagine myself directing a show at the Globe. I imagine it really clearly:  I’m there already. It’s happening. It’s in the future. And then I look back, and imagine what steps I needed to take to get to that place.”

“That’s it!”  I said. “I really like that idea.  It would be really good to imagine a positive outcome of the climate crisis.”

“Some of the sessions I went to yesterday,” Arne said, “talked about Climate.  One of them talked about the possibility of a happy outcome, a good future in 2050.  We could still get there.”

“Yes!  Let’s have our event picture a positive 2050, or a positive climate future.”

By the end of 45 minutes we had come up with 6 specific, actionable takeaways, including:

Arne: discuss with Ben, director of Devoted & Disgruntled, about using their space/imprimatur to launch /host an adjunct OST D&D event.  Talk with Tarek, director of Battersea Arts Centre, about venues/space

Nina: propose to Oxford Climate School (which I’m currently attending) to add an additional 9th session to the lecture series, offer to facilitate using Open Space, to discuss next steps amongst all the attendees at the Climate School.  Try to convince local XR group to use Open Space at some upcoming meetings/events, because People’s Assembly, and the standard whoever talks loudest gets the last word feel not creative enough

“#bornatdnd” Arne wrote in big letters at the bottom of the flipchart page.

A few days after the event, Arne and I were discussing where to go with some plans we came up with on the weekend.

“It’s so great you had all those ideas,” Arne said to me.

“Me?  I thought they were your ideas,” I said  “It seemed like they just happened by themselves…”


We are planning a Climate UnConference for 1 May in London. Contact me to find out more (form on site or via social media).

Viral Dances, weakly inefficient markets in everything

-Viral Dance Markets

-the Trade-Offs in intellectual property protection 

-Cultural bits 

I’m not a tik-tok user or a consumer of short form video. I can observe that for 10s of 

millions maybe 100s of millions it’s an important cultural bit.

I was fascinated to learn how these dances are created, how they go viral and the difficulty in gaining creative credit.

I typically think copyright is too long (and I’m mixed on patents, some patents could be longer (pharmaceutical), some shorter (some software) ) but I can see how the informal ways of sharing creative credit can also be tricky. Then again the lack of copyright over dance moves allows (perhaps) them to innovate and circulate faster. 

The 10 second dance of Renegade is noticeable to me for its moderate difficulty as well as the way it has gone viral.  Videos below.  

Still despite the difficulties it looks like the creator of Renegade (Jalaiah Harmon, 14) at least has managed to crystallise some value (maybe lots of value) from her dance so it is not a complete market failure. Dance creators instinctively seem to know that moves don’t achieve mass scaling without well-followed personalities copying them. (NYT article, link end) 

The under current of “dub smash” culture being subsumed by “suburban” I can partly see but it seems to me to be part of the “subculture” going “mainstream” tensions.  In the UK, grime music was big amongst many before it hit mainstream recognition. 

Still she created a dance which has been viewed by millions and copies by many, and understood by followers of dance cultural bits and maybe very few others. There’s a cultural richness there that she couldn’t have tapped into except quite recently. While standard bearers for historic and traditional purveyors of culture and often perplexed (cf Instagram poets) I think perhaps they’ve missed a part of how younger generations enjoy and access cultural bits. 

If anything, I think humanity is culturally richer the more thriving subcultures we have. Long live viral short form dance. 


H/T Ted Giaoa for influencing my thinking on music (and its radicalism and importance to culture). Check out his recent book on Music: A subversive history.

Tyler Cowen for seeing markets in everything. Also see his book Infovore on cultural bits (and autism).

Alex Bedward for discussion in size of Grime markets. 

NYT article here charting renegade: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/style/the-original-renegade.html

Insta-poets: short blog here.

A piece of theatre blog history, Megan Vaughan's book on theatre blogs

-History of theatre blogging cf. economic blogs

-What does a playwright need?

-My own small part in the history of theatre blogs

-David Eldridge vs Chris Goode redux 

There’s a new book on the history and influence of theatre blogs by Megan Vaughan, Theatre Blogging: The Emergence of a Critical Culture. Recommend if you are interested in blogging or have read any of the early days theatre blogs.  

Turns out I’m part of a tiny piece of internet history being amongst the first wave of theatre bloggers. 

Vaughan writes:

“...In 2005, playwrights Benjamin Yeoh (Theatre and Writing) and Stephen Sharkey (O, Poor Robinson Crusoe!) started new theatre blogs, while director Paul Miller (My London Life) decided to concentrate his personal, journal-style blog on theatre. They were joined by Ben Ellis (Parachute of A Playwright), an Australian playwright based in the UK at the time, and Andy Field (The Arcades Project), who was initially a student in Edinburgh but would move down to London within a year. In 2006 they were followed by theatremaker Chris Goode (Thompson’s Bank of Communicable Desire), and David Eldridge (One Writer and His Dog), whose recollections began this chapter. 

While those UK bloggers were all artists of one flavour or another, 2006 was also the year in which two audience members, Andrew and Phil, became so infuriated by the Old Vic’s production of Resurrection Blues that they only went back after the interval because they had ‘always wanted to boo at the end of a show’ (West End Whingers 2006). While the booing was purportedly cathartic in some respects, it didn’t quite relieve the pain of the experience for Andrew and Phil, who started their irreverent review blog, West End Whingers, just a couple of days later. [BY: Quite a few of us ended up meeting up in real life and the WEW ended up coming to my own play - which was nervy as it was my theatre blog friends]  

A month after that, Natasha Tripney, a freshly graduated writer who had begun contributing to The Stage and music website MusicOMH, started her blog, Interval Drinks. The London theatre blogosphere was gradually catching up with New York and Melbourne, just as the New York bloggers were experiencing their first moment in the spotlight…”

This phenomenon was echoed within the Economics blogosphere. 

In 2005, Mark Thoma started his economics blog - that Noah Smith charts, link end - which spawned a similar wave in economics.  That those economics blogs have spawned even wider influence than theatre is mostly to do with the size of the “market” but the shape of the progress is the same.   

A democratisation of ideas, a faster moving debate by interested professionals and amateurs: fierce opinions thrashed in almost real time. 

I think Megan Vaughan argues that blogs are alive and well in their new forms.  I think blogs are alive but that peak blogging in its old form has been eroded by podcasts, twitter and the like. (I think she agrees) 

For me it’s a moderate shame - as I loved blogs so much - maybe blogs will resurge in some form at some time - and certainly they are still valuable - maybe some time of new  forums or smaller communities or the hyper-meta-blogs like Tyler Cowen’s or Star Slate Codex (it’s noticeable to me that Patrick Collison thinks good blogs could need more incentives… see end)

Vaughan selects a number of important blog reviews and debates to include in her book and it’s recommended for that f you are interested (despite the high price of c. £25).

Personally, I would have loved some interviews with the many current bloggers and practitioners who are still around and were blogging at the time.  Maybe there will be a follow up. 

At the time the memories I have most clearly are the intense debates between David Eldridge and Chris Goode about theatre (simplistically) “devised and ensemble” vs “writer-led”. She covers this and the subsequent podcast in 2018 where they somewhat reconcile. But she doesn’t convey the intensity of the debate I felt as a young theatre maker. Two voices I highly respected debating it out and seeing those debates echo in theatres and makers and spaces of the time.  I don’t think I was the only one. 

As a recent arrival in Twitter land, I can see some of that still now - but not in the nuance of before and it seems that it’s more noisy now in an inferior way as oppose to more diverse - which it is as well. 

I will leave you with one of my first 2005 blogs - redux -  May 2005:

I’m studying under Jane Bodie (a great playwright) as part of the Royal Court Writers’ programme. One of the questions we are asking is:

Qualities that that playwrights need?

I think it’s a question writers should come back to, every now and again, whether they write plays or in another medium. Of course, there’s no “correct” answer, and whatever answer one does have will probably change day-to-day, year-to-year, relationship-to-relationship…

We came up with (amongst others):

life, language, experience, imagination, sadness, joy, emotional access, flair,

perception

observation

analysis

commitment

articulation

Interestingly, Jane suggests articulation is the one thing she can teach something of. The rest might be unteachable.

Today I would strongly add:

Empathy

Curiosity

And it almost goes without saying an idea of how people communicate. 

Links:

My £1K microgrants programme

Amazon link to Megan Vaughan’s book @churlishmeg

Noah Smith’s tribute to Mark Thoma and history of economics blogs 

Jane Bodie 

Chris Goode + David Eldridge on podcast, blog here.

Chris Goode on Twitter @beescope

David Eldridge on Twitter @deldridgewriter

Patrick Collinson Questions:

Could there be more good blogs?

It seems that they heyday of of blogging is passing. If so, that's unfortunate. Blogs can be a remarkably efficient mechanism for disseminating ideas and facilitating discussion and debate. Twitter is good, too, but there's lots that blogs are great for that Twitter can't replace.

Part of the problem with blogs is that they're less rewarding than Facebook and Twitter: your post may perhaps get some thoughtful responses but it doesn't get immediate likes. And part of the problem is, of course, that writing a good post is much harder than writing a witty tweet.

Are there incentive structure tweaks that yield more good blogging?

Follow me on Twitter below:

"Fake Meat", origins with Chinese Monks

I was discussing with a new friend the origins of “fake meat” – it happens to be deeply rooted in ancient Chinese cuisine. Beyond meat is 1000 years behind chinese monks. Fuschia Dunlop (one of the great writers on Chinese food) comments below - but I first heard it from my Mum and I’ve eaten some of the food in Asia.

...Vegetarian cooking in China owes a lot to Chinese Buddhist monks, who have existed in the country since the late Han dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE), after Indian missionaries brought the religion to this part of Asia. One tenant of Buddhist ideology is vegetarianism. Not wanting to break tradition when outsiders came to visit their monastery, China’s Buddhist monks would copy classic meat-based dishes, replacing the meat or fish with vegetables, tofu, or gluten.

Dunlop: “The imitation meat dishes are particularly associated with Buddhist monasteries, although monks themselves live on very simple vegetarian foods, they also have to entertain people from the outside, like patrons, potential benefactors, and visiting pilgrims.”

“A lot of these people would have been normally eating meat but they would eat vegetarian food when they went to a monastery.”

“There are records from the Tang dynasty, which is 618 to 907, of an official hosting a banquet serving imitation pork and mutton dishes made from vegetables. In the 13th century, which is one of the great periods of Chinese gastronomy and culinary development, there were restaurants in the southern Song dynasty capital, which is today's Hangzhou, where you could eat Buddhist vegetarian dishes.”

Dunlop in a 2019 Podcast / Chinese meal with Tyler Cowen mentioned how Chinese can view being vegetarian a little more flexibly:

“…But vegetarians in China do have a bit of a problem, and that is because the Chinese approach to vegetarian eating is very different from the Western approach. So in China, people often make a distinction between Chinese Su Shi 素食, vegetarian eating, vegetarian food, and Su Shi Zhu Yi 素食主义, vegetarianism. Many Chinese people believe in Buddhism and will have vegetarian food when they go to visit a temple or on certain holy days, but they don’t abstain from meat all the time. I’ve even met an elderly monk who was a lifelong vegetarian who said that when he was sick or weak, he would eat a little meat to boost his strength.

So vegetarians traveling around China have this problem, that sometimes they ask for vegetarian food, and it has little bits of meat in it, or it’s cooked with lard or stock or dried shrimps. It’s quite hard. You have to really insist to restaurants that “I am a total vegetarian. I don’t . . .” You have to list the things you don’t want, to explain.

The only place that traditionally you would get pure vegetarian and even vegan food is in Buddhist monasteries, and sometimes Taoist monasteries. The larger ones have their own restaurants which cater for pilgrims and patrons and do extraordinary vegetarian cuisine. So partly it’s simple vegetarian cooking, and partly it’s Fang Hun Cai 仿荤菜, imitation meat dishes. Impossible Burger, they got there centuries before you! So you can go in Sichuan to a monastery, and you can feast on spare ribs and shark’s fin and sausages and gong bao chicken, and they’re all totally vegetarian.

One change in the last few years is that there are a small number of Chinese people, maybe cosmopolitan, intellectual types in cities, who are becoming vegetarians in that Western way. It is, actually, often connected with Buddhism, but they are abstaining totally from meat, and not only from meat, but also from Wu Hun 五荤, the pungent aromatics like garlic and all kinds of oniony vegetables, which is also part of the Buddhist diet.”

Link to podcast and transcript here.

State of the National Theatre

Does  the UK’s National Theatre reflect the UK? Divisions over Brexit, elite metropolitans vs countryside; populism/commercial vs artistic; identity wars - gender; state funding vs commercial funding. Leftist vs Rightist. Small state vs large state. [Not so far as to look at State Capacity Liberterians, cf. Dominic Cummings (?) H/T Tyler Cowen]

Helen Lewis takes on these ideas in a review of the National Theatre as an organisation and its conflicts with a dose of the Arts Council (after an interesting take on how the state effectively subsidises the commercial by allowing artists to develop in the state sector first).

Lewis notes the new language at Arts Council of “relevance” instead of “excellence” although with some push back that one can be both excellent and relevant.

Many commentators (theatre practitioners in my feed) on Twitter have critiqued the binary and polarised juxtapositions - which reflect debates on gender, and Brexit; and places David Hare (as a proponent of canon, traditionalists and, supposedly, an elite; remain) opposite Stella Duffy (as community, Leave). 

Comments like: 

NT primarily artistic or social? Can’t it be both?

Excellence or relevance? I write plays to be both.

I think those comments have validity, but I don’t think Lewis was proposing the nuance or spectrum here.

Lewis was asking if the conflicts at the NT reflected conflicts at a nation(s) state level. That the NT itself is a state of the nation play. And in that, Lewis draws some comparisons that do seem to reflect this idea. (Toilets one battle ground). This I think is interesting for non-theatre makers. Or, once you move past the opposing construct, it gives some intriguing insights into the conflicts that an organisation like the NT has.

Do our institutions reflect our society? Often institutions are more ossified and slower moving than where society is, in my observations. So the idea that the NT is of its time (and that some of its debates eg Peter Hall vs the Unions) stretch back in history.

On that idea, if the left did win the battle of culture and the NT is a result of that, but if the right have won the ideas on market economics - a binary that I’m not entirely sure I agree - and are currently re-shaping institutional funding - does the NT survive because it is as cherished as the NHS or as important as science funding; or does it decay attacked by left and right (cf. BBC) for losing of relevance - neither excellent nor popular rather than both excellent and popular?

Given Lewis interviewed some of our major theatre figures like Stella Duffy, David Hare, Rufus Norris, Dan Rebellato - I would have loved longer notes and insights into what they actually thought.

Full article in the Atlantic here.

Lewis’ take on subsidised theatre subsidising commercial.