My interests here are twofold:I think now is a good time for me to elaborate what I mean by new voices.
1) I'm joining in the call to arms to get some new voices in on the conversation, and
2) I am very curious to learn what are the posts (besides the arguments) that get people interested? That drive that ever elusive site traffic? I think devilvet posted some great ideas, and I'd love to see if more of that kind of post can get people talking. What does everyone else think? I'm interested to know.
Adam says it very succinctly here:
"As a big ol' alpha male I easily find myself wrapped up in the clashing debate style often seen on arts blogs."This is what I'm getting at, and I think Laura's hinting at this too (Laura, please correct me if I presume too much). The initial question was about bringing new voices into theater blogosphere. To be specific:
The meme: enlist a new voice to join the theater blogging community - someone who brings a new perspective to the discussion of theater. Preferably one that is challenging to your own perspective. Some women, maybe, since they’re underrepresented?This opened up a conversation about the way theater blogosphere frames a lot of discussions, and several people expressed their reluctance to participate because it often seems that the only valid way to communicate is through argument. And, whether people realize it or not, that way of framing discourse comes with its own problems, the primary one being how it marginalizes different ways of perceiving, understanding and expressing ideas and experiences.
Just as NYLADCHI (ha, I fit DC in there!) isn't the only place where good theater happens, argument isn't the only method of conversing. For instance, when it comes to giving an opinion about a show I've seen, I'm less interested in the conflict between "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" vs. "if you can't say something nice don't say nothing at all." I don't respond to that because I simply don't think of the issue that way. I tend to think in more open-ended ways, such as, "What do you do when someone you know does something that sucks?" or "How do you give constructive feedback?"
When I deal with the first style, it feels as though I have to respond in kind if I want to contribute. Since I often don't wish to - like I said, I'm more reflective than forceful - I remain silent. Before someone can take what I say out of context, there is nothing wrong with this. I'm not judging anyone who prefers this way of communicating. But, I am saying that if you want something different, you need to make room for it.
That's all I'm saying.