the point I was trying to make was not about telling people what to do as much as telling them to imagine work from the viewpoint of a non-specialist. Your Hamlet example is a good one -- you mention theatre people look at you like you're nuts if you do Hamlet without an experimental hook, but if they take of their specialist glasses they will remember that there are a LOT of people -- a LOT of people -- who have never seen Hamlet before. For them, it is a new story. And if we overlay some weird interp because we think just doing the play isn't enough, then they come away confused. It is one thing to do plays with artist-specialists in mind, and another to do plays for the regular audience. Theatre people have a tendency to try to wow their friends, rather than reach an audience of non-specialists, and I think that is a shame.Perhaps this is where my lack of a theatre gene is a blessing in disguise. So much as I'd enjoy having the respect of Important Theatre People, I don't write for them. So all this talk about holding the audience in contempt and all that? Not about me. In fact, it's often been non-specialists who've shared the most insightful opinions about my work. There is an openness to their approach that is too often lacking in Theatre People and other experts.