I do feel an obligation to “tease out an awareness of the playwright’s point of view” - although maybe “tease” isn’t the right word to describe the dynamics. I feel like my job as the moderator isn’t only to objectively moderate an open conversation, but to guide an audience through a discussion that explores the play they’ve just seen - the issues it raises, the process of creating it, the historical or political context, whatever direction that discussion wants to move in.

I think Larry nails it at the end of that last comment - an effective moderator needs to be aware of a discussion that’s ranging away from the context of the play and find a way to guide it back. That can be a really fine line to walk, but unless you have an unlimited amount of time to talk, it’s a line that has to be walked.

Now lets move into a more nuanced view of the moderator’s role. I am still bothered by the statement that you “feel an obligation to tease out an awareness of the playwright’s point of view which is being expressed”. As an insider, you have a greater awareness of the playwright’s intent. But what the playwright intended and what he/she actually accomplished can be very different - and the same applies to the production of that play. If you try to subtly steer the discussion towards what was intended but there is a disconnect between intent and accomplishment, you may only confuse the audience because their experience was not what you expected it to be. So I would rather have you “tease out” what the audience believed to be the author’s point of view to see if it is consistent with your understanding of the intent of the author. In fact, you could even tell the audience explicitly what the play was meant to be about in order to see if they think it accomplished its purpose. I think this would serve the playwright quite well. (I have a whole long rant about playwrights blaming audiences for their failures, but that’s for another day)

Beyond that, your role is like any moderator’s. A good discussion should be people expressing their opinions and backing them up with reasons, without resorting to ad hominem arguments or arguing specific agendas not germane to the play. Ideally the discussion group would go in that direction by themselves, but I can see where a moderator is often required to nudge it in a particular direction. Your statement “he felt that a consensus was forming that would have been uncomfortable to resist …. if he did not feel that the conversation admitted to a dissenting voice—then I failed as a facilitator of the discussion” is valid if his points were valid. If he was arguing a point that simply had little relevance to the play or playwright’s intention, then in fact you would fail as a moderator if you allowed the discussion to be sidetracked. This is the sort of decision that can only be made on a case by case basis at the moment it is happening.

Finally, can you think too much? Of course. Look at Hamlet. Look at the French!

Reading Ms. Lavey’s e mail and following her advice to check the blog, this will be my first ever attempt at commenting via blog. That is the second first for me, as I have never read a blog.

As a matter of fact, to Ms. Lavey, you made a good assumption. Correct, I had not really consolidated my feelings, and I try to be carefull about dominating a conversation. There were many other topics flying about, and I knew our time was limited.

To Mr. Peterson’s comments. I attend the theatre to be challenged. I do not believe one can ‘think too much”. True, Dave was not conducting himself in a Christian manner. I did not wish or intend for a discussion toward a solution on what would be proper conduct. If someone wished to engaged me on that from the audiance or in the theatre on the way out, I would have enjoyed that, however! I probably am not capable of a solution, but am capable of discussing the subject.

It may be ‘natural’ for a audiance to reach a quick consensus…I hardly agree that that would make it ‘right’.

During the theatre experience, we have the option to stay or not for the discussion. I seldom perceive discussion leaders as taking the role of teacher. Facilitating a discussion and hearing other views, and YES, perhaps learning a bit more about how the play works, is important to me, and something I look forward to.

Kind regards, and thank you.

Edw Korleski

Thanks so much for responding to “Leading a Conversation.” I appreciate your appetite for the free-wheeling conversation. I certainly hope I did not imply that the only valuable conversation is some super-politically-correct, balanced, schoolroom-type discourse. First, because I don’t think it’s possible (much less desirable), to speak without a point of view (although, clearly it is possible to speak without REALIZING that what one is doing is propagating a particular point of view.) My responsibility, in leading a conversation about the show is, as I see it, to provide whatever assistance I can in making the playwright’s point of view lucid and to create a conversational space in which people can amplify that point of view, dissent from it, use it to engage the questions of the play.

Maybe I was overwrought in describing the playwright’s language as “coded.” I guess I just meant that the situations in the play are intended to be suggestive of a larger social and political reality.

Thanks for writing.

Martha