One of the problems Slate has when covering Broadway--or theater in general--is that we're a national publication, and theater is essentially a local phenomenon, albeit one seen by many visitors to New York City.

Is the local nature of theater what prevents it from becoming a more widely discussed and debated art form? It reminds me of hockey's position in American sports--sure, it's big, but only in certain relatively small circles. For most people, it barely exists.

Do you all care about Broadway or theater in general?

Thanks for asking.

I, for one, care about Broadway theater, but most of the time I can only read about it in my copy of The New Yorker. However, I care about it because sometimes it's an indication of what might come to Baltimore either in a traveling company or by way of a local production. And occasionally, I actually do make it up to NYC for a performance. But Broadway isn't always where the Pultizer winners are.

Whether I have seen a recent Broadway production or not (I haven't) it's still fun to watch the Tonys for the mini-productions and to see some *stars*.

Hi June,

My reaction to your question is...Finally!

Somebody from Slate is asking this question, and also providing something of answer as to why theatre is not covered as much in online mags like Slate and Salon.

I try to look at online publications as an alternative, but even your question brings up more questions.

I would ask you, Do you think theatre is important? Does the editorial staff at Slate think it is important? If so, then it would seem you might have an obligation to figure out a way to cover it more.

Even the Wall Street Journal sends Terry Teachout to the provinces to cover theatre in Boston, Chicago, Oregon.

The fact that theatre in Slate is barely ever mentioned becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, no?

Thank you though, for asking the question.

It's true, the Wall Street Journal deserves endless praise for sending Terry Teachout on the road so frequently--off the top of my head, I think he's the only major theater critic who travels regularly (not counting the NYT jaunts to London and the Humana Festival). The WSJ is a national publication and they apparently find the budget to attempt to cover theater nationally. More power to them for that.

My wife and I are very fond of the theater, but have given up on Broadway. We used to get season tickets to Broadway in Boston, but it is such an expensive run of drivel, with the "hook" being that some Hollywood actor is on-stage or that the music is hits from the 70's, or that the play was originally a movie that you loved when you first saw it forty years ago.

We have taken to buying season tickets to local theater only. The Merrimac Repertorie Theater and the Huntington Rep are both excellent theaters. They generally offer either world or regional premieres, invariably have professional actors who were chosen for their talent instead of their fame, have innovative staging, and select genuinely interesting plays. Seeing a challenging play that you don't already know performed by talented professional actors on a stage set that builds on the intention of the playwrite is still one of the great experiences of the arts. The theater isn't dead -- Broadway is.

Hi June,

thanks for your discussion of Broadway and the theater. I just want to add that I was in New York two weeks ago (for my birthday :) and I saw Spring Awakening then. I got my tickets for $47 from the TKTS booth, and though I sat on the mezzanine, I had a complete view of the stage. I enjoyed the show's youthful spirit. I would ask what you thought of it??

Perhaps you could mention in your discussion, that there are cheaper ways to see Broadway shows then pay the full price ticket. It might be more accessible that way, to many others who would not otherwise be able to see a play or show. IN fact, every time I've been to NYC, I've seen a show on broadway, for less than $55.

That's absolutely correct--though for TKTS you do have to buy tickets on the day of show, which can be a bit dicey if you really, really want to see a particular show or if you're busy during the day. (To find out which shows have been available at TKTS in the previous week, check out this site--you can see all but the current day without joining), If you just want to see a show and are cool with choosing on the day, a trip to TKTS can be quite exciting. There's a special line for plays, which can save a LOT of queuing time.

And in this age of the Internet, for most shows (all but Disney and the sellout shows), a quick Web search for the terms "discount" and "[name of show]" should almost certainly lead you to a cheaper seat.

Thanks to these discounts, it's often cheaper to see a Broadway show than an off-Broadway production. (Some off-Broadway shows are at TKTS and some have discount codes, but the savings are a little harder to come by.)

The short answer is "No." Most of what is produced on Broadway, or off-Broadway for that matter, is either schlock or woefully out of touch with our culture. Has anyone in theater paid the slightest attention to developments in film, television, or music in the past 60 years? Who in their right mind would risk paying $50 - $100 for a theater ticket on the off-chance that it might be in the 5% of productions which are thoughtful and moving?

I agree with you that there's a huge risk involved in buying a theater ticket--more than with other artforms, perhaps--but I would NOT say that theater is "woefully out of touch with our culture"--even if we limit the discussion to Broadway.

Of course theater artists pay attention to developments in other arts--many of them are involved in those other disciplines. To take just one, television pays the bills of tons of playwrights--the three Law & Order franchises pay more writers' mortages than any other institution I can think of!

The question shouldn't be whether Fraysters care about Broadway but whether there's much love here for the theatre. I'd wager that there is strong showing here of those who attend performances regularly, and who regard theatre arts as a subject worth covering and reviewing in these pages. You have, though, presented the problem at the outset, that theatre, where it's being created and performed with innovation, genius or just plain old school bullshit , is almost entirely local, and I would think that Slate, if they had the budget and willingness to do so, might cover what's happening in theatre towns all over the country. Time Magazine used to let Robert Hughes review art openings in the oddest far flunt places, both Stateside and in Europe. It made for a more interesting art section. Slate could do likewise, and shake off the high-toned provincialism that sticking to Manhattan will saddle you with.

"The theater isn't dead -- Broadway is?" I don't think that you really want to derive that opinion from Broadway in Boston.

In the past couple of months, I've seen "Grey Gardens," "LoveMusik," "Talk Radio," "Spring Awakening," and "Frost/Nixon," among other shows. Trust me -- Broadway is far from dead. Take a trip to New York and check it out. Don't confuse the tour companies of over-produced pop musicals with real theater.

Good Morning June:

As usual, I am late to the happening or the start of the performance. I believe theater is a venue worth reviewing; although, I can not say I get to it tht much. However, I do like to read about what is up and coming in the hopes that it may come to town once it leaves Broadway.

I find I have tons of time to use in whatever way I wish to these days. Kids are gone and the dog died, so suddenly I have time to explore.By no means should this be the realm of the middle-aged. Bottom Line I would like to read more.

Thanks for asking,