Dear Editors,

I don't really have the time to dissect this essay on all its faults. But let me just start here. I saw COAST OF UTOPIA in London in 2002, well before we invaded Iraq. Stoppard wrote the play well-before we invaded in 2003; it just took a long time to get to NYC....And why aren't any significant women British playwrights mentioned, like, Caryl Churchill, for goodness sake? Is the implication that only men can write politically? (Thanks for at least mentioning Kia Corthron!)

If this is an example of the level of theatrical criticism in this country, no wonder our theater is failing. It is a critic's duty to contextualize new plays--which means to know performance history, to say the least. Why run essays on the theater if they aren't correctly vetted?

I agree with Stoppard's sentiments: when you are impassioned about a political policy, action, or figure, writing a play is hardly an efficient way of storming the barricades.

And yet, when most Americans (who ever do so) think of Arthur Miller, they remember "The Crucible," his pointed criticism of McCarthyism. That play is still relevant today (instead of "witches" we have "defeatocrats" or "cutandrunners;" the Salem jail might as well be Gitmo; and honest citizens are drawn into hysteria or silence).

While good theatre isn't good at intant gratification (from headlines to stage in moments), we often see the moment reflecteed in a work years later. Works of theatre (good ones, anyway) capture the spirit of the era in which they are written, but speak to us long after their era has passed. Our children and grandchildren will see our political-social tensions and angsts when they see revivals of our plays.

The brilliant Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are fantastic at instantaneous satire. But, (and please note I am ot knocking ehat they do: I love them both, and they are plying a vital role in our political discourse) precisely because their work is of the moment, it loses relevance over time: it's too specific, too "now" to stay fresh (with some exceptions). Who can remember the also-rans from a presidential primary 20 years ago? Precious few.

I also think, that to find "good" contemporary thaeatre, one must look to the LORTs around the country. Broadway is too focused on mass appeal to take many risks. Regional theatres (nonprofits, with a loyal customer base and a large pool of talentedartists) are better able to experiment, to speak out nd to create art that matters.

Conservative playrights and directors like Stoppard want to eliminate 'politics' from theatre, and saying it isn't going to change policy is just a clever way of dismissing it. This of course goes back to the old 'art for art' sake arguments that have raged for years.

So while the lefties are supposed to abandon theatre, conservatives ply on with 'worldly' entertainments chock full of cultural poiltics, as Stoppard's play seems to be.

As a letter writer has already pointed out, there are plenty of overtly political plays, and some of them are quite memorable.

Vetted? Jesus. I was totally unaware of any political plays on Broadway, so I'm glad Cote wrote the article. Politics is creeping into music, art, films, documentaries and now theatre. The crappier society gets, the more the arts start reflecting it. There is more to life than a nice evening out. Bravo!

The future of political plays belongs to the next generation. How will they respond to the historic criminality of the Bush administration, its grotesque exploitation of 9/11, its deadly mishandling of the war in Iraq and efforts to boost executive powers to fascistic levels?

Well, consider what Andrew Lloyd Webber did for Evita Peron.

Is saying we need explicitly political plays not just a way of saying we (urban liberals) need to see our own beliefs and opinions reinforced and congratulated? Would a play that directly takes Bush to task (with, say, a title similar to the Blair mock trial play in London: "The Case for the Impeachment of George W. Bush.") have any impact, or even be seen, by anyone whose mind we would want to change? No. Firstly, the seats would be filled with blue-state lefties who already agree with the premise of such a piece so completely there's little need for them to see it in the first place. Republicans, meanwhile, will be buying their kids commerative chimney sweep brooms at "Mary Poppins."

And secondly, it probably wouldn't be any good. Any work of art that is supposed to come to a pre-conceived conclusion is by definition not a work of art, but a pamphlet, a broadside, an op-ed column. Art succeeds when it exploits ambiguities; political writing succeeds when it shores up support for a concrete position. Therefore, expect cardboard saints mouthing pre-digested talking points. War bad, peace good: If you have to step inside a theater to learn that, you're in pretty dire shape.

I'm not lobbying for a theater of complete frivolity, totally removed from the issues of the day. Look at the great dramatists of all time, such as Chekov, Williams, Pinter, Mamet, O'Neill. They didn't write in order to sway an election, but it's pretty clear from their work what kind of people they were (and are), and whether they believe peace is better than war, the truth is better than lies, and human kindness is better than dog-eat-dog social darwinism.