"The problem, for me, with the writing programs is that they produce a terrible uniformity of product"
About this Quote
Davison’s complaint lands because it’s not really about writing; it’s about casting. “For me” is doing quiet but important work: he’s not announcing a timeless law so much as a practitioner’s irritation with a pipeline that spits out the same kind of voice, the same kind of script, the same kind of scene. Coming from an actor, “product” is the tell. He’s talking about pages as commodities, polished to meet workshop expectations and industry gatekeepers, rather than as living material that invites risk, surprise, and performance.
The sting is in “terrible uniformity.” Uniformity isn’t merely aesthetic boredom; it’s a cultural narrowing. Writing programs, at their best, offer tools and community. Davison’s subtext is that the tools have become templates, and the community has hardened into consensus. A note culture emerges: clarity over strangeness, “relatable” over specific, a premium on competence that can quietly punish the weird choices that make a script actable in the most electric way.
Contextually, this reads like a veteran of repertory and television watching the arts professionalize into credentialism. As more writers are trained in the same rooms, by the same syllabi, chasing the same fellowships, the market gets flooded with scripts that are technically “good” in identical ways. Davison’s intent isn’t anti-education; it’s anti-ventriloquism. He’s defending the unruly idiolect, the unrepeatable sensibility, the thing no program can reliably manufacture - and that actors, who live or die on specificity, can spot instantly.
The sting is in “terrible uniformity.” Uniformity isn’t merely aesthetic boredom; it’s a cultural narrowing. Writing programs, at their best, offer tools and community. Davison’s subtext is that the tools have become templates, and the community has hardened into consensus. A note culture emerges: clarity over strangeness, “relatable” over specific, a premium on competence that can quietly punish the weird choices that make a script actable in the most electric way.
Contextually, this reads like a veteran of repertory and television watching the arts professionalize into credentialism. As more writers are trained in the same rooms, by the same syllabi, chasing the same fellowships, the market gets flooded with scripts that are technically “good” in identical ways. Davison’s intent isn’t anti-education; it’s anti-ventriloquism. He’s defending the unruly idiolect, the unrepeatable sensibility, the thing no program can reliably manufacture - and that actors, who live or die on specificity, can spot instantly.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
