Richmond CenterStage’s suggested and demanded changes to my book seemed dictated by a need to falsify history to meet image-polishing, fundraising and other agendas. by Roy Proctor
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the promise of Richmond CenterStage. Downtown’s new performing arts Mecca is poised to deliver what the Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts, its predecessor in the 600 block of East Grace Street, failed to achieve. The $73.5 million complex opening next month is a thoroughgoing theatrical adaptation and expansion of this city’s exotic 1928 Loew’s movie palace, not just a cosmetic touch-up. With its two additional stages, arts-education center and 13 resident companies, all but two of which are based here, the new complex is positioned to foster the arts in Richmond as well as showcase performers from afar.
Richmond CenterStage would seem to have everything going for it, including an 81-year-history chock-full of colorful characters and real-life cliffhangers rivaling any drama that played on the Loew’s screen or the Carpenter Center stage. Sad to say, the complex’s parent, the CenterStage Foundation, is not about to tell that story, much less sanction others to tell it. The foundation’s peculiar idea of manners has a way of trumping the truth.
I learned this the hard way last month after laboring for a year on a book that the foundation commissioned me to write. The 96-page, full-color, hardcover coffee-table tome, “Richmond CenterStage: A Dream Fulfilled,” was to have told that story in words and pictures, complete with sidebars, timelines and other niceties.
My manuscript, which was in its final edited form by mid-July except for a final chapter detailing the grand opening, will not be published.
No possibility could have been further from my mind last summer when foundation functionaries Susan Fitz-Hugh and Erin Rodman approached me about writing a book. We clicked like gangbusters. We laughed a lot. I went home, wrote a lengthy book proposal discussing options and e-mailed it to the foundation. We met again. Fitz-Hugh, a member of the foundation’s board of directors, and Rodman, on staff as marketing director, assured me we were on the same track. We laughed some more. Fitz-Hugh and Rodman hired me on the spot. No restrictions were placed on the content. No foundation oversight was mentioned. I was given freedom to write to my highest journalistic standard. My mandate, according to our contract, was simply to “write all written portions” of the book except for a one-page foreword. By early fall of 2008, I was deep into research.
Perhaps I should have smelled trouble when the foundation declined my request to share some architectural drawings with Preprint Design Services, the Richmond Times-Dispatch department that the foundation had engaged to design, edit and manage the book. The widely published drawings showed a future home for TheatreVirginia and a concert hall that were announced but never built. Including the drawings in the book would be “negative,” Rodman explained. I shrugged it off.
By April, research was complete and the writing was well in hand. As a goodwill gesture, I e-mailed the Loew’s Theatre section to Rodman for the foundation’s perusal. Rodman later acknowledged that she’d only read the sidebars. Late in June, the project manager issued a series of July deadlines that included sending a copy of the completed manuscript to the foundation. That was news to me, but I welcomed it as another way to assure factual accuracy.
The foundation found only two minor factual errors, which I was happy to correct. It was the rest of the book that propelled Fitz-Hugh and Rodman into outer space. They shot off a four-page “feedback” e-mail that included more than 50 criticisms, suggestions and orders for changes.
Some of the criticisms were petty. They objected to my characterization of 6th Street Marketplace as a “fiasco,” for example. They disapproved of my identifying the late Helmut Wakeham as the Carpenter Center’s board chairman, which was his title. They nixed my characterization of Loew’s in its 1970s decline as a “mockery” of what it had been in its prime.
Other criticisms were direct assaults on any standard of sound reporting and historical writing. No matter what had been reported in the press, Fitz-Hugh and Rodman didn’t want financial figures in the book. A $3 million gift from Stanley and Dorothy Pauley had put the fundraising drive over the top, for example, but it wasn’t to be mentioned. In fact, the demise of Loew’s Theatre, the Carpenter Center’s rocky first five years and the political controversy that swirled around fundraising for Richmond CenterStage could be explained only in economic terms.
More egregious was the foundation’s contention that some historical figures should be written out of the book and that no one should be mentioned who did not wish to “participate.” That included the longtime executive director of the Carpenter Center, Joel Katz, who, Rodman assured me, had told the foundation that he didn’t want his name associated with Richmond CenterStage.
The suggested and demanded changes, which were reinforced in subsequent correspondence, amounted to historical revisionism on a massive scale. They seemed dictated by a need to falsify history to meet image-polishing, fundraising and other agendas that had nothing to do with writing a balanced and properly analytical account of what had transpired since Loew’s opened its fabled doors. They asked me to “erase all mentions” of SaveRichmond.com, the local blog that had become a rallying point for opposition to the foundation’s process on economic, cultural and other grounds. These were dictates that no respectable journalist or historian could countenance.
The end came swiftly. The foundation refused to give me the free hand I required, and my integrity was not for sale. When it was evident we had reached an impasse, Rodman invited me to coffee at the Stir Crazy Café and told me the book project was being terminated.
I just hadn’t told what she characterized as “our story,” she sighed.
I regret that “Richmond CenterStage: A Dream Fulfilled” won’t materialize, but in one sense, I’m richer for the experience. It enabled me to learn a lot about my journalistic integrity that I had never known because, in a 38-year career as a staff writer for six newspapers, it had never been put to a real test.
On second thought, life is fleeting.
I wish the foundation had told me from the get-go that what it really wanted was a gigantic piece of puffery in the guise of an honest book.
If it had, it could have saved us a lot of time and trouble. S
Roy Proctor, a freelance writer and theater director, retired in 2004 after 30 years as an arts writer for The Richmond News Leader and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Opinions expressed on the Back Page are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Style Weekly.
"Richer for the experience", I'm sure. You kept the book advance, right? Wink wink.
Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:03:40 PM by Constant Reader
Hostility?! What do you call erasing any and all references to Don Harrison or SaveRichmond? What do you call attempting to "whitewash" Richmond's racist past? The hostility and high-handedness that the movers and shakers of this project have repeatedly demonstrated to the citizens of Richmond is galling. Had the situation been handled in an inclusive and transparent manner, the book could have been written as a positive for the community simply by embracing the dissenting voice(s) and actually working across race, gender and economic lines that divide our community in order to accomplish something worthy of praise. As it is, the effort continues to alienate black and white, rich and por and sadly it appears that until the "old guard" finally dies off, this will continue to be the way "bidness" gets done in Richmond.
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:38:05 PM by Anonymous
CenterStage knew who they were hiring. They didn't do their homework on Proctor, they didn't put any agreement or understanding in writing. CenterStage shouldn't be surprised that the writing was truthful. But c'mon, we're already sick of the many woes that have fallen on this project, let's not give more publicity where it isn't do. I say prove you're something, CenterStage, before you write a congrats to us book.
Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:35:42 AM by Chris
Words like "fiasco" and "mockery" are not in the vocabulary of marketers. I've been working in marketing and advertising for the past 10 years. History has many sides. The Foundation is doing what any client would do: Looking out for its own interests and public persona. In other words, it comes as no surprise. And it shouldn't to anyone.
Do you really think that they would allow such characterizations? Of course not. They want to open on a note of grand optimism. And ride that wave.
Was the Foundation wrong at all? No. Will it make a difference in the long run? That's up to Roy Procter and other interested parties. Keep the torch burning.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:35:23 PM by Taylor P.
It sounds to me like Mr. Proctor's ego was crushed. If someone hires you to write a book then you write what they ask you to write. Everyone knows the problems that CenterStage has had in the past so there's nothing to hide on their end which makes me think that Mr. Proctor didn't write this book objectively. And the way he wrote this op-ed with such hostility makes me believe that this is more a personal vendetta against the group rather than an accurate description of events that took place.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:52:27 AM by Scott Burger
"Presumably the centerstage foundation will champion freedom of artistic expression on its stages."
Respectfully, I warn you now to not presume anything when its comes to 'the foundation'.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:49:15 AM by Molly Coble
Presumably the centerstage foundation will champion freedom of artistic expression on its stages. A bit ironic then that it got cold feet and denied Mr. Procter the artistic freedom it commissioned him to write. It seems he would have no choice but to stand on principle rather than resort to a pack of lies. I applaud your courage Mr. Procter.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:59:21 AM by Amanda Robinson
However, I agree that if they wanted to sugar-coat this entire project with inaccurate historical information and financial accountability, then they definitely should not have hired a journalist. This would be another opportunity for corporations and government to spoon-feed us tainted history so our next generation does not now the truth. But aren't we glad that they do not know their heads from a hole in the wall? If they would have hired the author that they needed to complete this book, then we would be stuck with another useless glorification of city funds as a platform to pat the backs of their major donors.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:06:00 AM by Anonymous
Don't you think this is all a little overly dramatic? (pun intended) I mean it's a coffee table book for pete's sake about a performing arts foundation. Get some perspective Mr. Proctor. You were hired to write a nice book about a venue that will benefit Richmond in the long run. Now you just seem like a bitter guy who got his feelings hurt when the people that were paying his wage asked him to make some changes so they could actually sell this book!. Let it go already. CenterStage is going to open no matter what, support it and your city.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21:07 AM by mark brady
I'd love to think that Roy is shocked that egos and post-partum prettification happen in the realm of arts philanthropy unlike, say, business or politics or education. But that too would be unbelievable. Cheers to Mr. Proctor for a good, and dare say, intentional run at the windmill while keeping his arms and legs.
Couldn't agree more with Amanda. It's ironic that a venue to host playwrights and other storytellers who have very firm ideas about authentic themes and characters needing flaws and struggle to be believed real will itself be managed and marketed by real big league fantasists. I heard somewhere that honesty and humility are usually feared only by those who don't posses them, but let's hope for the city's sake that whatever truth's in the art makes up for that lack.
----------------------------- shared air - a community blog open to anyone interested in making Richmond a more fulfilling place.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:09:57 AM by Amanda Robinson
Miss MM, Cece and Mr. Dee,
I could slightly understand putting your cliffhangers, ethics and integrity to the side if you were planning to create a puff-piece for a privately run organization. We are all very used to corporate entities concealing the truth.
However, I cannot fathom how your minds and hearts feel as though it is appropriate to disclose the truth in a montage about one of Richmond's biggest publicly-funded melodramas of this decade. I feel that our city taxpayers would find it much easier to support a project after all disputes and controversy have been put on the table at the get-go, instead of having to boycott a project after learning how long they had been kept in the dark. (Which, is pretty much the case now.) Centerstage would find it more useful (and profitable) to create an honest portrayal of our historic landmark, including its past, present and all of its drama and greatness.
The damage is done, and it would be almost impossible at this point for an individual to look at a Centerstage coffee table book as a valiant source of historic progress. I would personally be more inclined to marvel at the images like the aftermath of a natural disaster. (The 9-11 book is a good example).
Please do not get me wrong. I know that Centerstage is going to be an extraordinary facility with all of the bells and whistles that money can buy, and I am happy to hear that it is supposed to support a component of Richmond's performance art groups, (however that plays out....) however, beauty is only skin deep. This project needs to come clean before it begins, and find ways to heal the wounds before the infection of a disgruntled community sets in. Without addressing these issues and learning to work with the community that feeds you, then it will fail. It has always happened that way in Richmond, believe me.
In short, I applaud Mr. Proctor for staying true to our city's historical dilemma's.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:52:10 PM by Tony
Mr. Dee seems a little peeved, possibly a foundation employee I assume. (also the name must stand for the grades you got in school with spelling like that) I think you are a bit harsh on Mr. Proctor, after all, this story hardly seems to knock the foundation. Rather I think it expresses a positive side of his character and I am happy to see that. I am new to this city and have not had much opportunity to read his work, but am pleased to see a journalist with a little integrity. Vain or not, at least he is honest. Good luck finding that from other journalists Mr. Dee!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:18:13 PM by Mr. Dee
what? you think you were hired for journalism? It seems you didn't understand what they were hiring you for. Get over it. It's a coffee table book. If you're hired to write a travel book to promote vacationing in another country, do you publish the crime stats? No. Why? It may portray the country in question in a negative light and that's not desirable as it may sway people to avoid that place.
My opinion? It seems your ethics are embedded in your vanity. The only thing you accomplish by pursuing this course is creating a scar on this community. Do you care about this city? Do you actually want this to succeed or fail? It seems you care little about your community buy airing this the way you have. I used to respect you and your writing but this has ended any of that.
My greatest sympathies...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:39:46 PM by Cece Littlejohn
If you're working with an organization to assemble a coffee table book, you highlight their entity and put your cliffhangers aside. When you're looking to slander someone, that's when you're free to turn to blogs if you so choose.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:35:09 PM by Miss MM
Well, they actually did hire him to write a "gigantic piece of puffery." Who in marketing and PR ever hires anyone to tell the homely truth? So in that respect, I am surprised he is surprised on how it turned out. You dance with the person who brought you, and they brought him and bought him.
On the other hand, CenterStage is facing the same obstacles as 6th Street Marketplace, and the Main Street train station shopping mall/and renovated train station. No parking. No inexpensive parking. A perception that downtown is not safe at night. Panhandlers on line with you, asking you for a quarter. Spit on the sidewalk. Drunk and disorderlies staging sidewalk domestic dramas with high decibel cursing, and so far, a same-old same-old schedule of entertainment. None of that has been fixed yet.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:04:01 PM by Scott Burger
Mr. Procter, Center Stage's "promise" is unsustainable and I predict will continue to cost taxpayers millions. Its not a good idea done wrong- its just another bad idea forced upon Richmond. That said, thank you for sticking to your journalistic integrity. That means a lot these days.