EDITOR’S AFTERWORD

Spatial restrictions prevent me from commenting, in synthesizing summary, on the contents of this issue. They even keep me from offering more than cursory gratitude to those who have had sufficient early faith in this venture to contribute to it so quickly and so valuably, both as subscribers and as correspondents. The Eugene O’Neill Newsletter can be what it is designed to be--a vehicle for the sharing of information, both practical and theoretical, both academic and theatrical, by all who have an interest in the life and works of O’Neill--only if many individuals submit the news and insights that it is the Newsletter’s raison d’etre to convey. So I offer sincere thanks to those who have already written, and pen a few guidelines for others who may be wondering what kinds of material are sought.

1. Letters of response to items in previous issues. While it is not the Newsletter’s specific role to stir up controversy, the airing of conflicting opinions cannot but be healthful. If you take issue with what is said herein, for instance, respond. Offer amplification, refutation--whatever! Professor Sarlos’ letter is a lively example of such a response, as is Professor Carpenter’s essay. The editor welcomes more, and asks correspondents to indicate whether their words are or are not for publication.

2. Brief essays on biographical, textual, contextual, interpretational and theatrical subjects. The list could easily be expanded. The only restriction is length: try to limit all submissions to 750 words or less. The editor will bend the rule when it is necessary, but it is not feasible to overbend if the subscription fee is to remain modest.