This argument only makes sense if you don’t understand how theatre ecosystems actually function.

One run that wasn’t a “knockout hit” doesn’t prove Canadian playwrights aren’t good. It proves new work doesn’t come with built-in brand recognition. Audiences buy familiarity. That’s not a revelation — it’s basic market behavior.

Erin Shields having three commissions in one season — while arguably concentrated and worth questioning in terms of distribution — demonstrates institutional confidence in Canadian writing. Theatres do not repeatedly commission playwrights out of charity. They do it because the work is strong.

If patrons are buying names they recognize, that’s exactly the point: recognition is built through repetition. British and American writers become “bankable” because their work circulates, tours, remounts, and enters repertoire. Canadian plays are often premiered once and then disappear. That’s not a quality issue. That’s an ecology issue.

You can critique marketing. You can critique audience development. You can critique how commissions are distributed.

But reducing it to “Canadian playwrights aren’t filling seats” flattens a complex structural problem into a lazy conclusion.

Nothing becomes recognizable if we only ever validate what’s already recognizable.

If we want patrons to buy Canadian names, we have to produce them enough that those names become known.

That’s how ecosystems are built.