This is the first column of yours which makes almost no sense to me.

My objection boils down to this: Carnival is not theatre, it is spectacle. Although I count both among life's pleasures--maybe one a bit more than the other--they spring from very different impulses and serve very different needs. ('Wants' might be righter than 'needs.') To aver that the dominance of one contributes to the paucity of the other is to swap out apples and oranges because both of them fruits are wearing costumes and showing off.

"Why pay for the show when you can be the show?" Answer Number One: Because not everyone wants to be the show. Answer Number Two: These are very different shows you're talking about. The satisfaction of narrative and the time-honored 'holding up a mirror to life,' to name two purposes of theatre that Carnival doesn't even attempt to scratch. 

Then there are all of the straw-man arguments littering the piece:

"The PBR and Bud Light crowds are unified for one evening. ...it is something that all who call themselves the young-and-hip-at-heart can look forward to enjoying. Can you name the traditional theatrical event in the city that has been described as the same? If you can, please tell me..." 

Um...I'm unsure if you're asking for appeal to just the Bud Light crowd or to the BUD Light/PBR combo. Assuming the latter: No. And so what? Name a movie that appeals to all demographics, a TV show, an anything.

"The theatrical gripers...would rather blame invisible malfeasants who have wrecked the scene...[T]he shortcomings of New Orleans' theatre are about people who fail to write the proper grants, approach the right donors, or build the perfect subscription base."

Granted you get around more than I do, Jim, but in ten years here I've never overheard or participated in such a narrow-minded conversation. The theatermakers I know talk about (a) what they're doing next, (b) what they've seen recently and whether or not they liked it, and (c) gossip. If they drink enough Bud Lights, they might wax poetic about how they can make their work better.

(This is probably the point to nod in Michael's direction: Yes, this compatriot shares your belief that my fringe health is symbiotically dependent on the health of the establishment, though your remark that "the fringe was kept much more in check" pre-Katrina makes me a little hesitant to do so. If I remember right, the fringe immediately pre-Katrina was pretty much just Donnie James and Scott Heron...much more in check indeed.)

"...it boggles the mind how much money is actually out there for the theatrical art form, but, here's the devastating part, little of it is interested in investing in theatre."

Here's where the apples & oranges sleight of hand occurs. Between 'theatrical art form' and 'theatre' lay oceans of difference.

"...you will see there is a vibrant, performative cultural engine at play inside ballrooms and all throughout the streets from 12th Night until ashes are placed on foreheads. It just does not involve proscenium arches, scenic designers or professional actors."

Or glorious dialogue, or timeless insight, or crack comedic timing, or the shock of recognition, or announcements to please turn off your cell phones.

"[T]he theatre community...could start by shutting down theatrical activity for the three weeks of Carnival outside of any project directly related to festivities."

If I'm reading the calendars of events correctly, there is no theatre in New Orleans this Carnival season between February 13th and February 28th. This black-out period has been in effect as long as I've been here. Adding one more week will be sufficient?

Carnival is a drain on money, energy, and time...on office workers as much as on theatermakers...but it's not inherently competitive with theatre. And if it is, if I am wrong, the solution is for theatre to offer, more and better, all of the things that Carnival cannot, not "figure out ways to incorporate the same madness into [the] work." That is a comparison where we are sure to pale, for all of the financial reasons you cited.

I heard an argument similar to this one a long time ago, in Chicago. One participant said, "The theatre scene is in trouble." Another participant said, "The theatre scene has been in trouble for hundreds of years."

True Ted, but it's a pretty tall order to ask the anti-establishment to coordinate; by their very nature they are supposed to be sporadic, nimble and rebellious. So when the anti-establishment has no strong establishment to for-lack-of-a-better-term “battle” with, it becomes the establishment by default, which only works in a George Lucas film where we don’t see what happens next to the rebels once they destroy the deathstar. And as Jim has pointed out in previous entries, right now, NOLA theatre is much more the fringe than the mainstream. When InSideOut produced its first show in June of 2005; Le Chat, Le Petit, Southern Rep, Rivertown, JPAS, and the Saenger, were doing pretty well, and the fringe was kept much more in check. Katrina blew the hierarchy up, paving the way for smaller compaines to flurish. And for the first couple of years, support poured out pretty well(mostly from fear of losing the theatre community for good) and there seemed to be a great deal of hope. Around 2008-2009 that esprit de corps began to whittle and support waned and cooperation vanished. Now NOLA theatre has gotten smaller, and I think will continue to diminish a little more before it levels out and begins to grow again. But that growth will depend on the growth on the health of Southern Rep, Le Petit, Mid City Arts Theatre, JPAS, Shake Fest, Summer Lyric and to a lesser extent, Anthony Bean, Rivertown and the Local Universities, and not due to the health of the smaller companies with no permanent home and plan more by production than by season, (and I’m including the St. Claude District.) As a proud member of the Barbarians of NOLA theatre, I hope my compatriots share my belief that their health is dependent on the health of the establishment; it is a symbiotic relationship that like most aspects of the Universe requires balance. We need to pick these places back up and put them on their feet.

As far as corporate sponsorship, yeah, I’ll pass on the message, but I’ll have to preface it with a SIAP (sorry if already posted). But keep in mind, Pope Julius II approached Michelangelo, not the other way around. And it was King James that told Shakespeare to put on a play. Artists will always be at the mercy of generous patrons, whatever shape, size or sex. As much as we mortals like to believe we are in charge of our own destiny, sometimes a Dues ex Machina is the only thing that will save us. But hey, at least there’s hope.

No, Jim, I can't go along with this.

Sophocles had to compete with the Olympics, Plautus had to deal with the colosseum, and Shakespeare had to fight the brothels and bear bating houses of London all while navigating through the Reformation. There are reasons and there are excuses and we should not use Mardi Gras as an excuse. NOLA Theatre is in the Dark Ages for the same reason Rome fell. It got too big to support itself, corupt/incompetent/overwhelmed leadership, and when the barbarians finally broke down the gates, they had no clue how to run the machine. The renassisance will take place when a Lorenzo Medici appears who likes the theatre arts, likes his name in the paper, and has money to burn.