Radical Specificity is better than Inclusion

I’m going to say the quiet part out loud: "I want to see representation" is a motivation, but it is not a creative pitch. In today's climate, we see a lot of "checklist theater" - shows that feel like they were written by a committee looking to satisfy a diversity report. This kind of inclusion for the sake of a photo op is, frankly, boring. It results in "general" stories that try to represent everyone and end up moving no one.

Radical Specificity is the antidote. Look at the shows that are actually changing the landscape. The Jellicle Ball and Mexodus don’t succeed because they "check boxes." They succeed because they are so deeply, unapologetically specific to a time, a place, and a culture that they become universal. When you write the "dangerous" details—the specific rhythms of a neighborhood, the unique syntax of a family, or the precise, localized joy of a specific community, you stop being a "representative" and start being a storyteller.

The Lesson for Writers: Stop trying to write the "universal" version of your experience to make it "accessible." Accessible is just another word for diluted. Write the show that you see, with such vivid, radical detail that we have no choice but to learn your language. That is how you transcend the individual. The more specific you are, the more room there is for an audience to find themselves in the truth of your work.