Thank you for this introduction. And I also thank the organizers for the invitation to this great place. Yeah, let's start with this. So in this talk, I will mostly stick to the group GL2QP. And it's about a relation between distribution algebras of this group, GL2QP, and arithmetic D modules on certain formal models of P1 to get into the mood and to fix some notation, I will start with a small reminder of where the problem comes from. So this is the Balans and Banstein theorem. So this is so to speak the solution of the problem on the Lie algebra level. So I will also do this just for GL2. So G is the Lie algebra of GL2 over QP. UG is the universal enveloping algebra. So this comes with an augmentation. The augmentation character I call theta. And then I can form a central reduction. I form UG theta. This is simply UG tensile over the center relative to the restriction of theta to the center of UG numbers QP. So this is an algebra on the one hand. On the other hand, I can look at the scheme P1, the projective line over QP. And then the globally defined differential operators on this scheme can be easily written down. I mean, this algebra I generated by three generators. So Z is an affine coordinate on the P1. So I can view this inside the white algebra. So Z delta, which is the algebra of differential operators of the affine line. And then the group GL2 QP acts on P1. I mean, even the algebraic group GL2 acts on P1. I can differentiate the action. I get a map from the Lie algebra G into the differential operators. And the point is on the central reduction, this is an isomorphism. And it can be made explicit quite easily. So if I fix basis vectors of the Lie algebra E. Oh, thank you. Right. So this is E. Then I have toral elements H1 and H2. And then this map actually is given quite explicitly. E is mapped to delta. F is mapped to minus z squared delta. H1 is mapped to minus z delta. And then, of course, H2 has to be mapped to z delta. So this gives a connection between D modules on P1 and representations of the D algebra, which is very tight actually. One has an equivalence of categories between all the modules over this algebra. And on the other hand, D modules on P1. This is not specific to GL2. No, no. This can be done for any split reductive group over QP. So this is for you. And yeah, so going in the other direction, going in one direction is taking global sections. And then viewing the global sections of the D module via this first result as a Lie algebra representation. And the other way is so-called localization function, which I don't want to go into detail at this point. But what is more important is that if one brings in the G action, then one can write down an equivalent version of this equivalence. So this sheet of differential operators is an equivalent sheet with respect to the G action on P1. So I have a subcategory of equivalent D modules on P1. And this is equivalent to certain representations of G, which come equipped with a compatible action of the D algebra. So now let D LAG be the locally analytic distribution algebra of G. And I can, again, form a central reduction. And since this distribution algebra contains, on the one hand, the group, and on the other hand, the universal enveloping algebra, a module over this reduced algebra is a special case of module on this left-hand side. And so the question is, natural question is, can one modify the geometric side on this equivalence in a periodic analytic way such that going from right to left really is adapted to this subcategory of modules, that it really gives locally analytic representations? And maybe there's another function in the other way that this is an equivalence. So can one have a periodic analytic version of this for locally analytic G representations? So by periodic analytic version, I mean on the, for example, on the rigid analytic projective line. So but one soon runs into the following problem. So in the locally analytic representation theory of G, there occurs some power series envelopes of this universal enveloping algebra. So if one just takes the rigid analytic P1 with the naive differential operators, one will always end up with polynomial expressions and the Liegema will never get these power series envelopes. So one needs the chief of completed differential operators. But on the other hand, there is a theory that provides completed differential operators. So the idea is to approximate the rigid analytic P1 by a sequence of formal models, semi-stable formal models, and use then battalos arithmetic differential operators on each of the model. I mean the link to the analytic P1 then, and this is meant by approximators, then given by Reynolds theorem, which says that the rigid analytic P1 is more or less the same as the collection of all formal models up to admissible blow-up. Now, yeah. The choice of the size model will correspond to something. On the other side? You mean on the Liegema side? Yes. Yes, you will get different things on the Liegema side. I will come to this. And I will only deal with a certain sequence of semi-stable models, not with all the semi-stable models. And the ones which we're working with actually, I should have said this right away. This is joint work with D-Pompatel. And it's actually, at the same time, it's still work in progress. So the models will be related to certain parts of the Breutitz tree of GL2. And the parts actually will be combinatorial balls.  So this gives a link to congruent subgroups of GL2. And I will discuss this in the next paragraph. So congruent subgroups. So this works in greater generality. So let G be a split-reductive affine group scheme over set P with the algebra G. And let M be the natural number greater or equal to 0. Let I be the augmentation ideal. So it's the kernel of the augmentation map. And suppose we fix a set of positive roots with respect to a maximal toral sub-scheme acting on the Lie algebra. So fix a triangular decomposition into a maximal toral sub-algebra, the Neil-Potent radical, and then the opposite Neil-Potent radical. And then fix a Lie algebra basis that consists of individual basis vectors on each of the summits. So x1 to xd in basis of G. And one can form the following algebra in Gm. So as a module, it's a union over N grades are equal to 0 on the morphisms set P N plus 1. So that's the MPD envelope of the coordinate ring relative to the ideal I, modded out by the N plus 1 filtration step of the MPD filtration instead of giving more details down. Is it better? So instead of making it this precise, I mean, if you don't know what this means, then never mind. Because there is a explicit description just given. So this is a multi-index 1.80. So according to this choice of basis, there's a Pancré-Bier-Coffit representation of this algebra. So it's this one. The symbols mean the following. So coefficients are in set P. Then this qk up M is the integral part of dividing k by P to the M. And then if I underline it, I take the products of it corresponding to the components of k. And then similarly on the last factor, xk, this means x to the k modulo k factorial in case x is nil potent. So in case it comes from the first summit or the third summit, boy, it is binomial expression x over k in case x is total. It's easy to see that this is not just a submodule of, so I can view this inside the universal enveloping algebra of G10.q. And it's easy to see it's not just a free zp submodule, but it's in fact a free zp algebra. This is because this MPD envelope has a co-multiplication by Hohm turns into a multiplication. Some examples. So if M is 0, then this is just k. So this factorial then cancels with the k factorial here. So we get x to the k in the nil potent case and a polynomial in x in the total case. So it's easy to see from this that UG0 is just the universal enveloping algebra. And secondly, if M prime is greater or equal to l, then since this MPD ideal is then also an M prime PD ideal, the universal property of this enveloping algebra gives a homomorphism from UGM to UGM prime. And since all of these algebras are enveloping algebra of the coordinate ring relative to i, the coordinate ring maps into all enveloping algebras. And then dually, they all map into the coordinate ring. So the inductive limit maps to the construction where we replace the enveloping algebra by the coordinate ring and the MPD ideal by the augmentation ideal. So this is just algebra of distributions on the group scheme G. And in fact, it's easy to see that this is an isomorphism. And then, of course, one has a natural version of central reduction. So theta is just UGM tensile over the center of this algebra set P. And then one also has completed versions. So this is the periodic completion in GM. And similarly, with the theta here, and then finally, U hat GM Q, this is the periodic completion tensile. So what has this to do with concurrent subgroups? So here's the application. So I let GN inside my smooth group scheme G be the end concurrent subgroup scheme. So points in ZP algebras are just the kernel of the reduction map. And it's very easy to see that the l-algebra of this smooth sub-scheme is just P to the n times the l-algebra of G. So it's P to the n times G. And what I can do now is the following. These are the rigid analytic groups that will show up when it comes to the differential operators. So I let GN 0 be the generic fiber of the formal completion of GN along the unit element in the special fiber. So this is a rigid analytic group over QP. So for example, in the case of GL 2, then the concurrent subgroup scheme is, I mean, is just the concurrent subgroup, the usual. And the CP value points of GN 0 is just 1 plus P to the n, n2 times CP, where mCP inside OCP is the maximal ideal. So it's not a quasi-compact rigid space. It's actually in the GL 2 case. It's isomorphic to four copies of the open unit disk around 0, or whatever. We're interested in the rigid analytic functions on this group. These are the holomorphic functions. So for example, in this case, if I take an increasing affinoid covering of these open disks by affinoid disks, I can realize this as a projective limit over Banach algebras. And of course, the Lie algebra of the rigid analytic group, but then also of the group scheme acts on this space by differentiating the translation action. So XF is d mod of dt e x t acting on F. In the case of GL 2, this is just the exponential series for 2 cross 2 matrices, which will converge if t is sufficiently small enough. So this gives me a formal power series with coefficients in this space. And I take the formal derivative and I take the evaluation at t equals 0. And this implies if I define XF to be the function and then evaluate it by the unit element, then I get a map from UG into the linear forms on this space, even into the continuous linear forms. So this is the continuous tool. Similarly to the distribution algebra in the local litic case, this analytic distribution algebra has a product and is an algebra. It's very simple. I mean, what's the product of two distributions evaluated on F? That's integrating the function g goes to, yeah, it's this way around. So integrating the function mu goes to g times F, where this is a translation action g and 0 on c and g and 0. So this is then an algebra homomorphism. And then the first result, which actually was proved in partial cases already by Emerton, is that this map gives an isomorphism of the following algebra, UG dagger q. This is the inductive limit over U hat pn gm q. We have an algebra isomorphism into dn gn 0. So this construction can be used to describe the analytic distribution algebra of a wide open concurrent subgroup. Now I come to the formal models of p1. So let t be the Brouillard-Hitz tree of pjl2qp. So this is a homogeneous tree. The edges that come to a fixed vertex are in bijection with p1 fp. So in the case p equals 2, it looks like this. Here's an edge, here's an edge, and there go two edges. So here's a vertex, here's a vertex, here's two edges. Similarly here. The vertices are homothetic classes of lattices. So m is a lattice in qp square. So if I have a neighboring vertex, v, then this has a representative m prime, which satisfies inequality. Inequality is like this. And this means that I get a map from m to m, model m prime. I identify this with fp. To fp, therefore I get an fp rational point in the special fiber of pm. So if I have pm here, then here's a rational point in the special fiber that corresponds to v. And so if I blow up pm in all its rational points in the special fiber for p equals 2, that's three points, I get a scheme whose special fiber looks like this. And I can look at the adjacent vertices, they correspond to the smooth points on the n components. If I blow up again in the smooth points, I get a scheme which looks like this, and so on. I can go on like this. Let's call this x0v, this is x1v, this is x2v, and so on. And I have blow up morphisms going from the higher one to the smaller one, and so on. At this point, I have to clean the board. So in this way, one obtains, so generally, xnv is the blow-up of xn minus 1v in xn minus 1v, special fiber smooth points at p. So this is a semi-stable scheme over zp. The dual graph, so I mean the graph that prescribes the intersection behavior in the special fiber is then obviously isomorphic to the ball around x of radius less or equal to n inside t, v, thank you. And of course, nothing has happened on the generic fiber, so xnv tends to qp is just p1qp. And finally, I mean the group acts on the tree, g acts on the tree, and for any group element, I get an isomorphism from xnv to xng to the v, g acting on the tree. So in a sense, g acts on the collection of all these semi-stable schemes. Now, the next proposition says that it actually suffices to do this for a fixed vertex, so v0 is the vertex corresponding to the standard lattice. And say xn is xn relative to v0, then first of all, g already acts on the projective limit of these schemes xn. Because any ball at any vertex is eventually contained in a ball around v0, so this is a co-final family in all the xnv's. Then more specifically, the group g0, I mean I should have said it also from the beginning on, I mean from now on, this is true for the whole paragraph, from now on, g is gl2qp, g0 is gl2zp, and what else do I need? G, that's the group scheme, gl2 over zp and g0 is the Lie algebra. So then this group gl2zp already acts on each finite level because this can be proved by induction, I mean g0 acts certainly on x0, that's just p1zp. And then suppose it acts on x to the n minus 1, and it certainly respects the special fiber, it respects the smooth points, and then because it's formed out of rational points, it also preserves the rational points of the smooth fiber. So by the universal property of blow-up, it will then act on xn to the v, so for all n, this is one thing. Secondly, the schemes, the congruent schemes, the nth congruent scheme acts also on xn as a scheme, so one has morphism, so one has a morphism gn, satisfying the usual properties. Again, this can be proved by induction. So the scheme g0, of course, acts again on the p1 of zp, and then suppose we have an action of, so gn minus 1 acts on xn minus 1, and then look at gn, gn is contained, gn is contained in gn minus 1, and it has the property that this inclusion sends gn special fiber to 1. So if I restrict the gn minus 1 action to gn actually here, then on the special fiber, it will act trivial, so it will preserve this blow-up locus, and then by the universal property of blow-up, it will lift on to xn. So we have this level-wise action of the gn's, and finally, of course, if I take the periodic completion, I mean the formal completion of xn p equals 0, then this is an admissible formal scheme and the formal model of p1 weak qp, and then, of course, the maps are then so-called admissible blow-ups. OK, now I come to finally to the differential operators. So I treat the smooth case, I mean the case of x0 and the case of xn, where n is greater than 0 separately. So the smooth case, 0, and the aim is to compute the global sections of the arithmetic differential operators on the x0. So in the algebraic x0, S and f are covering ux, where ux is back zpx, and I have the level m differential operators on x0. I will give a description in local coordinates. So I will not define it formally at this point, or I'll give a description in local coordinates. And dx0 hat m is the periodic completion. And finally, dx0 dagger is the inductive limit of all m. So in local coordinates, I mean so the formal completion of x0, this has a covering then by the formal completion of x, ux, and uy. And so I can write the sections over this affine formal scheme, and these are just series akqmk hat with partial x to the k, where ak is a section of x0 over ux hat. And so this goes to 0, for k goes to infinity. Now, this is not good writing. So akx, which is, of course, just qpx, zpx. And it goes to 0, for k goes to infinity. qmk, I have already defined. And delta x, delta x is just differentiation with respect to x, and delta xk, in this case, is delta x to the k. Well, look, k faculty. This is how this sheaf looks like locally. And one can do the following now. So g0x on x0, and this gives a map from g into the vector fields on x0. And this induces the following. So this is our first result, 0 and 1. So let's call this psi0. So psi0 induces a map from g0. So this actually should be g0. This is the zp in the algebra, m hat q into dx0 hat on x0 for all m. So the global sections, indeed, all come from the d algebra. As soon as 1 tends us with q, this is not true on the integral level. I mean, at least not for m greater than 0. And if one takes the inductive limit over all m, then one gets that this algebra is isomorphic to dx0 dagger x0. And I should remark that for m equals 0, so in case where this is just the universal enveloping algebra, then this first isomorphism was already established by Adakoff-Watzle. And this generalizes this result for arbitrary m. Now in the semi-stable case, n is greater than 0. I can do the following. So the special fiber of xn inside xn, this contains all the singularities. So this is a normal crossing divisor. That means all the singularities are ordinary double points. And then one has the action of the scheme gn on xn. And if one differentiates, one gets a map which is the analog of psi 0 for n. So from gn, cn to the tangent sheaf on xn. And in fact, one can look at the vector fields, the logarithmic vector fields. In this case, this is just a sub-sheaf corresponding of all the derivations that preserve the ideal sheaves corresponding to the irreducible components in this divisor. And the point is that this map already lands in the sub-sheaf because if one takes an irreducible component in xn, so first of all it acts on the special fiber, and if one takes an irreducible component in there, and this lies over some smooth rational point in xn minus 1 as smooth fp. And so an element in this takes this irreducible component to an irreducible component that sits over gx. But I mean if I restrict the action of gn minus 1 to gn, then this x trivial. So one has gx is x. And this implies that g operates already on the component. So someone gets this map. And then there's the second theorem. So psi n induces inclusions. So in this case, one does not get a neat statement like in the smooth case. But one has inclusions of dn, gn, 0 inside xn dagger q xn inside dn, gn prime 0 for n prime, the greatest integer less or equal to n times p minus 1 over p plus 1. So you see in the case n equals 0, this is n prime is then equal to, I mean n prime is then also 0. And then these become inclusions. These become in fact bijections. So this is the smooth case. In the semi-stable case, one has just the sandwich behavior. And I mean this is meant, of course, in the sense that if p is the blow-up map from xn to xn prime, then one has a map from p lower star d xn m to d lower star xn prime m. And this, in fact, is injective if I tens up with q. So this means I can view the global sections of xn inside the global sections of dxn prime. And then it makes sense to ask that they lie, in fact, in the subring dn, gn prime. And that one has this algebra, homomorphism lies, of course, on the fact that o xn is just o xn prime, because it's a blow-up map. OK. And then back to the initial problem. It will be a bit brief here. So having computed the global sections, one can do the following. So if one takes the projective limit over all xn as a locally-ringed space and pulls back all the dxn to this limit, so pn minus 1 dxn dagger q, where pn is the projection to a factor. Then on the limit, the group gx, and this is an equivariant sheaf on x, and what one can see is that if m is an equivalent d hat module, then it's global sections. Then global sections over x, this will be a module over the individual global sections of the dxn's. And they will build up a module structure over locally analytic distribution algebra of g0. And at the same time, one still has a g action on the global sections, so this is a module over this pair. But a module over this distribution algebra plus a compatible g action is then a module over the full distribution algebra. So in a sense, here's a space which is somehow related to the rigid p1 and a natural sheaf, so to speak, such that any equivariant module has global sections or module over this distribution algebra. Of course, if one wants to talk about locally analytic representations, then one has to take into account topologies.  But I have not talked about this here, but if one carefully goes through all the arguments and keeps track of the topology, then one might eventually put natural conditions on this equivariant module here, such that one actually gets on global sections a true locally analytic representation. So this is where we are at the moment. And this is my talk. Thank you. In contrast with the very interesting result in Terrain-Muat, you do not have any central reduction for the unblocking algebra. Can you comment on this? Yeah. That's a good point. I just forgot. You can have this result without what kind of control on the center of this unblocking algebra. In Baguinson-Belschein case, one knows that this is generated by the Casimir elements, but here? Yeah, for the SL2 case, it's generated by the Casimir element in the algebraic setting. And here it should be a power series ring in the Casimir element. Yeah. Thank you. On the right, it's the Casimir element. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. This is the standard queue. It's not true on the integral level. It's always injective, but it's not true. On the integral level, it has a proper co-kernel. Is it 0 and 1 for SL2 case? Yeah, it descends to the SL2 case, GL2 case, SL2 case. Yeah. But the result of the code for what state is more general? It's more general, yeah. So they prove it only for m equals 0, but in fact, they will prove it for any reductive split group. So under the assumption that the prime number is good for the root system, or very good for the root system. But for GL2, any prime number is good. But do you expect to have an equivalence of categories at this point? We're not sure yet. It is not as neat as in the d-algebra case. So it's not the global sections over all the differential operators here. They are actually, I mean, so from this it follows that the limit of the dxnq dagger xn. And this is just a projective limit over the dngn. But this is only connected to the d-algebra list. Now you lose the group action, so to speak. This is the so-called Arendt-Michael envelope of Li. So this is the closure of Udqp inside the distribution algebra. So the global sections of this sheaf are just the closure of the universal envelope in algebra. So if there's a function in the other direction, it comes not only from tensoring over the global sections with the sheaf. This will give something which is too small, actually. But can you actually, by this construction, obtain some representations which say morally not principle series locally? We have so far not computed examples. So it's a good time to start with it, but not done so far.


I'm going to stream it live when you play TV, so there may be some people watching us out there. If you are watching us and you do have questions for the question part of this session, you can ask questions at hashtag Many Voices Info. So you can reach us there and we will respond immediately. So the Many Voices program has been changed. Have you ever been part of the Many Voices program? The Many Voices program has been changed, which is really exciting for both Christina, who runs the program and myself. And I'm Haley Pham, the associate producer. Christina Ham, I'm the Many Voices program coordinator. And the reason is that we were looking at the program and how we could better serve it moving forward in the field, so we had a really in-depth survey done and conversations done with leaders in the field both here in the Twin Cities and also conversations nationally to sort of see where the program can go next and how best we could serve the program. And what we discovered unanimously is that in order to really help move the program forward, we needed to increase the stipend of the fellowship. So that has been really exciting for us. This year it's $5,650, which has been an increase in previous years. And we have now been able to bump it up into $12,500. And $2,500 of that will be towards living expenses. So we are really thrilled to be able to work with the Jerome Foundation and to do this survey and to see what needs to happen in the field. And Christina was very influential in that as well. And another thing that really came up as part of the conversation was the idea that mentorship is really important. So in this change in the program, we're really focusing on mentorship. There's going to be a lot more opportunity to connect with people who are further along in their careers in the field and also with producing theaters. So we're going to have opportunities to meet with local leaders and also to go see theater and to connect with people nationally as well. So that's going to be an emphasis of the money. So those are a couple of the major changes as you see moving forward. And we have now the Fellowship Emma Mentorship Program. This is our second year doing the Mentorship Fellowship Program. Mentorship is going to remain just for Minnesota writers. Whereas the Fellowship for the first time in its history is now being opened up to be a national program. So we'll pick one person that is from here, from the Minnesota area, and one person can either be from here or can be a national writer. And similar to the way the program has always existed, selection happens through a national panel. No one from the Plurit Center is involved in that selection process. So we are administrators and facilitators in that process but we select the writers. So now kind of moving forward, I think it would be great, Christina, if you could walk us through the application. And that way we can open it up for questions from here or elsewhere. Thank you. Both applications for the Fellowship and the Mentorship will be due on February 7th. So that's the deadline for both of them. The eligibility requirements for the Fellowship includes that you cannot have had more than one play produced. So that means that a full production would include like having the actors, the director of the production team, all of those people have received money. A showcase wouldn't count as that towards a full production. We're also accepting previous participants in the Many Voices program as well. So if you had previously done the program a couple of times already, because the Fellowship program is so different, we are accepting applications to that program. Hi, thank you. So we are accepting participants who have been in the program in previous years since the Fellowship is so different. Also, if you are accepted into the Fellowship program, you can do the program again. So you're able to apply and participate again if you are accepted. So you have two times to do the program. If you've ever been, for example, a core writer here at the Center or Jerome Fellow or a McKnight Fellow, for example, you wouldn't be eligible to apply for this program. The program for the Many Voices Fellowships look particularly at artists who are at the more nascent stages of their career. So people that in Jerome's, McKnight's, core writers don't necessarily qualify in that category. And we also ask that people who are in K-12 programs are not eligible to apply for the program as well or in college programs during that time. So someone who's a recent graduate would be like a prime candidate for something like this. For the mentorship, however, this is mainly designed for people who are just starting out in playwriting, who are just starting to get their feet wet. They might be coming from a different medium, for example, like poetry or performance arts or that sort of thing. And they're interested in learning more about playwriting. And so for that particular program, we provide $1,000 in stipend support versus the 12-5 for someone who's doing a fellowship. And it's a year-long opportunity for mentorship. It'll be our second year doing the program. And it provides monthly meetings with myself and also it gives opportunities as well to do a suite of our Playwright Center opportunities that we have available. So that includes our program. That's a one-on-one with a dramaturg, which basically means that you as the writer, if you've created a piece, you would sit down and work with a playwriting professional to give you feedback on the play. So that would be free. It also includes free classes as well. All of our seminars that we offer each month would be free to the mentorship as well, participant. In addition to our classes that we offer twice a year, our six-week classes are also free. And it would also include a member stage reading that you would schedule anytime during the year to also do that for free as well. So that's what kind of the differences between those two programs are. When we look at the application process for these, for example, for the fellowship, you have copies of that here for you guys to take a look at this one. I want to... Oh, hi, sorry. You're late. No, that's okay. Thank you very much. You guys go to page five of the fellowship application. We can start there. Basically, what your packet would look like would include those following items. So when you go to our website, there's actually an application form that you'll find in the PDF format that you would fill out. And then you would attach your professional resume, whatever that looks like of your work. And then you would spend some time addressing the artistic statement that asks the following questions below. Why do you consider yourself an emerging claywright? Why do you want to participate in a mini-voices fellowship? How will this fellowship aid in your artistic development? And what are your goals during the fellowship? And then the writing sample would include one full-length play that is at least 50 pages and has only been written by yourself. So that would be anywhere from a one-act play to a full-length play. And then it talks about how to name the file and also it lists the reference forms that you'll also find on our website to give to two people who can speak to your work. And those are on the website currently right now. And with the mentorship application, those guidelines are on page four. And I would say the biggest distinction it asks similar questions in the artistic statement, but I would say the biggest distinction between this and the writing sample portion because we recognize that the people applying for this particular program are not necessarily playwrights. They're coming from different genres and so we want to recognize that by giving you an opportunity to submit different genres of material. So if you, for example, have poetry, fiction, nonfiction screenplays, an excerpt of that, no more than three pages of any of those things would be submitted to make up your application for the mentorship program. And that's really the main distinction. Everything else remains the same. Do you guys have any questions? This may have been covered already, but can a person apply to both or do you have to kind of assess which sort of where do you fall along the spectrum of experience as far as emerging or a beginning playwright? I think that you could apply for both, but probably you're going to know where you fit along the line because the programs are so different. One is really for somebody who is newer to the playwriting field and maybe has experienced, though, in the arts as an actor or as someone who's done poetry before, a lot of the people in our current mentorship chopper in that category, whereas the person who would be applying for the Many Voices Fellowship would be really a career-minded playwright. So somebody who maybe has gone to school before playwriting or somebody who is really working towards the goal of being a full-time playwright. But they're at the earlier stages of that career. So I'd say there are really different kinds of programs and different kinds of people would benefit from those two different programs. And I can just speak to the current participants in the mentorship track. Actually, do have a lot of theater experience, namely as directors and actors, and they've written plays before, but because they've come at it from that angle where it's been primarily working in the production aspect and dabbling a bit in playwriting, they only apply for the mentorship track. Yeah, I would say you're best to apply for one or the other because you're going to be reviewed in that way and you want to put your best effort put forward. So knowing sort of where you sit and knowing your understanding of where you are in your career, I think is going to make you a stronger candidate in the way that you articulate how the program is going to benefit you. Does that make sense? I was just going to ask, so there is currently a fellowship program this year as well? There is a fellowship program, which is very different in that it's not the same level as I've been currently, but it exists. And it's actually right now, we're in the last part of it, but it's called the Emerging Track, what we're calling it right now. So instead of coming in an emerging track, instead of just having before with many voices with the two different tracks, we're really saying that this is a fellowship sort of on the lines of what the Jerome fellowship is, but for writers who are a bit earlier in their career development. So someone who does this fellowship would be a great candidate to then apply for a Jerome fellowship if they were interested in it. But you can't go the other way around. Right. And I wanted to go back to your question again, just to also note that the people who are applying for the fellowship track, like Haley said, are going to be people who are a bit more advanced in their playwriting skillset. So if it's something where you're just starting out or you're still trying to figure it out, then just know that your sample will also be compared alongside those samples. So you want to make sure that you're giving yourself the best opportunity to be as competitive as possible. And if you did the mentorship track, you would certainly be eligible to apply for the fellowship the next year. So would you guys assess more so the writing sample or is it the, I guess, experience you've had in your career thus far? So say, for example, like, yeah, so is there one way more heavily than the other? I would say that they're both weighed pretty significantly and it really depends as we found sitting in on the panels who the panelists are each year because the panelists change each year, which is a gift to us as artists because I've had my work in that pile as well, so I appreciate that. But it really depends on the makeup but they try to look at both equally. They're not necessarily always looking for the most advanced and superhero of playwrights, because they're also looking for, well, who can benefit the most from this fellowship? I find having sat in on a lot of the panels, that's a question that they consider quite a bit. So they're not about trying to give, you know, if someone's gotten like 10 or 15 fellowships, they're not trying to give this person yet another one. You know, for example, they're really trying to be as equitable as they can. I would say, though, that with the work sample, what might end up coming into play is if they're kind of stuck about who to choose, if there's kind of a dead heat in terms of who should get it. And sometimes that can be the tipping point is kind of the assessment of the work sample, for example. No, just to add to the work sample is obviously really important because it shows, you know, your voices as an artist and you certainly will be evaluated, but ultimately it's not a prize. It's not like they're giving a prize away for the best play. You know, that it's really about picking a playwright who can benefit from the program and that being based on the talent that they see and the potential for talent in the work sample and also their artistic statement and how they see that they can benefit from the program and their experience thus far. Yeah, I would, and since Haley talked about the artistic statement, I would say that all of it kind of weighs in significantly all the components. The panelists that we select spend a lot of time going over the packets and paying attention to how people address the questions and how they think they can benefit from the programs that we have here. And so all of those components are extremely important. Can you just outline briefly the differences between the actual program components? I mean, I know you're already kind of doing it, but between mentorship I see the things that are happening there, but what's the difference between that and what the fellow is seeing? I thought we'd see the same difference. Well, I would say one of the big differences is the development funds also. So if you're in a fellowship version, we are expecting that you've written plays before and that you're going to be continuing to write plays during this fellowship year. And because of the amount of the stipend we're imagining that you're dedicating a significant amount of your time to writing. Where's the mentorship? The stipend is a smaller amount, and so we know that you're probably going to have to have a full-time job in order to have that, and therefore we'll have less time towards writing. So it may be that in the mentorship I'm going to try this new thing. I may discover at the end of it I don't want to be a playwright. I may discover that I love this. It's exactly what I want to do.  So it's really one of the big questions is about time in terms of the programming. And then with the development funds that you have with the fellowship, expecting that you're going to be developing a play and workshopping it at the Playwright Center. And then you'll be involved in really specifically in the kind of mentorship that's connecting you with professional theaters because we feel like you would be ready for that. Where is the mentorship track? You wouldn't necessarily be in that place that you want to be sharing your work so aggressively at that point. You might still be trying to figure out your voice as a playwright. So for example, like if you... Because I think based off of my experience I'm perhaps certainly more so than mentorship. But say you wanted to get support in either. I know they offer the stage reading but getting connected with various, whether it's theaters in town or different theater companies that might sort of intersect with your approach or your style. Like is there some sort of space for that within the mentorship as well? Definitely. We are working right now with two of the mentors who are participating and basically coming up with an artistic year game plan for those things that they want to accomplish. So a lot of my time is spent in the mentorship track actively mentoring these artists who are trying to navigate like what it's like to be a full-time playwright actually carving out time for writing which they're not doing right now and they're finding challenging whereas someone in the fellowship track has all... I mean that wouldn't be a conversation I'm having with them about carving out time every day you write because that's something they're already doing. Also another thing that I'm working with the mentors right now with is putting together... working with Hayley to put together meetings with some of our artists who are already here who they somehow feel an affinity towards with the projects that they're working on and feel like those artists might be a good fit for picking their brain about what it's like to be an artist in the field that they're in and just having conversations about that so it's still making connections but the conversations that are had are very different because they're at a very different stage in their career so there's still that opportunity to continue to do that. It seems to me that the requirement of having less than one play or no more than one play fully produced and then focusing on people that are further along in their careers for the fellowship they seem like a little bit at odds to me but I understand what you're saying in terms of these are playwrights that have written a lot of plays but just have only had one produced. Yeah, I think from our experience in the field it's actually quite difficult to get a play professionally produced, not just produced anywhere. When we talk about professional production we're talking about people being paid so the player being paid, actors being paid etc. everybody can be played which surprisingly, or not surprisingly it's actually quite difficult because there are writers who aren't at that stage yet including me, who I've been writing for 20 years so it's quite challenging so when you say only one produced you actually find out in the field that that writer could still be someone who is a full-time playwright or who is working as a playwright so I would say that this fellowship the fellowship puts that as a as a guiding post because with our Jerome fellowship it's no more than two so it's putting that person at a different stage in development from the Jerome fellowship but still showing that this person is someone who's committed to being a playwright. So, well this might seem like it's flitting hairs but this is just kind of talking about maybe someone's understanding of the fullness of who they are as artists so say for instance you're very much committed to writing original works and being trained properly as a playwright to do so but are also interested and involved in the other elements of creating theater would that somehow make you seem less of a purist as a playwright or would it be just like one of the elements that you create? Does that make sense? You made it feel more of a multi-disciplinary artist who say would that leave you ineligible? Or not necessarily ineligible but would it be perceived as that you're not because you're not only a playwright but do other elements of creating theater does that seem less of a fit as far as do you guys consider playwrights maybe for the fellowship maybe more so than mentorship? I don't think so I think it's about the excellence of you're not going to the panel is not going to evaluate you based on your other pursuits the panel is going to only be looking at you as a playwright so if they see that the work sample is excellent and that they see that there's a lot of promise and that they see that your goals and that you've been working towards those goals are in line with the guidelines of the fellowship then I don't think it would matter that you did other artistic pursuits. You guys have the same playwrights or career players so I just wanted to make sure that I understood that. And there's looking at the swap of our playwrights who are on either fellowships here or are members here there's quite a few who have other disciplines that they work in besides strictly playwrighting right that wouldn't be weird to the panel one of our current fellows is a puppet designer and quite excellent in that but also is now working towards playwriting and you don't think that the fact that she's a puppet designer also in any way makes her less strong in candidate what are some of the things that people who have been involved with this program have gone on to do are asking all the good questions they're all good questions all questions well I will talk about over the last couple of years since Hayley mentioned the woman who's a puppet designer she has aggressively pursued partnerships with other theaters both nationally and internationally so she's gone on to do work in Prague she's done work with theater complicity she just came back from San Francisco doing a play of hers that she developed in our program last year she is now in London working on a project she asked for our artistic director to connect her with one of his friends in Chicago at a theater there so that she could learn more about his process what he does and he let her stay at his place for the weekend and she got to work with the theater and it might lead to her doing a gig there this summer or next summer other writers have gone on to create the unit collective here that's one of our theater companies that's in residence here it's made up of several former members of the many voices program and each it's about every other month but they include a company of actors directors each playwright rotates as a producer to put on work each month and they usually have a full house every month and they invite a local artistic director or someone to kind of speak on the craft of being an artist and yeah a lot of work with the local theater community as well artists have done and made connections with and also made connections with each other that's been really important I think with having myself a Jerome fellow here and also I'm a big knight and I've been a co-writer and running this program for seven years what I've realized with all of these programs is that it's what you make it so you know your experience if you're accepted may not be the same as yours just because you're in the mentorship it doesn't necessarily mean that the money might be less but your experience can be equally as rich and you can be just as aggressive about being in the Haley and Amanda spaces you need to be to get those things that you need to make your fellowship here what you want it to be I don't spend any less time with my mentors than I do with the fellows that's excellent yeah I was going to ask that cause it seems like if people are creating all these works over the course of the year is there like a community of people and it's good to see that they've done that and it will be cool to see is there a show coming up at the unit what's it called? their next show will be Tuesday December 18th at 7.30pm okay cool yeah they do really exciting work yeah so I would that's one thing I would say is that you know it is what you make it to be well my question was about the writing sample for the mentorship if you don't see yourself in the track for the fellowship but you still have a play that you'd like to submit it still needs to be less than 30 pages yeah could it be a sample of a play like say if you have a play that's longer than 30 pages sure definitely it's really like a 30 page work sample we'd love to give you guys the business cards because we recognize with this type of format that questions come up once you've gone home and you're like I wish I had asked this or you have more time to look over the applications and the website and if there's other questions that you'd have we'd love for you to email us and contact us and we also have a sign in sheet here that we'd love for you to sign in and let us have your information so that we can keep in contact with you as well excellent great thank you so much for coming we appreciate it yes we do