Grissom

I agree with his premise. I don't really agree with his execution.

...but I find the image of Edward Albee chucking a bag of "inspirational rocks" handed to him by Daryl Roth out a taxi window hilarious. JFC.

I don't believe he's gone mad and doped up? LOL - don't know about that. He's raging mad and I can attest to a lot of what he's referencing

He seems legitimately crazy. He tweeted that the Trumps and Roths are out to get him and that the ACLU is defending him from them?!? I'm also pretty sure many of his quotes from unnamed sources are made up.

Kad said: "Yes, he shared it to his Twitter. It’s lengthy and frankly kind of a hard read:
https://theatreattheendoftheworld.blogspot.com/2020/07/lynn-nottage-and-roths-bad-in-black-and.html?m=1

He comes off a bit unhinged, and his attacks on Jordan Roth quickly veer from legitimate criticism to straight up homophobic insults (that he then tries to deflect from by saying he himself is gay), which is probably way Medium took it down in the first place.

At the same time, he says enough things that I know are true or have heard about that it’s hard for me to dismiss him. And he is going after heavy hitters in the Broadway community, the actual decision makers and money people, the ones who actually need to be publicly taken to task and ones who generate have evaded much scrutiny and public criticism.

I also have no idea who he is or how legit he is as a theater insider."

The true things he says are well known. I would not call him a theatre insider, and many of his anonymous quotes raise doubts about whether there is a source beyond his imagination. He is someone who has insinuated himself into situations with insiders over the years. Two things about him that inform all of this.

1. He worked as an assistant in Daryl Roth's office at a time when Jordan had an office there as well. I doubt it would come as a surprise to many who have worked in many producers' offices that one might be treated as invisible or at least fungible and expendable.

2. He is known only for his posthumous book on Tennessee Williams, based on what he describes as extensive conversations he had with Williams. From the outset there were questions about that material, for which he made no recordings and claims that his written notes do not exist because they "deteriorated."

Notably, none of his current rants are supported by any documentation beyond what was basically public knowledge anyway. This approach to "journalism" does not infuse one with much confidence as to his credibility. That said, if we could strip away all of the insanity, yes there would be some things here worthy of discussion (although, once again, I am not sure he has said anything that others have not said). He seems like someone who, if he posted here, would end up getting blocked by a lot of people and called words that start with a "T."

Kad said: "His conspiratorial, paranoid, and aggressive "mission" and writing style kind of remind me of Jeff Whitty's periodic rants."

Ha. Well, at least we know that Jeff was in the room where it happened, to coin a phrase.

@AC126748 one more point (that you may or may not want to agree with based on your credentials) is that, even if we indulge the hearsay about what the editor said, it is not uncommon for an editor to make up a white lie in a situation like this, especially if the person on the other end of the phone (and here again there of course is not documentation) is being (and known to be) a PIA.