The Challenge of World Theatre History by Steve Tillis is essential reading for professors of theatre history seeking to restructure course offerings in a manner that is not merely inclusive, but also interconnected and balanced. As Tillis demonstrates in his study, most textbook authors and theatre departments have responded to the imperative for non-Western content in theatre history courses by using an additive rather than an integrative approach. The resulting textbooks and courses continue to center European forms, individuals, histories, and the written word at the expense of a more layered and comprehensive understanding across the entire world. Tillis proposes a conceptual reframing of theatre history that is informed by world history and a historiographic approach that minimally “strives for a more or less integrated view of theatre history in two or more regions of the world,” and by examining the connections and interactions between them (12). He thus acknowledges that in order to qualify as world theatre history, interactions between at least two regions must be described, along with the impacts of their shared global context.

In making his argument for this shift away from a largely Eurocentric system to a historiographic approach, Tillis takes Chapters 1–3—“Introduction,” “The Case against World Theatre History,” and “The Fallacies of the Standard Western Approach”—to lay out carefully and methodically arguments both for and against a “world theatre history” (11). Among the challenges discussed in Chapter 2 are both the sheer unmanageability of covering the world and the necessity of relying on secondary sources to manage the task. Not only is it difficult to conceive of a world theatre history that covers theatrical practices across the globe, but in an academic setting where areas of expertise are sometimes coveted, it can also be challenging to advocate for a more expansive pedagogy. Yet, even as Tillis acknowledges the potential drawbacks of theatre history viewed through a wider, more layered lens, in Chapter 3 he strengthens the case for abandoning the “Standard Western Approach,” which tends to assume that mainstream theatre history runs through Europe, with the East playing “Other” to the West (67). For Tillis (and this reader), the risk of perpetuating the deceptions and erasures inherent within the Standard Western Approach is far more daunting than the challenge of devising a more inclusive and integrated curriculum.

Tillis dedicates Chapters 4–8 to an examination of a range of potential approaches to enacting the historiographic framework. Similar to his thorough examination of whether theatre historians should even attempt to cover the world, Tillis once again offers detailed pro and con arguments on behalf of each potential method for doing so. In Chapter 4, “Theatrical Events and Theatre Forms,” Tillis considers the live theatrical event as an important unit for comparison, particularly since not all cultures possess a literary tradition. Chapter 5, “The Geography of World Theatre History,” considers “areas where various theatre forms have meaningful ‘interrelations and interactions’” by denoting seventeen world regions, as well as a number of border zones, for study (138). Chapter 6, “The Long View of World Theatre History,” hones in on particular centuries during which important trends in theatre and performance can be charted. Chapter 7, “Continuity and Change in World Theatre History” and Chapter 8, “Periodicity in World Theatre History,” offer more extensive arguments regarding common mistakes that are made when historians embrace a singular perspective, rather than acknowledging the multivalent contexts impacting historical events.

Among the most convincing contributions in Tillis's book are the discussions in Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of theatrical forms, geography, and the concepts of continuity and change as approaches for shaping an integrated world theatre history that considers the long view favored by many world historians. Rather than examining theatre history as a linear development from antiquity to modernity, which can sometimes be the uncomplicated takeaway for students of theatre history, Tillis advocates for an approach that tracks changes and recognizes how our investments in particular theatre texts, practices, and venues have alternately served as incentives and disincentives for sustaining change over time. In other words, socioeconomics and power dynamics are as key in determining how theatre has shifted and changed as are culture, geography, and artistic impulse. In a passage evocative of the current COVID-19 pandemic, Tillis describes potential moments of widespread change, noting, “these disruptions can occasionally strike multiple regions, theatrical change can be stimulated in all those regions, or even (in the most extreme instances) globally” (243). It is almost as if he sensed the Zoom theatre advent prior to its emergence.

Although Tillis acknowledges the impossible task of adequately encompassing the world, he is at his most convincing when using specific examples to demonstrate what an integrated approach might look like, such as the impact of indoor lighting technologies across theatrical forms, geography, and culture, or the ways in which the fundamental actor–audience relationship has been experienced across time and location. One such example is his comparison of Tokugawa Edo (now Tokyo) and Elizabethan London: “These two cities differed, of course, in ways too numerous to mention, but one thing they had in common was rapid growth, which would lead to the emergence of commercial theatre forms in both places” (156). Tillis provides an instructive comparison of Edo and London and discusses their respective populations, habits of nobility, production and trade of goods, and commercial entertainments. The result is a rich illustration of the ways in which disparate locations and time periods connect, simultaneously demonstrating that linear histories can sometimes obfuscate these connections.

An ongoing conundrum not addressed by Tillis is the repression of minority voices throughout world theatre history, and how to account for such gaps in representation. Given that his overall project is to move the study of theatre history from a Eurocentric model to an integrated world model, Tillis offers substantial opportunities for greater inclusivity. However, our need for a more complex, layered view of theatre history is further compounded by the dearth of women's, BIPOC, and LGBTQ+ experiences at various points throughout that history. Whereas the conditions surrounding theatre practice across time, geography, and culture have often exacerbated such erasure, the formulation of a world theatre history necessarily involves an approach that takes identity into account alongside the many other potential perspectives discussed by Tillis in his book. Without this particular approach, world theatre history might all too easily become a more nuanced recounting of mostly “great men” over time. While Tillis offers a wealth of possibilities for rethinking theatre history, there is more to be done to support the unlearning of Eurocentricism and amplify the wealth of theatrical work and experiences across the globe that are either underrepresented or currently unknown.