Dramaturgy and the Playwright

After starting a discussion on the Boring as Bat shit thread about dramaturgy I thought I'd try to start it up as it's own thread. Without repeating all that has gone before: As a published and performed playwright I am completely aware that my work is rarely if ever performance ready when I have finished it. I know that, I also know that obtaining outside advice is valuable but I still have issues with the attitude of some "dramaturgs" that I have met. When I write a play I always have a protagonist and a story that at least reflects opinions or attitudes that I hold. The dramaturgy process IMHO should show me how to strengthen that protagonist and bring the message or story into clear and sharp focus. I have received advice from "dramaturgs" that would change that protagonist and even alter the core message. Is this what a dramaturg should do? I don't believe so. My second issue with dramaturgy is that I personally feel that they tend to try to force material into a style and tone that they see as appropriate. This is what I mean when I say that the dramaturg has their own agenda. Of course a playwright needs to write to an agenda. After all what you are doing is making a statement about an issue or event that is very important to you and if an advisor tries to water down that statement then they may be doing you a disservice. The process that I go through takes several steps, first draft, readings by people who I trust, a public reading, all of these steps followed by rewrites. If another director is doing my work I will meet with them several times and rewrite according to those meetings. I am always available during the rehearsal process to make any further rewrites. I feel that the modern dramaturg is making new theatre harder. If Osborne had tried to cope with a dramaturg when he wrote "Look back in Anger" which was a paradigm changing play then he'd have probably given up and gone fishing or simply written another drawing room comedy.