Comments on: More on the Critical Conundrum http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/21/more-on-the-critical-conundrum/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:44:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: George Hunka http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/21/more-on-the-critical-conundrum/#comment-135 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:48:46 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/21/more-on-the-critical-conundrum/#comment-135 Speaking as an occasional freelance critic for the New York Times and other outlets and as a playwright myself, I can only offer a very idiosyncratic perspective on these questions. But perhaps of interest. One of the most interesting discussions I've had on this matter has been with an audience member who, sitting next to me at a performance and noticing that I had a press kit, asked me what paper I was reviewing for. When I told her "The New York Times," she launched into an exciting gush (after all, here she was, next to a critic from the Times! This was her brush with greatness for the evening! Little did she know ...) At any rate, I took the opportunity to ask her, as a regular theater goer, what she looked for in a review: I only had 350 words, I told her; what would she like those 350 words to offer? Her response was thoughtful and insightful. She told me, first, that theatergoing is an expensive proposition (more expensive in New York than Chicago, but I think the point is still valid); that she wanted to know what she was going to get with her money. With a revival, she wanted to know why the play was worth reviving in 2006; with a new play, what she might expect to see, what differentiated it from other new plays. Interestingly, she said little about whether she was interested in my personal opinion as to whether the play was any good or not. Based on my reportage, she trusted herself to decide whether the play would be of interest to her -- not whether she would like or dislike it, she'd find that out for herself. Her reaction to me was ambivalent, I think: obviously, she depends on the Times for these reviews, so the Times itself carries some cache as harboring relatively intelligent reviewers within its writers' ranks. And, in some of her comments to me about other Times reviewers, I could tell that she did dismiss the opinions of some Times critics whom she disliked or found offensive. (You'll get none of these names from me, by the way.) Putting on my playwright's hat: perhaps we should trust the readers more in judging the validity of reviewers' opinions. They can think for themselves. Putting on my blogger's hat: I've been writing about theatre at www.ghunka.com for three years now, so am also one of those "imatheatrecritic.com" writers. Over these three years, I have developed a readership of critics, and theater artists, both unknown and very well known indeed; and the Times gig grew from some of this writing. So yes: when I started the blog, no one knew me, but over three years my writing, for good or ill, has lent me some status of notoreity, if not authority. People know where I stand, since I've been writing over all these years about theatre, and know what I'll like and dislike. (I also note that I use my blog more to advocate work I enjoy than condemn work I don't.) So yes: with familiarity comes trust. In the public prints or on the internet. Speaking as an occasional freelance critic for the New York Times and other outlets and as a playwright myself, I can only offer a very idiosyncratic perspective on these questions. But perhaps of interest.

One of the most interesting discussions I’ve had on this matter has been with an audience member who, sitting next to me at a performance and noticing that I had a press kit, asked me what paper I was reviewing for. When I told her “The New York Times,” she launched into an exciting gush (after all, here she was, next to a critic from the Times! This was her brush with greatness for the evening! Little did she know …) At any rate, I took the opportunity to ask her, as a regular theater goer, what she looked for in a review: I only had 350 words, I told her; what would she like those 350 words to offer?

Her response was thoughtful and insightful. She told me, first, that theatergoing is an expensive proposition (more expensive in New York than Chicago, but I think the point is still valid); that she wanted to know what she was going to get with her money. With a revival, she wanted to know why the play was worth reviving in 2006; with a new play, what she might expect to see, what differentiated it from other new plays. Interestingly, she said little about whether she was interested in my personal opinion as to whether the play was any good or not. Based on my reportage, she trusted herself to decide whether the play would be of interest to her — not whether she would like or dislike it, she’d find that out for herself.

Her reaction to me was ambivalent, I think: obviously, she depends on the Times for these reviews, so the Times itself carries some cache as harboring relatively intelligent reviewers within its writers’ ranks. And, in some of her comments to me about other Times reviewers, I could tell that she did dismiss the opinions of some Times critics whom she disliked or found offensive. (You’ll get none of these names from me, by the way.)

Putting on my playwright’s hat: perhaps we should trust the readers more in judging the validity of reviewers’ opinions. They can think for themselves.

Putting on my blogger’s hat: I’ve been writing about theatre at www.ghunka.com for three years now, so am also one of those “imatheatrecritic.com” writers. Over these three years, I have developed a readership of critics, and theater artists, both unknown and very well known indeed; and the Times gig grew from some of this writing. So yes: when I started the blog, no one knew me, but over three years my writing, for good or ill, has lent me some status of notoreity, if not authority. People know where I stand, since I’ve been writing over all these years about theatre, and know what I’ll like and dislike. (I also note that I use my blog more to advocate work I enjoy than condemn work I don’t.) So yes: with familiarity comes trust. In the public prints or on the internet.

]]> by: Justin Palmer http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/21/more-on-the-critical-conundrum/#comment-131 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:01:57 +0000 http://blog.steppenwolf.org/2006/08/21/more-on-the-critical-conundrum/#comment-131 i've always thought it best for chicago to have a helpful critic for our work because it aligns our work with the ideal of "good chicago theatre". the only agenda being that chicago produces challenging work. although i've never had the pleasure of having him review my work because he had already retired by the time i had gotten to chicago, i have heard that Richard Christiansen held the work he critiqued to a high enough standard that his input raised the bar of quality within the chicago theatre community. i think that is best for our community. i’ve always thought it best for chicago to have a helpful critic for our work because it aligns our work with the ideal of “good chicago theatre”. the only agenda being that chicago produces challenging work. although i’ve never had the pleasure of having him review my work because he had already retired by the time i had gotten to chicago, i have heard that Richard Christiansen held the work he critiqued to a high enough standard that his input raised the bar of quality within the chicago theatre community. i think that is best for our community.

]]>