TheatreFace
Putting a Face on Theatre
I Will No Longer Read Reviews
As I write these words, I have a show running in Chicago. It's a fun and nerdy comedy called LET X that premiered in DC several years ago to a fully sold-out run that was reviewed nicely in the Washington Post. I love this play, which in many ways is the story people in DC most strongly associate with me, even though most of my more recent work has been quite different, and I was thrilled when the lovely folks in Chicago decided to produce it. Second productions are hard to come by, as any playwright will attest.
Half of the early reviews of the show, sadly, were either (in my estimation) intellectually impoverished or just plain feckless. They were negative, too, but what most concerns me is that they didn't have anything to teach me about my work. They might have been positive, furthermore, and still suffered from the same problem; in fact, some did. But that wasn't the point.
Then, more recently, there was a review that can only be described as utterly and completely cruel. It's so mean-spirited that I feel the need to exact a small measure of revenge by NOT linking to the review. (Please do me the favor of not Googling to find the review, either; it's not worth your time, and I'd rather deprive him of the eyeballs.) It has caused me to re-think my entire relationship to criticism.
I have friends who review theater -- people I've come to respect a great deal, like Suzi Steffen -- and I know they provide a valuable service. There are critics in DC with whom I believe I have very good relationships, even when they haven't always liked my work -- Peter Marks, for example, in the Washington Post, and Trey Graham and Chris Klimek in the Washington City Paper, just to name a few -- and I'm glad they're advocating for quality theater and telling what they believe to be the truth about the shows they see. When I read their work, it often makes me smarter, one way or another, and I'm glad for that.
But most of the criticism I read is just plain bad: not only reviews of my own work, but the work of my friends and colleagues. It makes me angry, not inspired. Who are these people to comment with so little generosity or curiosity? Worse, it makes me despondent -- and again, that's even when it's positive -- because the level of discourse is impossibly low.
How does reading such poor reviews of my work make me better as a playwright? The short answer: it doesn't, not one whit. Of course, it isn't intended to help me, I understand that; critics don't serve me, they serve audiences. But I have benefited indirectly at times; reviews of my work, both positive and negative, have been enlightening. It just doesn't happen very often.
All of which is to say: I am done reading reviews of my work. I don't want you to send them to me, and I won't actively seek them out. I would very much like to make exceptions to this rule for critics who've engaged with my plays thoughtfully, but I don't know how to determine which are which without, you know, reading them... so they're all officially ruled out for now.
And I hope my fellow playwrights will consider doing the same.
Views: 1
Tags: critics, playwriting, reviews
Comment
-
Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on July 19, 2011 at 10:35am - Thanks, Richard -- and I agree!
-
Comment by Richard T. Young on July 19, 2011 at 9:21am -
Gwydion:
On the other hand . . . your work is produced and reviewed. That alone speaks volumes about the quality you have achieved!!!! High quality work is what gets attention and you are getting attention! There is an old religious adage about the devil not coming after you if you are bad, but only if you are good. You must be doing something right!!!
-
Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on July 10, 2011 at 5:17pm
-
Hi, Michael. Several points in response:
1) I did not (and do not) make the claim that reviews are *intended* to teach me about my work. Of course they aren't; that fact explains very well why they so rarely do -- which is, in fact, what I *did* claim.
2) The review I called "feckless," to my reading, says (much) more about the reviewer's difficulties than about the script itself. I'll say no more than that, though, because my opinion is only that: my opinion, and on matters of opinion, none of us can be wrong. You find it "clear and articulate," and I... don't. Fine. We've aired our thoughts.
3) I did not intend to call that review "intellectually impoverished," though I can see why you'd believe I did. Those two words were originally linked to another review, and I have since removed the link -- as you will not from the earlier comments on this blog post.
4) You're right to note, of course, that I'm upset about the negative reviews. I'm upset on a personal level, because it hurts... but I'm also upset because I fear the state of theater criticism in this country is less that I'd like it to be. Am I fully able to tease those two mental states apart? Perhaps not... but one upset does not diminish or eliminate the other.
5) I did not uphold the Washington Post review as good criticism; I held it up as a nice review, and by "nice" I meant "positive." Perhaps my choice of adjective was misleading.
6) Finally, on the subject of learning from negative reviews... as I clearly say in my post, I have done so in the past: "[R]eviews of my work, both positive and negative, have been enlightening." Finding those useful bits, however--and this is the entire point of my blog post--would require more effort than I'm willing to put in... especially when I learn plenty about my work from the directors, dramaturgs, and actors I work with. Hell, I learn more from listening to a single audience watch a single performance of one of my plays than from every critic put together throughout my entire career. And that's not opinion: that's fact.
- Comment by Michael Yawney on July 10, 2011 at 4:05pm
-
I do not think it is really the job of a review to "teach [a playwright] about your work." Rather it is their job to teach the public about your work. Probably the negative "feckless" one you linked to did that with the greatest economy and elegance. While the Washington Post may have taught you about your play, it is less effective for those of us who do not know it.
I suspect that you are less upset by the writing than that these reviewers simply do not like your work. But if you really want to learn about your work--it is the negative ones that you need to pay attention to. Bob Bullen clearly states that as the play went on, he did not trust the playwright to guide him through the material and gives clear reasons why. You may disagree, but claiming that such a clear and articulate review is intellectually impoverished is just baffling--especially when the Washington Post review, which summarizes the play with less analysis than Bullen brings to bear on the play, is held up as a model of good criticism.
For plot summary, the Post wins, but for critical engagement with the play, Bullen at ChicagoTheaterAddict is clearly stronger.
-
Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on July 6, 2011 at 3:56pm
- Nope: that's what I meant. You got me now. But I did still link to the wrong review, for which I can only say: yikes!
-
Comment by Jacob Coakley on July 6, 2011 at 3:54pm -
Sorry - I was mid-reading what you were saying.
You write: "Half of the early reviews of the show, sadly, were either (in my estimation) intellectually impoverished or just plain feckless. They were negative, too, but what most concerns me is that they didn't have anything to teach me about my work. They might have been positive, furthermore, and still suffered from the same problem; in fact, some did." (itals mine)
I looked at your phrase "still suffered from the same problem" and connected "same problem" with "intellectually impoverished" as the problem - where I think now you meant that the problem was that they didn't have anything to teach you about the work.
Or am I still mis-reading you?
-
Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on July 6, 2011 at 10:26am
-
Aak! I just realized I linked to the wrong review for "intellectually impoverished." I've deleted the link, and will try to replace it later. As for "just plain feckless," that's a negative review.
-
Comment by Jacob Coakley on July 6, 2011 at 10:20am
- I can understand why you wouldn't read reviews. But I feel compelled to ask: Did you really just call your positive reviews "intellectually impoverished or just plain feckless"?
© 2011 Created by Jacob Coakley.
You need to be a member of TheatreFace to add comments!
Join TheatreFace