Flaming Reviewers

Actually, there are very few 'reviews' ever posted here, even in the review section. A traditional review, as defined by the job description 'reviewer' is not meant to give constructive feedback to the director or cast. It is written to target and entertain a newspaper readership. This can sometimes mean giving the reviewer's opinion on whether they thought the play was good, bad, or otherwise; but usually means trying to impress their readership with how witty and intelligent they are, and then paraphrasing a good deal of the plot. You're lucky if they get half the facts right, let alone express any sort of value judgment or opinion. On the other hand, what is written here is usually more of a 'critique'. The writer usually offers a strong opinion, has suggestions as to how they think it 'should' have been done, and cares about the fact that the participants will probably read it. In this context, they are submitting their side of an argument, with the reasonable expectation that other opinions and refutations may be expressed. This forum has never been an editorial, and it is ridiculous to get upset over the fact that it isn't set up that way, or to pretend that its 'reviews' are sacrosanct. It is a free-for-all dialogue, a group discussion, and a forum for argument. Unfortunately some people cling to their notions about what they think it should be rather than what it is, and so the arguments become centred rather too much around FORM, and not enough about CONTENT. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------