It's not personal so try not to take it personally
Tue, 4 July 2000, 11:56 amWalter Plinge3 posts in thread
It's not personal so try not to take it personally
Tue, 4 July 2000, 11:56 am>Jarrod wrote :
>A brief retrospective: Secret Squirrel recently posted a scathing review of Melville's >"Butterflies Are Free". I promptly criticized him/her for not having the courage to >post their real name. Now Secret Squirrel has petulantly attacked my group's >current production.
Jarrod, both reviews by SS have been scathing, I agree. They could have been made with more tact etc. SS definitely has much room for improvement in the style of his/her reviews.
You AND MANY OTHERS saw fit to criticise these reviews, which is your right.
BUT TO IMPLY that, as a result of your criticism, SS has made a targeted petulant attack on your groups current production is crazy.
In my eyes, these comments fuel the retaliatory type of reaction that an open community website like ITA's does not need. Why must SS be villified ?
I refer back to comments made by Gill previously, that an anonymous review, particularly a scathing one, will carry far less weight in the eyes of those reading it because we have no idea if the reviewer knows what they are talking about.
I think we will all take SS's future reviews with a gain of salt, but it is silly to cast his/her review of your show as a deliberate attempt to get back at you.
David
>A brief retrospective: Secret Squirrel recently posted a scathing review of Melville's >"Butterflies Are Free". I promptly criticized him/her for not having the courage to >post their real name. Now Secret Squirrel has petulantly attacked my group's >current production.
Jarrod, both reviews by SS have been scathing, I agree. They could have been made with more tact etc. SS definitely has much room for improvement in the style of his/her reviews.
You AND MANY OTHERS saw fit to criticise these reviews, which is your right.
BUT TO IMPLY that, as a result of your criticism, SS has made a targeted petulant attack on your groups current production is crazy.
In my eyes, these comments fuel the retaliatory type of reaction that an open community website like ITA's does not need. Why must SS be villified ?
I refer back to comments made by Gill previously, that an anonymous review, particularly a scathing one, will carry far less weight in the eyes of those reading it because we have no idea if the reviewer knows what they are talking about.
I think we will all take SS's future reviews with a gain of salt, but it is silly to cast his/her review of your show as a deliberate attempt to get back at you.
David
RE: It's not personal so try not to take it personally
Tue, 4 July 2000, 01:07 pmWalter Plinge
Hi David,
(Lunchtime, and it's too wet to sit outside...)
"It's not personal..." How do you know? Is there something you'd like to admit, David... hint, hint, nudge, nudge... (heh, heh, heh)
Well, as with many things, it's all a matter of opinion, isn't it. You wrote:
"BUT TO IMPLY that, as a result of your criticism, SS has made a targeted petulant attack on your groups current production is crazy. "
I would reply again, How do you know it's crazy? Nobody knows who SS is (although the discussions and suppositions are great fun), so SS MAY be an insanely vindictive misanthrope. He probably isn't, but he may just be an insecure eighteen year old, afraid to voice his strong opinions for fear of recrimination and value judgments based upon his age.
However, with all the wonderful theatre on at the moment, IN MY OPINION (which is only worth as much as someone will pay me for it), I find it a little more than coincidental that the very next production SS chose to slam was produced by the first person to slam him.
Did SS DELIBERATELY drive down to Thornlie intending to write a bad review? Doubtful.
Did he go down there thinking, "Okay, the President of Blak Yak insulted me, so I'll go and see how good THEY are!" Possibly.
Did he go with the best of intentions, completely miss the point of the play, and so decide to tell everyone else it was silly and laughable? Who knows?
All I do know for sure is that it has opened up some lively and interesting debate, and I can't wait to see where it goes next! Thanks for contributing.
JB
(Lunchtime, and it's too wet to sit outside...)
"It's not personal..." How do you know? Is there something you'd like to admit, David... hint, hint, nudge, nudge... (heh, heh, heh)
Well, as with many things, it's all a matter of opinion, isn't it. You wrote:
"BUT TO IMPLY that, as a result of your criticism, SS has made a targeted petulant attack on your groups current production is crazy. "
I would reply again, How do you know it's crazy? Nobody knows who SS is (although the discussions and suppositions are great fun), so SS MAY be an insanely vindictive misanthrope. He probably isn't, but he may just be an insecure eighteen year old, afraid to voice his strong opinions for fear of recrimination and value judgments based upon his age.
However, with all the wonderful theatre on at the moment, IN MY OPINION (which is only worth as much as someone will pay me for it), I find it a little more than coincidental that the very next production SS chose to slam was produced by the first person to slam him.
Did SS DELIBERATELY drive down to Thornlie intending to write a bad review? Doubtful.
Did he go down there thinking, "Okay, the President of Blak Yak insulted me, so I'll go and see how good THEY are!" Possibly.
Did he go with the best of intentions, completely miss the point of the play, and so decide to tell everyone else it was silly and laughable? Who knows?
All I do know for sure is that it has opened up some lively and interesting debate, and I can't wait to see where it goes next! Thanks for contributing.
JB