Since you’re reading this blog post, you may be aware that over the past few months, Peter Marks of The Washington Post and I have struck up a series of impromptu, friendly debates on Twitter on a variety of theatrical topics, all in the limited forum that Twitter provides to explore any idea at length or in depth. I think these discussions take on a greater meaning in light of a Huffington Post blog from earlier today by Kennedy Center president Michael Kaiser, in which he bemoaned the fate of the professional critic and confessed to being scared of the cacophony of individual voices making their opinions known online.

I happen to think what has sprung up between Peter and me — and the various people who follow or join our conversation — is almost an ideal of what social media can achieve and proof that the barrier between critic and audience, amateur and professional need not be stringently maintained — as if it could be. Both sides benefit from the interaction, and I applaud not only @petermarksdrama, but also @terryteachout, @davidcote, @wendyrosenfield, @krisvire, @moorejohn, @jimhebert and other critics for their willingness to step off what once once a vigilantly guarded pedestal and enter the fray of theatrical discussion with working professionals and the general public alike.

While Peter and I will finally meet in person this weekend (at Arena Stage in Washington, and also online live at 5 pm eastern time via New Play TV), I thought more of the public — and with a little luck, Mr. Kaiser — might enjoy reading what has emerged on Twitter. I don’t suggest it’s an easy read, since there are frequent time lags between questions and answers, delays between thrusts and parries, but in this online improv, I think some worthwhile ideas emerge out of engagement, not Balkanization. This conversation, which revolved largely around the role of the critic, took place on November 1 (I will be posting a second transcript shortly).

Tips on reading this: the transcription is imperfect, so the occasional comment may have been lost; typos are endemic to this kind of typed rapid-fire conversation, and most importantly, you must start at the bottom of this post and scroll upward for the proper chronology. For those unused to Twitter, the convention is that the name in bold is the person “speaking”; names that follow are efforts to address specific people in the conversation. And in case you can’t guess, I am @hesherman. My thanks to those who joined the conversation and whose input is included here. Now go to the end and work backwards!

*   *   *

LMDAmericas  12:50pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman @seanjbryan Agreed. Difference between work in a journal and work on Page Six.

HESherman  12:50pm    @Dramaturgs Has that role changed? is it same as classic European model? Lloyd Richards said he introduced dramaturgy to US in the 60s.

seanjbryan  12:48pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman yes that’s very true too. Should ‘critics’ thus now be referred to simply as ‘reviewers’ unless it’s true criticism?

LMDAmericas  12:48pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman @petermarksdrama Love the conversation! don’t know how to join in… crix as tastemakers or prof. audience members?

Dramaturgs  12:47pm    @HESherman @seanjbryan There can be a substantial divide between #dramaturgical criticism (essentially analysis) & the typical connotation.

seanjbryan  12:45pm   @HESherman If now the critics role is only for the public, what’s the point? Listings and editorials could probably sell as many tix.

seanjbryan  12:43pm    @HESherman Ahh I see. Shame really. All should be working together to create better art. We all have our parts to play.

Dramaturgs  12:41pm    @LMDAmericas Doing quite well, thank you! There’s a lively discussion between @HESherman and @petermarksdrama you might want to check out.

seanjbryan  12:41pm    @HESherman or at least did, at some point in time.

HESherman  12:41pm    @seanjbryan Crix observe and do their own work based on what they see, but their writing is completely private from artists. Or was.

seanjbryan  12:39pm    @HESherman Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the O’Neill Centre bring in critics to assist the development process of new works?

petermarksdrama  12:39pm    @dloehr @HESherman It will ever be thus. I should start wearing an opera cape and a monocle.

dloehr  12:38pm    @petermarksdrama Great. @HESherman has me doubting my toys come to life when I’m not here. Thanks a lot.

petermarksdrama  12:38pm    @BurlingameT @HESherman Haha, I fell right into that one.

dloehr  12:37pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I wonder if that caricature made it more effective or less? Or if it was ok, ala shorthand of Wicked Witch, etc.

petermarksdrama  12:37pm    @HESherman @dloehr What a cynic!

dloehr  12:35pm    @HESherman Next thing, you’re going to tell me Bambi’s mother was asking for it…

petermarksdrama  12:35pm    @dloehr @HESherman Me, too, even if the cartoon figure of critic was caricature everyone carries around. (But O’Toole’s voice made up 4 it)

HESherman  12:32pm    @dloehr Two words: Fiction. Cartoon. (Just being glib after 45 minutes of furious typing.)

dloehr  12:31pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman One thing I loved about “Ratatouille” was the end, w/ the critic’s rave, the joy & wonder in sharing like that.

BurlingameT  12:30pm    many of us do. 😉 “@petermarksdrama: @HESherman We should make this a regular gathering place.”

BurlingameT  12:30pm    Thank you @HESherman for engaging such an interesting convo and @petermarksdrama for such candor. #theatre

petermarksdrama  12:29pm    @HESherman  We should make this a regular gathering place.

HESherman  12:29pm   @petermarksdrama Yes, practice not blinking for 5-10 seconds at a time, so you don’t miss me. That’s going to be key. Thanks for the convo.

seanjbryan  12:29pm    Love opinionated theatrical discussion! (Like that with @HESherman and @petermarksdrama I just had) This is what the arts are all about!

petermarksdrama  12:28pm    @HESherman (And the good ones CAN be fun.)

TOFUCHITLINS  12:28pm    @Dramaturgs @HESherman Thanks! This was interesting.

corteseatwork  12:27pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman @dloehr I’ll admit to enjoying a well-written pan of a piece that isn’t stage-worthy…provided I’m not in it…

HESherman  12:27pm    @petermarksdrama It’s the idea that pans can be fun that always worries me. Why can’t the good ones be fun?

petermarksdrama  12:27pm    @HESherman We’ll discuss this further, HS. In meantime, I’ve got LAW ORDER SVU-watching preparations to make.

dloehr  12:26pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman @corteseatwork I can imagine.

HESherman  12:26pm    @petermarksdrama I think you can express displeasure without making it an attack. I’m not naive and I have my own strong opinions.

HESherman  12:25pm   @petermarksdrama Vile is in the eye of the beholder. Critical opinion and public opinion often wildly divergent.

petermarksdrama  12:25pm    @HESherman @corteseatwork @dloehr Just for record, some pans — Dance of the Vampires, e.g.–are fun to write. Others disturb your sleep.

HESherman  12:24pm    @petermarksdrama I’m going to have to wrap up. Didn’t mean to provoke dissection of critics. Wish more were open to this discussion like u.

T_Gibby  12:23pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama THAT I’d buy a ticket to.

petermarksdrama  12:23pm    @HESherman No, not attack when you can. But when something is vile, many–not you, apparently–want you to tell it like it is.

petermarksdrama  12:22pm    @HESherman re monolithic of outlet like WP. I think that’s absolutely true. No one remembers which critic at a paper wrote review.

corteseatwork  12:22pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Believe me, I always give it a good “Yale stretch” before I open my mouth…

HESherman  12:22pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama That’s another whole area. Want to save that for when Peter and I are face to face.

HESherman  12:22pm    @petermarksdrama Who demands? And so do you intentionally attack when you can? Is the writing more important than reasoned judgment?

petermarksdrama  12:21pm    @corteseatwork @HESherman Ahaha. In vino veritas!

petermarksdrama  12:20pm    @HESherman And you are a serious Kool Aid drinker if you think everyone doesn’t demand from you a delicious pan now and again

HESherman  12:20pm    @corteseatwork @petermarksdrama I take it you don’t observe the “three-block rule”? You never know who’ll overhear you

HESherman  12:20pm    @petermarksdrama But crix aren’t seen as “one person.” Seen more as “The Washington Post” for example, not a byline…

seanjbryan  12:19pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama when you create you’re in a bubble, sometimes for years, you grow attached to a piece, you don’t see it’s faults

T_Gibby  12:19pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I agree but I think that moves into ticket price. “If Isherwood likes it……”

corteseatwork  12:18pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I was always under the impression that what we say at the bar, post-show, was off-the-record!

petermarksdrama  12:18pm    @HESherman I’ve always said that if they let actors review plays, there’d be no theater left.

HESherman  12:18pm    @seanjbryan @petermarksdrama Criticism is part of creative process? Perhaps in classical dramaturg role, but why must artists accept crix?

dloehr  12:17pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama It’s not different from other audience, only in that their opinion will be broadcast more loudly.

petermarksdrama  12:17pm    @HESherman Oh, come on! Have you ever heard a playwright or actor discuss another’s work? Would make Simon blush!

petermarksdrama  12:16pm    @HESherman @T_Gibby re imo: isn’t that self evident? I’m ALWAYS amazed people make their theater choices on basis of what one person says

T_Gibby  12:16pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama exactly.

HESherman  12:16pm    @petermarksdrama Using a word like bullets, even as metaphor, is why many theatre artists so dislike critics.

HESherman  12:16pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Crix scoff at this, but most newspaper readers can’t distinguish between reportage and criticism.

HESherman  12:15pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama I used to dream that all criticism would be legally required to begin, “In my opinion.”

seanjbryan  12:14pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman criticism should definitely be part of that creative process, that’s what I was taught in theatre school.

T_Gibby  12:14pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I agree re. strong opinions if presented as opinion.

HESherman  12:14pm    @petermarksdrama Or use sufficiently short words. He is a many of many syllables.

petermarksdrama  12:13pm    @HESherman re tempering opinion. Times crop up when you want to, in Frank Rich’s great advice, save your bullets.

HESherman 12:13pm    @dloehr @petermarksdrama How is that different from any audience member. Notion of critical impartiality, dispassion is a myth.

petermarksdrama  12:12pm    @HESherman And Simon would no doubt be hoot on Twitter. If he could take the heat.

dloehr  12:12pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman …and it came out in her review. But I do see ways to improve that script that incidentally address it a bit.

HESherman  12:12pm    @petermarksdrama That’s one of the more unique positions about downside of awards I’ve ever heard – that they draw too much attention

dloehr  12:11pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Full story when I’m in town, but I’d overheard the critic pre-show, knew she was in the wrong mood/mindset…

HESherman  12:11pm    @petermarksdrama I took course in criticism from late Philly critic, C. Lee. He said critics 1st responsibility was 2 b interesting read.

petermarksdrama  12:11pm    @corteseatwork @HESherman Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame writers for earning decent living. Just sayin’ awards don’t keep ’em in theater

petermarksdrama  12:09pm    @HESherman But the issue was arrogance, a sense that the critic held some secret, special knowledge. Usually best crix just write well.

HESherman  12:09pm    @petermarksdrama Most people didn’t like John’s harshest words, for good reason, but his praise sent them running to buy tix

HESherman  12:09pm    @petermarksdrama Per my earlier comment, you could read John and decide whether or not his opinion was worthy of your attention.

HESherman  12:08pm    @petermarksdrama I know many critics who temper their personal opinions, because public might not find them palatable.

HESherman  12:08pm    @petermarksdrama I’ll put in a word on John Simon’s behalf. Say what you will, but what he writes is exactly what he thinks.

corteseatwork  12:08pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama on one level, it’s simple math…I have classmates that make more $ for 1 episode of TV than I make in a year…

petermarksdrama  12:07pm    @dloehr @HESherman I’ve heard that before, that really harsh reviews do get metabolized in a diff way.

HESherman  12:07pm    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Arrogance a very strong word. I’ve worked with many crix & like most. Strong opinions necessary, not superiority.

petermarksdrama  12:06pm   @HESherman The recognition that awards confer is not only noted in theater world. The renown gets leveraged, esp for TV.

petermarksdrama  12:05pm    @T_Gibby @HESherman re arrogance: You’d think, but it really ain’t so. In past gens, the Simonses might fit template, but no more.

HESherman  12:05pm   @petermarksdrama You really think cash awards to artists causes them to shift to other media? Isn’t whole point to keep them in theatre?

petermarksdrama  12:04pm    @HESherman Great questions, Mr. S! As a rule, I don’t read reviews be4. Afraid someone else’s thought will stick in my head inadvertently

T_Gibby  12:04pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Critics who make themselves available are by nature more open, but arrogance seems like a job requirement.

dloehr  12:03pm    @petermarksdrama @HESherman That said, I’ll admit, I did get something out of the worst, most scathing, most dismissable review I’ve gotten.

petermarksdrama  12:03pm    @HESherman re prizes. The more money given to playwrights, the better! Downside: Inevitably tho award winners migrate to other forms.

petermarksdrama  12:02pm    @seanjbryan @HESherman That’s heartening observation, Sean. I guess my perspective is hope I’m not breaking down someone’s creative process

HESherman  12:02pm    @petermarksdrama Do you read reviews from other cities, esp. if play is coming to DC?

HESherman  12:01pm    @petermarksdrama Whats your opinion of theatrical prizes (vs. awards), say the Steinberg Awards for playwriting?

petermarksdrama  12:00pm    @T_Gibby @HESherman I do think crix are often too defensive. U get a lot of nasty sent ur way Twitter has helped me greatly in this regard.

HESherman  12:00pm    @petermarksdrama But he was careful to praise value of critics in helping art. Maybe you have a fan.

seanjbryan  12:00pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama critics have a place in the art world. I think if you have the ego to not listen to criticism you’re a fool.

dloehr  12:00pm    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I’m only talking about critics in relation to my own work. In general, I do have voices I trust.

_plainKate_  12:00pm    @dloehr @petermarksdrama @HESherman I love that it is becoming more of a dialogue.

dloehr  11:59am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Exactly. It’s more of an “even playing field” in a sense. You know where I’m coming from & vice-versa.

HESherman  11:59am    @T_Gibby @petermarksdrama Broad statement, but not necessarily to pervading truth. Do you feel differently with folks online like Peter?

petermarksdrama  11:59am    @_plainKate_ @HESherman & that is y crix in place like Chi and SF ARE influential–they’re canaries in the mines.

_plainKate_  11:59am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman I would concur that praise is more impactful, unless it is a pan in the Times, for instance.

_plainKate_  11:58am    @HESherman Because Artistic Directors cannot always see work first-hand, they may look to reviews to be surrogate. / @petermarksdrama

HESherman  11:58am    @dloehr @petermarksdrama Most people never meet or communicate with crix. But for film, I’ve grown to appreciate certain critical voices.

petermarksdrama  11:58am    @dloehr @HESherman That makes a lot of sense from artist’s pov. Someone whose voice you trust enuf to let it affect your work in some way

dloehr  11:58am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman Have. Have interacted with.

T_Gibby  11:57am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama Except critics don’t like their opinions challenged and dismiss as uninformed any dissent.

dloehr  11:57am    @HESherman @petermarksdrama I will say, the only critics I pay attention to with my own work are the ones I know & interacted with.

HESherman  11:56am    @petermarksdrama Could influence be restored by more critics entering into dialogue and not handing down judgments? It couldn’t hurt.

petermarksdrama  11:56am    @HESherman @_plainKate_ I think the praise by critics has more impact on a director’s career, e.g. than does negative assessment.

petermarksdrama  11:55am    @HESherman @seanjbryan Maybe sean is being ironic.

HESherman  11:55am    @seanjbryan “instant perfection” from @petermarksdrama? You genuinely feel that way?

HESherman  11:54am    @petermarksdrama I share your distrust of praise, and extremism in all forms ticks me off, but constructive criticism…

seanjbryan  11:53am    @HESherman I only wish I could achieve the instant perfection in my work that @petermarksdrama must have. Criticism helps art grow.

HESherman  11:53am    @_plainKate_ @petermarksdrama So here we have an example of how reviews directly impact artists livelihoods.

petermarksdrama  11:53am    @HESherman And at the same time, “influence” of crix is waning. Is there a connection?

_plainKate_  11:52am    @petermarksdrama @HESherman (And yet, as a director, I am dependent upon those reviews to open doors to future gigs.)

HESherman  11:52am    @petermarksdrama Or should I say…accountable?

HESherman  11:52am    @petermarksdrama Conversation ”with” is fairly new. Used to be one-way street. And many critics are still not accessible to artists, public

HESherman  11:51am    I ask about “top lists” because journos create them, yet are quick to bash awards processes. Have been on receiving end of this.

petermarksdrama  11:51am    @HESherman Do you like reading about yourself? I sure don’t. Harsh words depress me and praise makes me suspicious!

petermarksdrama  11:50am    @HESherman There are a few things crix can help with — too long, e.g. By and large, we are writing for conversation with everyone else

HESherman  11:49am    @petermarksdrama So are you writing solely for audience? So many crix seem to want to speak directly to artists, esp. when they don’t enjoy

HESherman  11:48am    You heard it here 1st, folks! RT @petermarksdrama: Artists are well advised to ignore crix. Reviews are for everyone else. #2amt

petermarksdrama  11:48am    @HESherman Artists are well advised to ignore crix. Reviews are for everyone else.

HESherman  11:47am    @petermarksdrama What’s the internal rationale, not that’s it’s in any way unique to @awshingtonpost. Is this just “same old, same old”?

HESherman  11:47am    @petermarksdrama But the question is who is influenced. Public, perhaps? But do we know that artists are influenced most by major outlets?

petermarksdrama  11:46am    @HESherman Yup, we do the top 10 DC productions or whatever. I loathe list-making.

HESherman  11:46am    @petermarksdrama What is the journalistic fascination with lists? Everything is the top 10 this, the top 25 that. Do u do this at year end?

petermarksdrama  11:46am    @HESherman People read that as something to be congratulated for. I thought list was pretty self evident w/ one or two omissions

petermarksdrama  11:45am    @HESherman Haha. I think actually @DavidCote was id’ing most influential crix in the entire solar system. It was vehicle for making list

HESherman  11:44am    @petermarksdrama However, if you’d like to be set upon by fighting dogs, I’m sure it could be arranged (if it weren’t illegal)

HESherman  11:44am    @petermarksdrama I didn’t say baiting, I was merely speaking of rousing you from critical torpor, since Mondays are usually dark nights

HESherman  11:42am    @petermarksdrama So now that you’ve been named one of the country’s most influential critics, should we all be more impressed by you?

HESherman  11:10am    If you’ve never read @petermarksdrama & me debating on twitter, I’m planning to “poke the bear with a stick” soon. Follow him as well to see

Tweets, blogs and other manners of Internet posting have been aflame since this morning, when Charles Isherwood of The New York Times declared online that he wished to forego having to review any further plays by Adam Rapp.  In the ensuing hours, Isherwood has been chastised for the tone of his piece and for seemingly abandoning his post as a major theatre critic with regard to this particular playwright.  I have a number of reactions and would like to tease out the separate strands of this decidedly inside-theatre story.

First, I would like to praise Charles for his honesty. He is willing to admit that he  simply does not connect with Adam’s work after seeing a great deal of it. He wishes to recuse himself from offering his opinion publicly any longer, believing that it would be better for him and, he suspects, for Adam. I praise Charles in this because he could continue to bash the prolific Rapp endlessly, which does them both a disservice. Christopher Durang has spoken of how he could never get a good review from Frank Rich during the latter’s tenure. While I take Chris at his word and have not done my own assessment of those reviews, it’s pretty clear that Durang would have welcomed such a recusal all those years ago.

I might feel differently about this if New York was a one-newspaper town, or if Charles were the Times’ only theatre critic. Especially if the latter case prevailed, such a recusal could be tantamount to ignoring the work of a playwright and the theatres that produce him, but The Times does have the resources, either staff or freelance, to insure that Adam’s work will still be covered.

That said, I don’t believe that Charles should be relieved of the responsibility of seeing Adam’s plays. If he is to remain an authoritative voice on theatre in this city, or nationally, he cannot be excused from remaining knowledgeable about any playwright who so many feel is talented and worthy. When working critics get to selectively cease learning about and understanding new work, they are not recusing themselves, but abdicating. Whether they write about it is another story, no pun intended.

I have no idea what Adam may feel about today’s piece by Charles, although others have been quick to cite his own  past comments and writing about critics, both pro and con. I doubt that any of those statements precipitated this action, and frankly value the idea that artists can speak freely about the impact of critics upon their work. Too many shy away, ceding the conversation wholly to the media, and theatre is, after all, about dialogue. Unfortunately, personal reactions to being reviewed  negatively often makes it impossible for any such dialogue to be productive.

What does trouble me greatly about today’s “Theater Talkback” is the way in which The Times has milked this issue for attention. What should have been an internal discussion between journalist and editor(s) has been instead brought out in public precisely to generate the kind of brouhaha that quickly ensued in admittedly narrow circles (and to which I now add my own voice sustaining it, dammit). Having just panned Adam’s newest play, the most recent in a long line of negative reviews, why did Charles feel the need – and why was he afforded the opportunity – to air his negative opinions yet again, especially when he suggests his editor will not necessarily allow him to do as he wishes? Why, if permitted, couldn’t he have simply stopped reviewing Adam’s shows and, if some overzealous press agent questioned it in the future, been told that theTimes’ assignment policies are its own business (as I so often was told in my press agent days).

In the wake of the Porgy and Bess imbroglio, which the paper exploited by releasing Stephen Sondheim’s letter to them days before it saw print, has the Times decided that this level of debate should be promoted, in order to drive readership, whether online or off? Must they be sending tweets repeatedly urging people to read not only Charles’ piece, as well as the many responses to it? I cannot help but feel that this is a form of intellectual hucksterism that ill suits the Times and does the theatre no good.  At the core of the issue is a worthwhile discussion, but so long as it comes at the potential expense of a specific artist’s reputation, it is a case of power being wielded unfairly. Names did not need to be named, and people could have inferred what they wished, guessing at the artist or artists in question.

In smaller towns, or one newspaper cities, theatres can be subject to the singular opinion of a particular critics writing for the only major media outlet that covers theatre. That influence can be wielded for decades at a time, outlasting playwrights and artistic leadership. Energies should be expended addressing how to remedy that monopolization, not debating the pros and cons of one critic at an outlet with multiple voices, in a city with many critics, who admits he just doesn’t share one playwright’s aesthetic.

P.S. Since it’s on my mind, for further debate about criticism unrelated to the specifics of the above, let’s also focus our energies on the ongoing issue of why theatre criticism remains dominated by white males, when gender and racial diversity would give rise, presumably, to more diverse theatre. To be continued.

This post originally appeared on the 2amtheatre website.

The inquiries, mostly via Twitter, are cordial, casual and polite. “Let us know what you think,” they ask, in response to my mentioning what show I’ll be seeing later that day. “I loved it,” they say, “Hope u do 2.”

Until three weeks ago, I had a standard answer to these conversational inquiries about Broadway shows. I would say that given my role at the American Theatre Wing and The Tony Awards, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to voice my opinions one way or another. People respected that, and often seemed sheepish about having asked. I’m sorry if I undermined the very point of social media by refusing a reply, by being anti-social.

Now I have no cover, so to speak. But I’ve decided, at least for now, to maintain my policy in a general sense. I have been known to send effusive tweets over Off-Broadway or regional work that isn’t in Tony contention and I’ll still do so, while saying little about Broadway work, since I retain a Tony vote. You might ask whether pointing out what I go to see isn’t waving a red cape if I’m staying mum about my ultimate opinion; that’s a fair charge, but I do it mostly so those who have come to know me online will not think me solely a Broadway baby and develop a sense of the range – and limits – of what I see.

Keeping one’s opinion to one’s self is hardly the operative ethos of Internet intercourse. Indeed, many see the Internet as the perfect medium for broadcasting their opinions on a wide variety of subjects, whether or not they have any educated basis for such opinions.  Despite that cavil, I have often applauded the means by which the Internet has afforded every individual a broadcast voice, via Twitter, Facebook or countless other applications.

Too often I’ve seen this populist medium used as the platform for virulent versions of what professional critics do in the conventional media: declaring a show worthy or unworthy, attacking artists for offenses current or past, saying whatever comes to mind because there’s no editor or editorial standard to which they must adhere. More than once I’ve likened social media to the early days of broadcasting, and that’s still true, but in so many cases it also resembles the Wild West, with its language closer to Deadwood than to Oklahoma!.

We all know that strong, highly opinionated voices get attention and that is proven daily in the polarized messaging that passes for political conversation.  This cannot be the language for the arts. I worry that in trying to make a name for oneself in the online media circus, people seek to be as provocative, as snarky, as incendiary as they can be in order to stand out from the crowd, generating more page views, more retweets, more +1’s than the next commentator. While they may in fact do so from a place of passion about the art of the theatre, their actions, their writing, serve it poorly, since their negative hyperventilations serve only to promote or define themselves, rather than prove of benefit to anyone involved in the making of art.

Now don’t misunderstand me – I am not anti-critic, whether old media or new. I admire and maintain cordial relationships with a number of fairly prominent critics, and enjoy their insights regardless of whether I agree with them or not; I bridle only at those who seem to take pleasure in their pans. Unfortunately, it is those latter critics who the newly enfranchised prefer to emulate.

So, some might say, why don’t I use the internet to become the critic I hope all should aspire to be? There are several reasons, but one is perhaps the most important: conflict of interest. I have been working professionally in theatre for some 30 years, and so it is relatively rare that I see a production where I do not know some artist (in some cases many artists) involved in the production. For me to take on the role of critic now (even though I did so in my collegiate years) would create an impossible dilemma: either I risk offending people who I admire, enjoy and even love (since no one’s work is always impeccable), or I would have to lie to readers, making the point of my taking on a critic’s mantle completely hypocritical.

God knows, I have opinions. Most people can tell that within minutes of meeting me, and certainly those who know me have heard my thoughts about the many shows I see, often at length. But what I say in relative private is measured for each individual who hears it; I rarely dissemble, but I do omit. Social media simply doesn’t afford that degree of narrowcasting and personalization.

I am happy to engage in discussion and debate about theatrical topics, and Twitter and blogging have afforded me that opportunity, far beyond the circles in which I travel here in New York. I’m pleased to enthuse about remarkable aspects of works I see, without necessarily offering a blanket opinion, for broad public consumption. I’m most pleased when I can add a few obscure facts or personal reminiscences to discussions of theatrical work that I spot in the endless stream of online opining.

But what did I think of this show or that? Is my thumb up or down? Unless I’m enthusiastic and the show lesser known, I’ll remain silent or nibble around its edges only, as contrary as that is to my nature. I will not be a cheerleader who loves indiscriminately, but if I cannot say anything nice, as my mother taught me, I will not say anything at all. Readers can read into that silence as they wish. Theatre doesn’t need more people saying what’s wrong with it. I’d rather be someone who reinforces all of the things that are so, so right.

This post originally appeared on the 2amtheatre website.

It’s a great word. “Embargo.” It seems to come from a different age, or a world in which brinksmanship over major issues comes into play. Oil embargo. Trade embargo. But it’s alive, if not exactly well, in the relationship between the media and those that they cover.

In the past 36 hours, there have been some very interesting comments on Twitter via #2amt about “embargoing” reviews of arts events. The primary participants have been Trey Graham of NPR, Peter Marks of The Washington Post, Alli Houseworth from Woolly Mammoth Theatre and Nella Vera of The Public Theater. As a “recovering” publicist, I’ve lobbed in a few thoughts as well, but I though the issue was worth more than a few 140 character salvos.

In brief summary: there has been a longstanding “gentleman’s agreement” (pardon my patronymic) between arts groups and the media that cover them that while productions may be seen by the press in advance of the official opening at designated performances, reviews will be embargoed for release until that official opening occurs. This has been in place for some time, although it is not theatrical tradition from days of yore – it is something that has been in place in the U.S. for not more than 50 years and is, I believe, an even more recent phenomenon in England.

Social media has upended this polite détente (as has, perhaps, Spider-Man, but for this discussion, let’s declare that an anomaly and move past it), since we now have personal media platforms that allow any audience member to broadcast their own opinions immediately upon exiting a theatre, if not during the performance itself. So the major media, with more traditional roots, finds itself either days or weeks behind in reporting on a cultural event while the court of public opinion renders verdicts left and right, or they have to report on that very public opinion before issuing their own.

Marks has commented that he is precluded from tweeting his opinions in advance of his review appearing; Frank Rizzo of The Hartford Courant was tweeting his thoughts on a show at the Williamstown Theatre Festival the very night he saw it, although in that case it was the press opening. There’s obviously no industry-wide practice and every outlet is formulating its own approach.

I should make clear that none of these journalists are sneaking into preview performances to which they’re not invited. They are respecting whatever preview period the company or producers have requested; they just chafe against having to wait, either out of professional courtesy to an externally imposed release date or an internal policy which dictates adherence to the print date.

I also need to state my belief that the performing arts do not truly come alive until they’re before an audience, and I believe that artists should have a reasonable amount of time to work on their creations in front of an audience (yes, a paying audience appropriately advised as to the show’s inchoate form) before opinions are rendered. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the like have certainly made it impossible to completely manage such a protected environment and that’s just a reality of our world; to rail against it is foolish and unproductive. The question is whether major media (old or new), with its vast reach, should play by the old rules, or adopt the “embargoes be damned” attitude that the public has unknowingly employed.

For arts groups, one rationale for the embargo has been to achieve a “roadblock” effect with their reviews – a great many come out on the same day, having a better chance of achieving traction in the public’s mind. But as members of the press will often say, they are not marketing arms for the arts, but reporters or writers of opinion, so why must they adhere to a marketing or press plan? Frankly, so long as journalists don’t start writing about works of art before they are acknowledged to be complete, this practice may have to fall under the weight of the populist-driven social media.

As for tweeting a mini-opinion in advance of a full review, I have to say I don’t think that serves anyone. If the public, as some posit, want only bite-sized chunks of information, then critics are playing into their hands and hastening their own demise. After all, if you know a review is pro or con, will you necessarily look for a more nuanced appraisal a day or two later? Will the craft of reviewing at long last be reduced, in all arts, to the thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach popularized by Siskel and Ebert? Does anyone want reviews to be nothing but capsules, star ratings or a little man and his chair?

I must confess to puzzlement about how much the traditional media is approaching social media. Instead of using it to deepen its own coverage, since website space is less dear than newsprint, and the reach unfettered by geography and logistics, some papers undermine their own print versions in their race to populate a Twitter feed. The New York Times, inexplicably, shares virtually all of their Sunday arts coverage through Twitter two or three days before the Sunday paper is out, rendering the section old news by the time it appears fully online or (yes, I’m old) on my doorstep.

I will say I’m intrigued by critics like Marks or the prolific Terry Teachout, who will actively engage with their readers on social media, breaking down the ivory tower mentality cherished by critics only a generation ago. The idea that critics will interact with individuals, and perhaps artists, in a public forum, is tremendously exciting to me, and may well be the best thing to happen to artist/critic relations in many years. Indeed, might early tweets result in critics getting feedback and perspective before their final verdict is rendered?

As for the embargo: I think it has begun to crumble and that erosion will only accelerate as every single person who cares to becomes their own media mogul and true stars of the medium begin to achieve influence akin to that afforded by old media. I say, as long as the artists’ work is done, let’s be happy that the press is so eager to cover us. But I caution the press not to be so eager to adopt the new paradigm that they undermine themselves, leading to ever-briefer, ever-more-marginalized assessments of artists’ work.

This post originally appeared on the 2amtheatre website.