This post is not a review of a show (sorry), but a review of policy.
Professor Scott Walters wrote the following as part of a very compelling and considered comment to the review of "The Tempest Project" posted on APAR: "I question the ethics of anonymous reviews on this site, and I call for a change of policy."
While this isn't, perhaps, his primary concern in the review (all of which bears reading), Dr. Walters certainly has a point, and indeed the editors have struggled with the issue of anonymity from time to time. Since this is a public blog and a public resource, we would like to make this a public discussion.
What do you think? What are the advantages of allowing or encouraging or prohibiting anonymous postings? Where do we go from here? What will most benefit our theatrical community?
I suspect this may not be a "yes or no" kind of answer.
Thanks for your continuing input!
--Bernhard Grier
14 April 2008
Your Input Needed!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
The anonymous reviews (as long as they are tagged in some kind of way, as you've suggested) don't bother me personally, but I know they (particularly the negative ones) greatly bother some, so perhaps in the name of keeping this a constructive and happy place it might be best not to post them. People might tend to be more candid in anonymous posts but I can see the argument against them.
Sorry this wasn't a yes/no :)
Oh I saw that you said it may not be a yes/no question, haha. Sorry, reading comprehension skills get low at the end of the work day.
Negative reviews are fine, as long as they are not personally inflammatory. But I do feel like any reviewer should put his name on his review. If you're willing to write the review, you should be willing to own up to it.
I respectfully disagree with Scott's point--though it is a valid argument.
Because it is a town of this size, someone within a particular subgenre of the the arts community might not feel comfortable posting a review of a show within whatever medium they work unless that review was anonymous. I think this is a shame, and that it shouldn't have to be that way--but it is. Feelings prove to be far too delicate for most of us to write reviews. There have been several times that I've seen shows and thought--"oh, I'd sure like to write a review of that," and granted most of those times have been when shows have been alarmingly underwhelming (since pretty much every show that is reviewed in the MX or C-T seems to garner ebullient praise, so positive reviews seem less of a necessity), but I haven't done so.
I also notice that there have been very few anonymous reviews of shows here in Asheville. To make the criteria for writing reviews more stringent would only serve to further reduce what is out there.
If an anonymous negative review is written, I think that most of the people reading have the judgment and sagacity to evaluate whether the review is well organized and fair or not. And, furthermore, it will then be noted or taken to task for such in the comments...
...which is exactly what happened with that review of the Tempest. Bad show? Perhaps (I didn't see the show, so I won't offer judgment there)--some people certainly seem to be of that opinion. Fair and balanced review, taking into account the intention of the production? Seems like a distinct possibility--and one of which we were all made aware by Scott's comment.
Lastly: our most prolific, honest, and usually accurate reviewer uses the moniker "wnctheatre"--I doubt s/he would be writing the review s/he is if anonymity weren't an option.
Double lastly: Apologies if this comment was overly discursive or turgid--I have just eaten an egregiously large meal which has perhaps slightly blunted my powers of explication.
-chall gray
The third to last paragraph should read "Was this NOT a fair and balanced review taking into account..."
Apologies again.
Dearest Bernhard,
I feel that anonymity does indeed have a place in the blog. I've never personally published an anonymous review (that I remember), but I agree with mr. gray that we have a politically small town and there have been times where I would wish to say 'that actor made terrible baklava onstage!', but would suddenly stop as I realized, 'I want them to audition for something later. What if they are strangely proud of their onstage baklava making talent!?'.
I do think any of us who post anonymously have a duty to ourselves to not use said anonymity to hyperbolize events. This wonderful (and let's face it, kinda sexy) mysteriousness of being incognito mosquito should allow us to say things that we feel we would not be able to say to the specific person in the review. We should not use it to say things we would never say to any other human being out of the fear that they know who we are.
As a test, write two reviews. If the one with your name on it says "mediocre blocking" and the anonymous one says "syphilitic annihilation of art", then take a break and have a nice cup of tea before hitting publish.
If Crowe is truly the Ann Coulter of theatre reviews who just has political ties to the people involved, then let it ride. If not, then it is a personal responsibility s/he/ep will have to look to. I don't think there's any feasible action the blogmaster(hehe) could take that wouldn't filter to much content and voices.
In closing, I can still be as mean as I want. I sign stuff.
Ryan Madden
I think the editors here are diligent enough to weed out the truly belligerent comments, anonymous or not. Although I wish everyone would feel comfortable enough to post their own name, some may not be, but that's not to say they don't have valid points. It might be better if anon posts weren't used as the main article, but then some things might not get reviewed. I think keep anon posts, but people might have to treat them with a bit of suspicion.
At first, I was dead-set against anonymous reviews, and defiantly wrote under my own name. But although I enjoyed it (and thought they might even be pretty good reviews), I have have not written any at all in quite a while -- of plays that I liked or ones I did not, because I became increasingly uncomfortable with the implications.
Like Chall pointed out (and like got pointed out after a review I did write last year), as a local producer, not to mention actor, I don't want to risk alienating partners, or show blatant favoritism that might well look (or be) personal, or de-value the hard work of my friends and colleagues, even if I wasn't impressed with the results (or the process, for that matter).
On the other hand, if we rely on a reviewer from outside the community, that person may not know much about what we do, or try to do, and will, I think, be of less value to the theatre community and to the general public.
It seems to me that the main purpose of this blog is to add thoughtful critical voices to the Asheville scene, period. Like it says on the front page, if someone consistently blogs under the same name, be it "Tony Kiss" or "Reviewer17" the readers will eventually get to know each reviewers style and tastes, and will know how seriously to take that person's opinions.
Also, I have to wonder: who is hurt by anonymous reviews? Sure, I wonder who is writing and why they aren't using their name, and sure if my feelings get hurt, it would be nice to be able to take my frustration out on someone, but really, that impulse --though certainly understandable-- seems kind of petty. If some anonymity can help get a wider variety of opinions out there, I think it can be a good thing, so long as (as has been pointed out) that privilege is not used as an opportunity to throw mud with impunity.
Personally, I think I will stay away from writing reviews, anonymous or not, but that is a decision I have made for myself, and I think each person will have to make that choice on his or her own. But I say if a review is honest, thoughtful, and art-positive, it should stand, period.
I don't think there is anything wrong with anonymous reviews, since it is the points of opinion that matter, and can be debated. Furthermore, the stakes are low (compared to say Presidential politics, or corporate ethics), so it is hard to imagine how anonymous reviewers could actually harm anyone, even if they wrote in bad faith.
It is true that the reviews of The Tempest Project (which I did not see) were negative and, according to Mr. Walters stated review standards, focused almost exclusively on whether the project was "worth doing" --in a sense. But not everyone is going to write according to Walters' standards, are they? Even if they use their real name.
But do we do theatre for others' approval? Walters points out that there were pedagogical reasons for the project, and I don't think anyone would argue with that. Reviews are always about resuts, by necessity and definition. I think the UNCA theatre department, and anyone else, should stand up for their right to fail (according to some members of their audience), and their right and strength to hear and evaluate all the criticism that may or may not come their way.
The audience is always, in a sense, anonymous.
As someone who has received both positive and negative reviews in the press during my career, I can say honestly that somehow it would be easier for me if my work were lambasted by an anonymous reviewer. It's always my responsibility to temper my own reactions, particularly the emotional ones, to public and printed response. However, I can imagine an anonymous review would be easier to take because it would be easier for me to make assumptions about the reviewer's motivation and dismiss it as personal, uneducated, petty, what have you.
I've never written a review on here for the exact reason already expressed- this is a tightly woven, small, local, largely friendly theatre community, and many people whose work I have strong opionions about are also dear friends. I would like to work with many again or for the first time, but also know that if I saw a review of a show I was in by, say, John Q., who said my acting was "wooden", even if I loved John Q.'s next project I'd likely be hesistant to audition for him, considering his last assessment of my ability. It's also my responsibility as a writer and performer to not leap to my own defense under an assumed name on the comments section of this site- something that is hard to do, believe me. I am very proud that during the debacle of my show's reviews in the Mtn. Xpress last summer I never wrote an anonymous word in the comments sections of the related posts. I did personally explore my own response on my blog, which I felt was wholly my territory and I could say what I damned pleased there. But we, as theatre artists, need to be responsible for our own reactions to criticism. It's part of the life.
I think of it this way- when I was feeling poorly about a review, a friend of mine told me a story about a young playwright in NYC whose first review in the Times stated that perhaps the mother of the playwright would have done a service to mankind by having an abortion. I realized that criticism can get way harsher than what I was experiencing.
I think it boils down to this- in the interest of artistic maturity, free speech and expression, it would be needlessly overprotective of the Asheville theatre community to require all reviews to have the true name of the author. I'd like to think that collectively we can handle any unecessarily harsh, ill-informed posters, and expect the site moderator to be largely responsible for editing anything truly inappropriate. Otherwise, I'd like to think that our theatre community, both online and in person, can handle any discourse about any theatre in town with aplomb and an interest in informed discussion, not passionately personal debate.
The response thus far to this question has been fun to follow. I hope that we all decide to comment and post more often, because it seems we've all certainly been reading regularly.
The theatre community will always be weak, no matter in what town, as long as theatre artists and spectators are afraid to engage in open, critical conversation as human beings. This bland politeness engaged in out of fear that someone's feelings will be hurt, or that you may need them for your next show, undermines the conversation and the development as artists. I have no objection to strong opinions being expressed -- what I object to is doing so under the cover or darkness. Ryan, it may be "sexy" to be "incognito mosquito," but as a member of the theatre community is makes you dishonest, even duplicitous to say one thing anonymously and another face to face. If this community is going to continue to allow anonymous reviews, then in my opinion it falls to the editors to undertake more stringent editing. As it is, the content of the review of The Tempest was edited, as noted by the editor, but when comments like this are allowed to be printed, then such slander needs to be owned up to by an individual: "The only character with whom one can have the slightest sympathy is Caliban, and that is because Cody Magourik, the actor who portrays him, has gone off campus and learned how to act." This is calumny, plain and simple, and requires a name be attached to the comment.
Ron, my comments are not based on a "petty" desire to take vengeance. If I wanted to bash somebody, I could do it just as anonymously in the comments. I am suggesting that the theatre community in Asheville grow up, learn to talk honestly, and shed its fear of the responsibility for actual conversation. Using the smallness of the community as a mask for an unwillingness to stand up and claim your own opinions is sheer cowardice. Frankly, if having a name attached makes one choose, to use Ryan's words, "mediocre blocking" over "syphilitic annihilation of art," then I happen to think that might be an improvement. If the goal is to have intelligent opinions on this site, then insist that everyone take responsibility for their own words. If the goal is to have a snarky free for all, keep the reviews anonymous.
Considering the fact that, discounting reviews crossposted into the comments section, the most comments any show has garnered in this blogs year of existence is still less than half a dozen, I think it is a stretch to call it a "snarky free for all."
Growing up is much easier said than done.
If I was confident that the way I reviewed shows would be taken with a grain of salt and read objectively by the reviewee, then I might write reviews. This being as close knit a community as it is, I simply don't think it will happen. Not when I was at the birthday party of a fellow member of the theatre community--a party at which no less than five of the commenters on this post were in attendance, to show the how close knit this community is--and heard a snippet of conversation derisively referring to so-and-so's review of a show from more than a year ago.
Yes, growing up is hard. But unless you want to have a Peter Pan theatre scene, it has to happen. Remember Pinnochio? He went to an island where everybody played all day and behaved like children. There was only one problem: the inhabitants of that island slowly turned into asses. As long as the Asheville theatre scene is comprised of thin-skinned babies playing in their personal sandbox without real conversation, the work will remain shallow and unimaginative. To those five people at the birthday party still talking about a year-old review, I would say: for God's sake, get a life, will you? And more importantly, get a spine. That's just pathetic. And fear of that, and unwillingness to have an adult conversation, is equally pathetic.
"As long as the Asheville theatre scene is comprised of thin-skinned babies playing in their personal sandbox..."
Scott, no offense, but I don't think that saying that is the most mature way to encourage people to grow.
Get a spine? Get a life? Babies? Pathetic? What happened? All the discussions on this topic thus far have been totally respectful. It's totally ironic to me that you, Scott, who have called forth this discussion to begin with, are the first to start the name-calling with your commentary. I don't think that's appropriate. But at least you signed your name, so I can address you directly!
Perhaps -- but at least I signed it.
Lucia -- First, the original review was not, in fact, respectful, and I would contend that is because it was anonymous. That is the point. And it is interesting to have people comment on my disrespectfulness while remaining silent on "Crow's" disrepectfulness. However, those who would defend anonymity because it allows them to be honest without consequences -- well, I would respectfully ask just how honest that really is, and ultimately how helpful it is to the development of this theatre community. If people say what they think, I am secure because I know where I stand; if people are "nice" while slamming people anonymously, then I feel insecure because everybody could be the slammer. If somebody says something about me that I take exception to, I can talk to that person and express my opinion and also listen to what that person has to say and maybe even learn something. But complimentary echo chambers are notoriously bad for personal growth.
Scott-- I think you make some good points. But isn't it true that, via a blog like this, you can have a reasoned discussion with someone, regardless of who that person is? It seems to me like what you are really taking exception to --and on this I agree completely-- is the tone of "Crow's" review, which seemed more personal than professional.
But looking back on the reviews posted on this site, it seems to me that the vast majority have been thoughtful and respectful, regardless of the anonymity (or lack thereof) of the writer.
To condemn the entire process on the basis of one rogue review seems counterproductive.
As to your comment, "complimentary echo chambers are notoriously bad for personal growth," I agree, but fail to see its relevance to this discussion, except perhaps as a warning against any duplicity anonymous blogging could possibly engender, the kind you mention.
I think the larger point is your use of the word "slammer." I don't think this blog should become a place tolerant of "slams," by any means, and the editors should keep a wary eye for disrespectful posts. But to assume that anonymous blogging and "slamming" are inexorably linked is, I think, to misread the review blog as a whole. Sure, as you said, "If people say what they think, I am secure because I know where I stand; if people are "nice" while slamming people anonymously, then I feel insecure because everybody could be the slammer." But if no one is "slamming," (as has been the case here almost all of the time), then what's the problem? Will it bring about the death of local theatre if I tell somebody "good work" when really I was disappointed? What if I then blog anonymously about why I was disappointed, and generate a lively discussion? Is that discussion less valid because I don't sign my name, or because I told somebody earlier, "good job?"
Willie -- I actually do think damage is done when you tell somebody "good work" when you were disappointed. Let's be honest: most of the time the theatre we see is a mixture of both good work and disappointing work, isn't it? Wouldn't it be more friendly to share both reactions? If all I ever hear is "good work," regardless of the work I've done, then I start to no longer believe "good work" when I hear it. As a professor, I am regularly asked what I think about student work. As a result, I have created certain rules -- for instance, I never comment on a show while it is running, but if after it has closed you want to talk about it, then I'm happy to do so. That's my rule -- I'm not proposing it as a universal one. But eventually students have learned not to ask me, because I will smile and thank them for their performance and refuse to say more. Because I don't want to lie -- I value my integrity enough that I want my praise to mean something, and my criticism to mean something. And when I sit down with someone to talk about their work after a show closes, I want to share my reactions in a way that is useful to them, which means respectful. I once read a great book called The Inner Game of Tennis that talked about the guilt the author felt when he really whooped somebody in a game. But then he realized that he didn't do his opponent any favor by not playing up to his ability, because his opponent had an opportunity to learn something valuable about their weaknesses and then try to improve. If he simply lobbed the ball back gently, they wouldn't be prompted to improve. That's how I think about criticism -- if I withhold it out of a desire to be "nice," then I am not respecting the person. I am actually nicer if I share my reaction in an honest and respectful way. But that respect means looking the person in the eye, and having them know that it is ME who is speaking, and that my criticism comes from the prejudices and orientation of my own interests and beliefs, and that allows the other person to have a context for my remarks, and evaluate those criticism in terms of those prejudices. Not so that it is easier to dismiss them, but rather easier to understand the underlying values, and to decide whether those values are shared. To me, that is what makes an exchange of opinion most valuable, and what respect means.
Also, at the risk of sounding slightly snarkey, Scott, if you truly believe that Asheville theatre is, as you put it, "shallow and unimaginative" ["As long as the Asheville theatre scene is comprised of thin-skinned babies playing in their personal sandbox without real conversation, the work will remain shallow and unimaginative."], why have you not ventured to comment on it before now? Why not help bring some depth and imagination to the scene by reviewing shows, or by commenting on reviews left by others?
Also, if you are suggesting that the shows I, as member of the aforementioned local theatre community, produce are shallow and unimaginative, and produced without extensive thought and "real conversation," I will be happy to publicly differ. I suspect that most of my colleagues around town would also take exception to your use of such derisive comments. I, too, regret the tone of "Crow's" review, and I had hoped that such personal attacks would end there. In my experience, they are not typical of this blog, and I would hope and expect that that will remain true.
Scott-- I don't mean to suggest that, "good work" should substitute for a thoughtful discussion, but I'm sure you will agree that it can be a great place to start to find something that really *did* work.
I appreciate your last comment. I think that makes a lot of sense, as an educator, to compartmentalize your criticisms like that.
Willie -- To be honest, because I wasn't aware this site existed until yesterday. So the answer is" my ignorance.
There is a lot of excellent work in Asheville. I am particularly impressed by much of what I have seen in the Catalyst Series. I think Asheville has more quality theatre than a town of this size can expect.
But I also think it could become better and deeper with more discussion, more exchange of ideas, more criticism -- and more trust among the artists that make up its ranks.
My next question, which goes beyond the realm of this particular discussion, is how we could facilitate that discussion, those exchanges of ideas. Could there be a time and place when interested artists would converge to discuss a pre-determined topic -- and everything else that arose thereafter? Sort of an artistic rotary club? Do you think there would be any interest in such a thing?
If you think such a discussion forum would be worthwhile, I invite you to contact me at walt828@gmail.com. I will volunteer to put together an organizing group to encourage something like that to happen.
I think an exchange of ideas, criticism, encouragement and feedback is going to be a good thing for any community, or segment thereof, no matter the size.
However, I do not think that would have much bearing on what seems--to my mind at least--to be the crux of this particular discussion: anonymity and why some feel it's a necessity.
What Willie said earlier epitomizes the way I feel very accurately: As a producer, it doesn't seem worth it to me to write a review that might ostracize actors, or tech people or whomever else. Not when the pool of people in this town is so small to begin with.
I do my best not to say that I liked something if I didn't, usually opting to stay quiet. If asked, I try to be as honest as possible about it. And I choose not to write reviews.
I think a group like that would be a good thing (I would certainly try and attend) and, if done correctly, might help bring up the quality of all the theatre done in Asheville--but I don't see it eliminating some peoples' feeling that they need to be anonymous in their comments and reviews.
Well, I would respectfully submit that, if that is true, then perhaps this sort of site doesn't serve the community. Anonymous rants like "crow's" don't help anyone, and respectful reviews (which is not the same as positive reviews, by the way -- it is very, very possible so criticize something respectfully) don't require anonymity.
So, while I just discovered this site, I will not visit it and participate in the discussions as long as I don't know who it is providing the articles. To me, that undermines this site's usefulness.
You say that as if there is no gray area between "Crow" and Mel Gussow.
Couldn't one make the argument that just by the fact that you, myself, and others are having this dialogue that it is by definition serving the community?
What if everyone were using fake names? If there were no anonymous reviews or comments, but the content was exactly the same--with names attached.
Would you still have taken such a vituperative stance toward "Crow" if he had instead used the name Larry Armstrong?
I think there is no gray area between masked an unmasked.
I think there is a HUGE area, gray or otherwise, between crow and Mel Gussow.
And I think there is a difference between discussion and a review.
But the terms "masked" and "unmasked" are so nebulous, and in a virtual forum like this so hard to define, that it boils down to content being the defining factor.
And, as I said earlier, I think most people on here are smart enough to gauge whether or not the reviewer has the perspicacity to be given credence or not.
I can see the need to remain anonymous even while being respectful. Lucia's example is a perfect illustration: if a review is well thought-out and obviously not a personal rant, then an included description of an actor's performance as "wooden" wouldn't be disrespectful, but honest criticism. But it would still make an actor think twice about auditioning for the person who wrote it, even if that person didn't mean the criticism personally and in fact really wanted to work with said actor, perhaps even seeing a way to help the actor break wooden habits. And so, in this hypothetical situation, an anonymous review could very well be in the actor's best interest and be serving the community.
Ultimately, it's not anonymity that seems to be at issue, it's respect, and my argument is that the former doesn't negate the latter.
On another note, it's thrilling to me to see this kind of discussion happening in this community. It has prompted my first post here, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
Scott, I believe that the word "petty" came from someone else's post, not mine.
I see several salient issues emerging, each related to the question of subjectivity and accountability.
First, it will often be the case that what one person believes is objective or defensible will be seen by someone else as subjective and personal. This is the nature of opinion.
For example, the anonymous reviewer mentions the actor who left UNCA and "learned to act." This undoubtedly expresses either an opinion that UNCA does not do a good job of training actors, or an opinion that all actors at the undergraduate level are necessarily poor actors, and the production benefited from having someone in it with more experience. This opinion may be defensible or indefensible, and can be responded to and debated with or without knowing the identity of the reviewer. Someone else may offer that Dr. Walters interpretation that that statement is "slander" is hyperbole and unfounded; others may believe implying that an entire department is poor at its job training actors based on one production is indeed a baseless and ill-informed insult. We can all understand both points of view and decide whether or not to take sides on the issue, and express our opinions, or hold or change them in silence.
Second, there is, arguably, a difference between a "review" and a more relationship-based "critique". One is a sheer statement of opinion, a one-way and judgmental response, if you will. The other is part of a helpful dialogue in an existing relationship with a teacher, mentor or colleague. There are pros and cons to each type of discourse, but a review is not a critique, or vice-versa. And though an open and free forum like this one may lead to good relationships, it does not require them. I would also add the people probably have all kinds of reasons for writing reviews. Even signed reviews remain anonymous in intent, since you can never really get inside someone else's head.
Third, there is a difference in the level of accountability required between making statements of fact, and statements of opinion, because of the nature of the potential consequences of each, and the relative necessity of interpreting good or bad faith involved in each.
The true substance of facts can be verified. The substance of opinions can never be verified; they can be argued and debated, but never verified as fact.
By way of example, the statement "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" is a statement of fact. If it is successfully refuted by evidence (or lack thereof), the speaker would be held to have either spoken mistakenly or in deliberate bad faith. On the other hand, the statement "Invading Iraq is a good idea" is a statement of opinion. The only test involved here is whether or not one agrees with the statement. The intentions of the speaker are almost irrelevant, unless of course the speaker has some sort of power over you (like the Government) and if you openly disagree, you fear reprisal. The fear of reprisal alone is enough, I believe, to understand why one would want to remain anonymous in dissent. And that would have to be that person's choice, unless that person is silenced by an absolute lack of opportunity to voice any opinion at all. This is precisely why voting is done by secret ballot.
Power is involved in almost everything, except, arguably, truly anonymous discourse. One of the reasons I think that the local newspapers reviews are so often blandly and mindlessly positive is that if they were not, the reviewer might suffer in reputation enough that he or she might not be asked to write reviews in the future--at least in this small community. At the Broadway level, the NYTimes knows that producers must advertise in its pages no matter what, and the paper increases the impression of its own acumen and prestige among the public by publishing negative reviews from time to time. But I guarantee you that if producers and arts organizations stopped advertising in the NYTimes, not only would there be no negative reviews, there would be no reviews at all. The Arts section would be eliminated, or devolved into gossip pages about celebrities.
I personally believe that no one has the right to control anyone else's discourse except in the case where that discourse would cause real harm. I also believe that people have a right to try to protect or influence their own reputation, if they so choose.
I don't believe that a potential disagreement about the subjective intent or interpretation of a reviewer's opinion in this forum rises to a high level of potential real harm. I would not want to limit the right of that reviewer to post anonymously. The potential harm to reputation, reprisal or damaged relationships is larger, in real social terms, then the expression of a subjective opinion could ever be (not to be confused with false statements of fact about someone else).
Furthermore, a respondent has the right to accuse an anonymous reviewer of cowardice and encourage that person to post publicly. This would be the respondent's opinion about the anonymous reviewer's mental or emotional state, or projected intent--again, pretty subjective.
I think what the editors should weigh in deciding whether to continue a policy of allowing anonymous reviews is between the advantages of anonymity in promoting the depth and breadth of discourse here and to anonymous bloggers opportunities to express themselves, on the one hand, and the potential real harm to others of being the subject of someone else's subjective opinion, on the other hand.
I personally feel the potential for any real harm is low, since the subjects of negative opinions can always respond -- even anonymously (!).
And to reiterate my earlier opinion, I think the stakes of being the target of negative opinions about one's artistic activities is also relatively low. By contrast, I could be an inmate at Guantanamo.
I also hold the opinion that Dr. Walters has the right to opine that people who post anonymously are contemptible in his eyes, and to express that here as often as he likes. He also can (and has) used this forum to try to convince the anonymous person to reveal his or her identity, but if I were he or she, I would want to know that Scott would take my opinions seriously and give me an opportunity to amend or elaborate on them without being accused of an malicious intent I may not have.
Apologies for my typos, especially my weak missing-apostrophe pinky.
I want a long post too!
Initially I posted a pretty timid reply to this matter, but I think Ron's last post really hits the nail on the head. Everyone is entitled to think the anonymous posters cowardly, their opinions invalid, etc; however, that doesn't put the onus on the blog editor to say the anonymous opinions should not be expressed. And I totally agree with Willie that you can just as easily get a feel for someone's opinion by having their reviews tagged consistently as you could if they were using their real name. In bigger arenas, we don't have the luxury of knowing the reviewers personally, so we have to rely on keeping up with their work and seeing which of their opinions and values generally match our own. Again, people are welcome to deride the anonymous posters, but, in the end, as long as the reviews are thoughtful, lacking in ad hominem attacks, and respectful, then the anonymity aspect becomes more of a matter of conscience for the poster him or herself, not one for the blogmaster to decide for the community at large. I personally appreciate the potential for a broader variety of reviews, and it kind of sounds like if we eliminate the anon posts altogether, we'll be left mainly with the MountainX and C-T yay-fests. Perhaps this is unfortunate and some larger comment on our community but if most of us are content with it, then, again, people who aren't can dismiss the anon reviewers as irrelevant. Incidentally, I've spent a fair amount of time on assorted online forums and frankly I am a little surprised there are not many *more* people posting under online "handles," as it were.
All that said, I would be open to the idea of a discussion forum like Scott suggested. I'm assuming he means one where people meet face-to-face but even an actual messageboard format online could be more conducive to actual dialogue; although I'm not completely sure about that since clearly people can post responses on this blog and, up until this entry, very infrequently have chosen to do so.
amen to the jamie.
To speak with no sarcasm and no digressions (ok maybe just a few) so there is no confusion, my main addition is a frustration that throughout this thread there have been people who are able to say 'I do not review for this blog' with a sense of pride. I think our main problem in this theatre 'scene' is a sense of creating works of art in an opaque box with only one or two reviews (if we're lucky) being slipped in. While this may be a changing trend given the increasing number of reviews, I fear that limiting anyone their say on any grounds will encourage the current condition.
While creating in this town i have often felt I look back with a goofy 'was it good?' face upon a cosmic void with no answer forthcoming except that of my close friends who are, let's face it, my close friends.
So, I suppose I'm saying that any proposition to limit the amount of critique in this town on any grounds is the equivalent of shooting a comatose person in the face. I also say that anyone who is an artist but afraid to speak out on an issue for political reasons, for gods' sake please do it anonymously.
To be quite honest, the most lively debate on this website being initiated by a subpar review that just happened to be anonymous has more than slightly inspired me in this comment.
sorry to be the partykill,
rama
To all who have responded in this discussion, a sincere thanks. The editors of this site asked for input, and I think we have provided some. As with all lively debate, I suspect the community was strengthened and perhaps, as Ryan indicates, inspired by the exchange of ideas. I know that was true for my part.
I think a community is aided by honest, forthright discussion. Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Asheville artists (Ron was there, so was Jason) where one of the things that was noted and bemoaned was a sense that Asheville artists have that they are sort of a fractured group. There is a desire for more collaboration, more discussion, more sense of unity, but not an opportunity. This website -- or at least this discussion -- might be the first step toward the creation of a stronger community, at least among the theatre artists.
Anonymous or not here is less important, ultimately, than the stimulation of dialogue. Since this site is devoted to reviews, it may not be appropriate. Today, I will create a new site where ideas can be shared and on-line discussion can occur.
I would also like to explore the idea of a face-to-face theatre discussion group that meets in a coffee shop, a bar, or some other public place. I am open to suggestions about where something like that might occur, and how often, and how it might be run. Perhaps that could be the first topic on the new discussion site.
To anyone who feels I have insulted them during the course of this discussion, I sincerely apologize -- sometimes my deep passion for theatre gets the best of me.
Here is the URL for the new forum:
http://wnctheatreexchange.justdiscussion.com
I'm not certain if you need to join the website or not. I want to make it as open as possible, so if you have any tribles, please email me at walt828@gmail.com
Scott, thanks for creating the new website, and for putting yourself out there for all this feedback to your initial views: brave and commendable!
I personally believe in the power of craft, and freedom of expression. If these discussions can lead to a rise in the level of craft in Asheville, and more opportunities for artists to create, we are on our way to creating a unique theatre community in America.
I like to play in sand boxes. I just skimmed this lively discussion and a couple of issues resonated with me. 1) Blogs have changed the way we communicate. With names or without, we all have an accessible forum of expression that used to be reserved for people who got money for doing what they love.
2) I think all discussion or reflection of work in this town is valid. Has anyone on here not googled your own show (with multiple searches- ex. Hope, theatre, Asheville, sucks, incredible, review) for any hint of somebody spitting on it or hailing its glory?
3) In a small community such as this, I think it is important to respect the choice to remain nameless, for reasons already stated.
4) This issue speaks to me, because I am a big believer in 'tell me what you really think', but this is a sensitive topic- and in an honest review we received last year- I feel like a personal response from someone in our camp alienated us from honest criticism from colleagues. How's that for a run-on?
5) I'm thankful for this blog because I enjoy different viewpoints and discussions after seeing or working on a show.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I couldn't believe any Anon's hadn't responded.
Thanks to everyone for such a spirited and thoughtful discussion! I think this was a valuable digression from the main purpose of APAR, and one that will in fact help focus and strengthen the main purpose of the blog.
For now, we're going to call an official end to this conversation, at least on this site. If you still have thoughts on the matter, please continue to post them on this thread, of course, but also consider using other forums, perhaps Dr. Walters', that will be better set up to facilitate broader discussions.
As far as APAR goes, it seems clear that to be of the most benefit to the Asheville theatre community -- artists and patrons alike -- this blog should allow anonymous postings, so long as the anonymity is identifiable across posts; as in "Anonymous" is strongly discouraged, whereas "AVLreviewer08" would be acceptable. This way, hopefully, more shows will get reviewed, more reviews will get reviewed, and the public will benefit from a broader scope of valid opinions. And of course, it is left to the reader just how big a grain of salt to take with each review, anonymous or not.
The editors will try and balance appropriately (when necessary) between free and honest discussion and respect for our fellow artists.
So again, thank you all for such an exciting discussion. Keep seeing local shows (and maybe not just plays, even!). Keep submitting thoughtful reviews. Keep telling your friends.
The full name of this blog is, "Asheville Performing Arts Reviews: Online and Ontarget." The tag line is, "More Shows. More Information. More Better." Let's live up to all of that.
Thank you all for making this site work.
--Bernhard Grier
Because eventually the bots show up everywhere...everywhere.
A final (?) note from the editor:
If you have not seen it yet, APAR now has the distinction of having been highlighted internationally on the very good Guardian theatre blog (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
theatre/2008/04/
noises_off_unnamed_and_unasham.html).
If you do not follow The Guardian, I heartily recommend it as a place full of lively and relevant discussion of the type rarely found in main-stream coverage of theatre.
So keep seeing shows. Keep reviewing them. The world is watching.
Thanks, everyone
--BG
Post a Comment