August 27, 2007

Vitriol versus fair comment

John Smythe      posted 26 Aug 2007, 03:57 PM / edited 26 Aug 2007, 10:37 PM

Once more unsubstantiated invective is being used as a poor substitute for fair comment. And because it arises in two comment streams, a dedicated forum seems in order.

‘Never Me’ writes Pig Hunt off as an “abhorrent excuse for a play” and “Thank[s] god for Thomas La Hood’s review” because s/he (i.e. ‘Never Me’) is “getting really pissed off with critics on this site singing the glories of ‘rigorous’ criticism while providing reviews with less rigour than a blancmange” – a statement that in itself, without examples cited, lacks rigour.

‘Richard M.T.’ calls The Venetian Bride “tedious and dated”, and calls my review “fawning”. In the same vein ‘AL’ refers to “limp, craven reviews” in the Pig Hunt comments stream.

“Craven” and “fawning” imply some sort of subjugation. To what? Pray tell.

More troubling than these slings and arrows of outraged commentators is the proposition that any new work that doesn’t fit their sense of taste or notion of standards must be strangled at birth. That’s borderline fascism in my book. Think about it.

I absolutely stand by my review of The Venetian Bride and feel confident that those who feel drawn to the subject matter, or might like to observe the theatre craft involved, will go to it, while those whose bile rises at whatever whiff they detect in my review (regarding topic, theme or style), will stay away.

I have yet to see Pig Hunt so cannot comment on this production (although I did see it at last year’s Adam Play Readings and recall that it offered insight into aspects of Kiwi culture I’m not otherwise privy to).

The fact that two such extremely different works share the same brief season at BATS is cause for celebration in itself and I concur with Moya (in the Pig Hunt comments stream) that BATS is to be applauded for giving space to both co-ops, who bring their own energies and commitments to the projects. 

Beyond that, the box office will make its own pronouncements as to whether either show has been worth the effort.

Anon     posted 26 Aug 2007, 06:56 PM

So its the box office takings that tell us what is a good play??

nik smythe          posted 26 Aug 2007, 07:39 PM

it’s as strong an indicator as any i can think of – if a play packs out, people, meaning the public audience as opposed to us pretentious critics, must be talking about it in a positive light and convincing others to go.  certainly from the company’s point of view that’s a more telling indication of the quality of their work than some reviewers published opinion.

i saw three plays this week, all quite different and all well above average.  now i’m getting a complex about writing three consecutive good reviews – will superior non-craven types now judge me as a fawning liberal pansy or some such?  the insecure schoolboy who just wants to fit in inside me is tempted to offer up something scathing against whoever’s next just to prove i’m not an arselicker. luckily said schoolboy has an open line of communication with my inner parent, so no sucker needs to be the victim of my insecurity.

Lopez    posted 26 Aug 2007, 10:22 PM

I don’t know why John Smythe complains about fascism – Hitler and Mussolini did damn good box office.

Hugh Bridge       posted 27 Aug 2007, 09:06 AM / edited 27 Aug 2007, 09:11 AM

Well said Nik!

The price of living in a free speech society is talkback radio – but that doesn’t mean all media must descend to that level. So I support John’s efforts to encourage an editorial standard based on a shared understanding of the value of sound debate rather than bully-boy name calling that masquerades as free speech but reeks of immaturity and insecurity. See? It’s contagious!.

Dane Giraud       posted 27 Aug 2007, 10:56 AM

WAY too much attention is put on “appropriate comment” on  this website. 

Lopez    posted 27 Aug 2007, 11:04 AM

Hugh! “John’s efforts”?? He’s calling people fascists – how on earth does that help civilised debate? Talk about pot calling the kettle black! (And fully agree with Dane)

John Smythe      posted 27 Aug 2007, 11:18 AM / edited 27 Aug 2007, 11:21 AM

Maybe, Dane, when you have graduated as a director and find your own hopefully fully committed work written off with a couple of toxic phrases in lieu of constructive criticism, especially when the commentator pitches their personal taste as objective fact, you will see the point of the principles this site is attempting to encourage.

Lopez, my comment was: “More troubling than these slings and arrows of outraged commentators is the proposition that any new work that doesn’t fit their sense of taste or notion of standards must be strangled at birth. That’s borderline fascism in my book.” And again I say, “Think about it.”

Anon     posted 27 Aug 2007, 12:55 PM

Maybe, Dane, when your work finds disfavour you will remember that your are not part of some jolly social club where being ‘nice’ to each other is imperative, but part of a professional environment which contains passionate straightforward unhypocritical outspoken people who feel compelled to say what they think, using whatever form of expression they feel is most effective. Hopefully you will react professionally yourself, and respect people’s right to do so. Academic cool and objectivity may not be their forte – but that doesn’t mean that serious consideration of their comments won’t be rewarding. Dismissing strongly worded criticism by attributing it to someone nasty (a nazi, for instance) is a cowardly response. Take it on the chin, and make up your own mind.

John Smythe      posted 27 Aug 2007, 02:59 PM / edited 27 Aug 2007, 03:35 PM

Dear Anon / Lopez / Never Me / Richard M.T. … etc (possessor of 37 pseudonyms, including Billy Pilborough, and counting …), I should let you – and all other members – know that I am now able to link all postings to the member’s email, which may or may not lead me to know who you really are. In your case, I think I do (thanks to one posting via that email using a real name).

So given your great prizing of fearless honesty, may I ask you these three questions:

1) Do you normally reside in Wellington?

2) Have you actually seen the Pig Hunt and The Venetian Bride at BATS?

3) Have your experiences of Wellington theatre left you bitter?

Wikipedia            posted 27 Aug 2007, 03:19 PM

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, has come to mean someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET groups in order to bait users into responding. They may also plant images and data on networks that others may find disturbing in order to cause confrontation. They often change screen names or acquire multiple screen names to cause confusion and gain credibility by agreeing with themselves in forum debates.

More specifically a troll is an insult or accusation made against a poster. It would be highly unusual for any internet poster to claim the title of troll, rather a community member may sometimes try to deflate a post that is controversial or thought provoking by referring to it as “trolling”. Properly, to call someone a troll is to say that any dispute over a post is not valid not because the issues raised are not valid, but to claim the intent of the poster invalidates the post. As a speech act the term troll is sometimes used as an ad hominem argument, attacking the poster rather than the content or issues of the post.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Dane Giraud       posted 27 Aug 2007, 03:44 PM

John, I am confused by what you mean here. Are you saying that I feel the way I do because I am yet to experience a (bad?) review or something?

John Smythe      posted 27 Aug 2007, 04:00 PM

I’m saying, Dane, that ‘do as you would be done by’ is an excellent principle for any of us to work by, in theatre as in life. As a student of a rigorous discipline yourself, you will know the difference between feedback you can use and abuse you cannot. Which is not to say some teaching methods do not attract masochists who learn to believe their work must be useless unless they are being beaten up about it. Hopefully that has not permeated Toi Whakaari yet.

nik smythe          posted 27 Aug 2007, 05:17 PM

and they said so he went but she done so everyone et cetera and so on. i feel a need to point out not for the first time that john, who is i gather the main defendant here, has not once demanded or even suggested that we outlaw pseudonyms as has been incorrectly stated; his initial controversial remark was: ‘Interesting how the trite and abusive ones wimp out of identifying themselves’. no rules there, just food for thought. nor has he made or suggested any actual rules for how we express ourselves, all he has done is used the same right he is accused of trying to take from the rest of us to respond however he damn well thinks he ought to the ‘colourful’ and ‘uncompromising’ comments leveled at him. i’m inclined to agree we tend to lose sight of the intended theatrical subjects when we start examining eachother’s line of debate. however, if our line of critique is being challenged, indeed accused of pandering to whatever, for what motive i don’t know, then we shall of course respond, almost certainly in defence of our position. i’m happy to drop the subject here and let trolls be trolls and we can make our minds up for ourselves who’s a dick and who’s cool, since we will anyway.

patrick graham posted 27 Aug 2007, 06:24 PM

I’m always happy to receive a review, whether that review is a bad one or good. Sometimes it is the only feedback I get and at times it has helped me rethink and reshape a play to make it more palatable. It really is more to do with the emotional maturity of an individual as to how they chose to react. This can be observed in many of the posts on this site some of them under pseudonyms and others not.