Review Squared, May 21, 2013

My Mission Statement

Valerie Cardinal

@vscardinal

I’m taking a time out from my regular column this week to address comments I received on my last column. I feel the need to do this because these comments questioned the purpose of Review Squared. They also stated a discomfort with the tone of this column. I feel like I need to establish a mission statement of sorts, because it’s possible that Review Squared has gone off the rails a little.

Let me make it very clear that I am not trying to shame anyone. I respect all of my peers greatly, and many of the theatre critics I discuss were writing long before I was. Some of the Montreal-based writers especially are reviewers whose work I read before I started writing about theatre. 

I think it’s fascinating to look at how people review theatre, and if my comments cause some editorial changes along the way – well, even better.

If any of the writers I’ve discussed in my column have been offended or felt put down, I’m deeply sorry. That’s not what I set out to do with my column. I’d actually be happy to hear the thoughts of the writers whose reviews I’ve discussed in this column, and how they feel about this. 

As one of the comments stated, reviewers are subject to editorial policies. As a reviewer myself, I understand this. I think it’s interesting to look at what those editorial policies are, such as in my column last week or one where I compared a longer and shorter review of the same show. I understand that the writers have little to no control over this. 

The point of Review Squared is to bring attention to other publications and blogs other than The Charlebois Post. Through writing this column, I have discovered many sources of reviews that I now read on a regular basis, such as Mooney on Theatre, The Coast and Tapeworthy. I hope readers of this column have also had a chance to discover these and all the other cool publications I discuss here every week. The magic of the Internet is that I can be sitting in my home in Gatineau and live vicariously through the reviews of shows in Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto. 

Reviewing reviews is a way of analyzing the way we criticize things.

I also wanted to question and discuss different review styles. This was not intended to put anyone down. I truly don’t know the best way to write theatre reviews; I just like exploring how different publications do it. I think it’s fascinating to look at how people review theatre, and if my comments cause some editorial changes along the way – well, even better. 

Reviewing reviews is a way of analyzing the way we criticize things. I also think it’s important to discuss a review that isn’t up to its writer’s own standards. I know that when I’ve written reviews where I was slacking off on this website, I’ve been called out for it in the comments. It hurts, but the truth is that people are going to judge you anyways – so they might as well share what they have to say so you can improve. This is why I appreciate the comments I received and felt they deserved a response. 

Throughout the past few months, I’ve developed a greater appreciation for some really fantastic theatre writing I wouldn’t have gotten to know otherwise. I’d like to offer our readers that same opportunity. 

However, if readers don’t like my tone or appreciate my writing, I am just one little fish in a sea of people. There’s a whole wide world of theatre writing out there, and the Internet brings it to their fingertips. That’s the beauty of the Internet; if you don’t like what you see, you can just read something else.