The Guardian: “When Will Young Theatre Critics Get Their Big Break?”
Monday, April 6, 2009Announcements, Media
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry as I read “Waiting in the wings: when will young theatre critics get their big break?,” published last Thursday in the Guardian. Clearly the same question could be asked here in New York, although I’d note that the “tectonic plates” referred to in the story’s lede has shifted here more often than there. Still, the thesis seems to be that the blogosphere might be better-this-than-nothing training wheels for young critics, but no one can really be validated without a major paper making a new hire. That’s a bit of old thinking, if you ask me, but it’s still something we should be discussing and either agreeing with or debunking.
The piece, posted by Matt Trueman, features these graphs:
Let us remember that Kenneth Tynan was 25 when he took up the post in 1952 that is to be vacated by de Jongh, before graduating to the Observer only two years later. And, it was a 26-year-old Michael Billington that first reviewed for the Times in 1965.
Today, however, such early elevations are unthinkable. Billington’s status as “Britain’s longest-serving theatre critic” matters. While it does not prove him right, his 38 years of first-string service are deemed a badge of honour signifying a wealth of potential references. In contemporary criticism, authority is everything, and it is nothing without both expertise and experience. As far as I know, there are no regularly employed theatre critics under 30. For all their vim and vigour, their self-assurance and their passion, the young critic is inevitably a naive one.
And this is, of course, true and not true. I wrote my first reviews for the New York Resident and the Village Voice when I was 21. Heaven knows I was naive. I remember reviewing a Corneille play at, I think, the Pearl, and I’d never read any Corneille and didn’t have brains enough to do so beforehand. What a disservice to everyone involved! The thing about Ross Wetzsteon, the longtime theater editor at the Voice, was that he was very willing to give people a shot at failure. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the importance for a critic to fail is as important as it is for an actor or a playwright or a director to fail. And I’m not saying the review I ultimately wrote on that show at the Pearl was terrible, because Ross would never publish something that was inadequate or unpublishable. But it did need a bit of work, and Ross provided that because he fundamentally understood the power of the learning process for a critic. And that process inevitably must be hands-on. This fact leads to the graphs in the piece that follow:
The question, then, is not one of whereabouts, but of training: where are tomorrow’s critics going to come from? If authority rules, what opportunities exist for aspiring critics? How do we become authoritative? The simple answer lies in building up experience: by seeing and engaging with as much theatre in as many diverse forms as possible. It is a case of gradually whittling away the 10,000 hours supposedly required to achieve expertise. This, of course, takes years.
Undoubtedly, the unlimited space of the internet has made it easier. Sites such as the British Theatre Guide, the London Theatre Blog and What’s On Stage have provided young critics with new platforms. However, the range of theatre on offer is limited. As one commenter on Brown’s blog remarks, most emerging critics are weaned on the worst excesses of fringe theatre, where the only valid critical response is dismayed exasperation. Critics improve not through general diagnosis, but when confronted by theatre that challenges and inspires, elusive theatre that resists categorisation and defies definition.
But nor does such work prove easy. The vast majority of these younger writers are working for little more than a byline. While I am not suggesting that the world owes its critics a living from the off, a total lack of payment reduces young critics to amateur enthusiasts. When criticism is no more than a hobby to be fitted around other work, little time remains for broadening one’s perspectives by engaging with other art forms and the world beyond – as the true critic must.
And this is where I think all of us in the arts community need to have a conversation. For it’s not just publications, be they newspapers or magazines or websites, that bear a responsibility to try to pay its writers, but it’s the arts groups as well that are going to have to deal with the continuing shrinkage of critics, of coverage in general. Why TCG does not want to address this meaningfully simply baffles me. I mean, could it broaden its Affiliated Writers program?
Another aspect of the aforementioned graphs really bothered me — the part about being “weaned on the worst excesses of fringe theatre.” To me, this smells of the same elitism between the Broadway community and Off-Off-Broadway.
Sadly, I think I fit in that “hobby” category. I really enjoy criticism and theatre writing, but the combination of the dire state of criticism as a paying profession and the potential conflicts with my career working on making theatre make even those days seem numbered. I don’t know if things would have been different if I were entering the field in Tynan’s time. Or even Brustein’s time–I wouldn’t mind running a big theatre and writing criticism. Except, you know, being less of a dick…
I firmly believe that the future of theater criticism is going to rest as much with theater companies as with critics. As someone who manged to eke out a living as a professional New York theater critic, publishing almost exclusively in mainstream print media, for five years, I am tired of waiting on print publications to cede more of their ever-shrinking space to thoughtful criticism. It just isn’t going to happen, or at least, it’s not going to happen any time soon.
But that’s okay. If we work together, theater companies and critics can stake claims in other places. We can combine forces to assert our authority from a fresh home. As you mention, though, that’s going to take a serious conversation. There are lots of landmines to be danced around in order to keep critics from feeling beholden to theaters and theaters from feeling beholden to critics.
We should be having these conversations right away, and frankly, I think it’s going to be exciting to have them. Shaking up the existing critical model and creating something new could be liberating and fun.
The article is correct that critics need to get paid, though, and I have no insight on how to make that happen. But I do know that TCG’s Affiliated Writers program is entirely beholden to the funding provided by the Jerome Foundation, and the Jerome Foundation is tightening its belt. The Affiliated Writers program is more likely to disappear than expand.
Is the Theater Bloggers Social that Ken Davenport is having a good place to start discussing this? How can we get as many people involved as possible? It would be nice to have people gathered in person, so ideas can flow spontaneously.
There needs to be some sort of standard (s), by which critics can be measured. Bloggers are great and people blogging about theater is a positive thing. The more people are involved with and intrested in and talking about what’s happening in theater, the better it is for the industry.
A tricky area, though, is saying that someone posting on a blog should have the same standing as someone backed by a legitimate publication or organization. What training do they have, either as a journalist, or as Leonard points out in describing his early efforts, in knowledge of the theater? His Corneille review probably could have been better in hindsight, he says, but he knows that it had to have been written to a certain standard because of the demands of the editor and publication that printed it. Independent bloggers don’t have that kind of accountability. That’s why critics associations, which require standards and review of work before afilliation is granted, are crucial to this group’s future.
It’s no surprise that if you check out many independent blogs, where those bloggers are somehow lucky enough to receive free tickets to shows, the reviews often seem positive — even if the show rots and all the legit critics have panned it! They aren’t going to risk losing a free ride. Even bloggers who pay their own way often are positive– they’re theater lovers and enjoy being there.
Critics backed by newspapers or organizational websites answer to them, however, and to a duty to provide objective, artistic and intelligent reviews for their readers — not to pander to personal likes or dislikes or to efforts to win favor for more free tickets.
If independent bloggers, not guided or held accountable by any standards, are considered legit critics rather than theater-loving folks expressing personal opinions, there’s no compelling need for legitimate sources to invest in the real thing. Supply will exceed demand driving down the price anyone is willing to pay. If there is a demand for association affiliated critics, the numbers of available critics will shrink and the price will go up. Simple economics.
I dunno, Lauren. There are tons of critics backed by newspapers who nonetheless push their own agendas, not to mention their likes and dislikes. John Simon isn’t shaped by the paper he writes for when he comically bashes “[title of show]“; neither is Hilton Als, as he picks apart “The Good Negro.” You could extend the same to the lauds that Ben Brantley bestows upon certain star-laden productions, even when they’re bad. (And are you sure that big publications don’t pander to certain productions; i.e., that their editors don’t have their own motives for wanting theaters that advertise in their pages to get positive reviews? that a newspaper doesn’t like to see itself recognized in a pull quote?) There are big independent blogs that slant toward the positive (and I *LIKE* Martin Denton), but that doesn’t make them useless; anybody who reads a critic more than one is likely to get a sense for their style, competency, and balance. And there are plenty of bloggers out there who are only too happy to BASH shows, whether they pay for them or not, knowing that a bash (or the single dissenting opinion) is likely to drive traffic for a few days.
In any case, I don’t think anyone’s arguing against having standards–the question is, rather, who maintains those standards? And who, therefore, dictates where you have to be writing for (or for how long) in order to get accreditation from those sources? I don’t think it’s tricky to say that a blogger is on equal standing with someone backed from a major publication; it’s only a mess if you make a blank statement that says all bloggers are equal.
I can only cite my own experience as a riposte to Lauren Yarger’s arguments. When I was writing for The Boston Globe, my reviews were constantly being “dumbed down.” References were pulled, wordings were simplified, and any political edge was relentlessly sanded away. And still it was known that major theatrical organizations in town “spoke to” the editors about me because they thought my reviews were too tough. Thus some assignments were simply never going to come my way. At the Globe, for instance, I would have NEVER been allowed to mock the pretensions of Harvard’s American Repertory Theatre the way I do on my blog. That’s why I find all these claims of lower standards in the blogosphere a bit mystifying.