No More Secrets?
Tue, 11 July 2000, 11:27 pmGrant Malcolm23 posts in thread
No More Secrets?
Tue, 11 July 2000, 11:27 pmMaybe it's because I've managed to personally avoid the wrath of the bewhiskered one, but i've not been entirely unappreciative of the commentaries posted under the pseudonym "Secret Squirrel".
I'm not sure whether i find his/her nasty remarks any more or less pleasing, illuminating or fulfilling than some of the occasionally fatuous "the show was fantastic. i loved it" comments that pepper this message board.
Certainly the first couple of commentaries on Butterflies Are Free and Bumpy Angels appeared to be at least partly considered and thought out. The most recent message really seemed to be plumbing the depths of bile though.
I'd like to encourage Squirrel to keep writing critiques - under your real name. You don't need to own up to who you are, that's not my point. I just can't help feeling that if you posted under your own name, you would take a little bit more time rephrasing some of the hasty, nastier things you have said. Not that you should cut out the critical comments, but that you might give them at least a light dusting of icing sugar to help them go down. It would be much harder for people to dismiss you out of hand if you weren't so dismissive yourself. People would still hear your criticisms, but would take them on board more readily if they sense that you have made an effort to understand their difficulties and you share their passion.
Finally, if you really can't find anything positive to say, perhaps it's better to say nothing at all?
Cheers
Grant
I'm not sure whether i find his/her nasty remarks any more or less pleasing, illuminating or fulfilling than some of the occasionally fatuous "the show was fantastic. i loved it" comments that pepper this message board.
Certainly the first couple of commentaries on Butterflies Are Free and Bumpy Angels appeared to be at least partly considered and thought out. The most recent message really seemed to be plumbing the depths of bile though.
I'd like to encourage Squirrel to keep writing critiques - under your real name. You don't need to own up to who you are, that's not my point. I just can't help feeling that if you posted under your own name, you would take a little bit more time rephrasing some of the hasty, nastier things you have said. Not that you should cut out the critical comments, but that you might give them at least a light dusting of icing sugar to help them go down. It would be much harder for people to dismiss you out of hand if you weren't so dismissive yourself. People would still hear your criticisms, but would take them on board more readily if they sense that you have made an effort to understand their difficulties and you share their passion.
Finally, if you really can't find anything positive to say, perhaps it's better to say nothing at all?
Cheers
Grant
Sayonara
Fri, 14 July 2000, 12:34 pmWalter Plinge
You give up Gary? Me too.
Ever get the feeling people don't actually READ what you've written?
Like, people just jump up and down and scream and yell because every written word on this public site is a personal attack on them.
I will say this once more. I'm not likely to post anything more on this site after this anyway (don't think of this as anything personal, Grant, Jarrod etc)
{This goes out to Jay and Louise in particular}
Never once was it stated by anyone that you are not allowed to express your own OPINIONS.
Never once did anyone say you have to present your resume, have a degree or be of a certain age to express your OPINIONS.
But, to me at least, (and this is only my OPINION) there is a difference between PERSONAL OPINION and a REVIEW. If a review is written well it shouldn't matter whether the reviewer LIKED the show or not. A good reviewer (even if they are anonymous) should be able to present a balanced critique of a show and by USING their own knowledge and experience as background to the review PROVE that they HAVE some knowledge and experience.
Everyone has an opinion. Dime a dozen. That's not the job of a reviewer. A reviewer addresses the pros and cons of a show, what worked and what didn't and what could have been changed. A reviewer is familiar with the style of the play, technical aspects and the company that produced the show (notice I said FAMILIAR, not EXPERT). A reviewer reviews a show to spark other people's interest so they will want to see it and form their OWN OPINIONS.
Everything I have written on this site is MY opinion.
And nothing I have ever written is a personal attack. Never, ever think of it as such.
However, I am sick of constantly rephrasing myself, defending what I say and making sure no one gets upset. I am sick of the bitchiness that goes on not only on this site but in the whole theatre community. I know this is the nature of the beast and that it is the same everywhere, but I've had enough.
Think what you like, I'm out of here.
"I may be gone for some time".
~T.S.
Ever get the feeling people don't actually READ what you've written?
Like, people just jump up and down and scream and yell because every written word on this public site is a personal attack on them.
I will say this once more. I'm not likely to post anything more on this site after this anyway (don't think of this as anything personal, Grant, Jarrod etc)
{This goes out to Jay and Louise in particular}
Never once was it stated by anyone that you are not allowed to express your own OPINIONS.
Never once did anyone say you have to present your resume, have a degree or be of a certain age to express your OPINIONS.
But, to me at least, (and this is only my OPINION) there is a difference between PERSONAL OPINION and a REVIEW. If a review is written well it shouldn't matter whether the reviewer LIKED the show or not. A good reviewer (even if they are anonymous) should be able to present a balanced critique of a show and by USING their own knowledge and experience as background to the review PROVE that they HAVE some knowledge and experience.
Everyone has an opinion. Dime a dozen. That's not the job of a reviewer. A reviewer addresses the pros and cons of a show, what worked and what didn't and what could have been changed. A reviewer is familiar with the style of the play, technical aspects and the company that produced the show (notice I said FAMILIAR, not EXPERT). A reviewer reviews a show to spark other people's interest so they will want to see it and form their OWN OPINIONS.
Everything I have written on this site is MY opinion.
And nothing I have ever written is a personal attack. Never, ever think of it as such.
However, I am sick of constantly rephrasing myself, defending what I say and making sure no one gets upset. I am sick of the bitchiness that goes on not only on this site but in the whole theatre community. I know this is the nature of the beast and that it is the same everywhere, but I've had enough.
Think what you like, I'm out of here.
"I may be gone for some time".
~T.S.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···