...Wrote a piece about, say, LGBT coming out plays. He's weary of them, because they only make it look positive. And then went off on a tear about his own traumatic experience, with a detailed account. Or even the opposite, an account that makes the plays addressing the subject pale next to his. Imagine, employing his own personal narrative in the NY Times as an entreaty for dramatic content in plays yet to be produced, or even written. I daresay, few would find it appropriate. Or at the very least, few would find the explication germane to the reviewer's position. Again, it's not about presumption of objectivity; it's about employing subjective reasoning to wade into artistic programming decisions.
As a female theater director said to me last night, appalled by this article (though not enamored with the same two plays I mentioned): Just because abuse is the topic du jour doesn't make it appropriate to fold in personal, anecdotal evidence in favor of another POV.
I respect your position, and find this debate worth having. Yet we won't agree on this. Again, per the director: those who create art tend to see this more threateningly. This practice could even invite theaters to read (NY Times) reviewer preferences prior to choosing works. It's not impossible to imagine. Maybe some find that acceptable. Certainly some playwrights and directors do not. I'll leave my take there. |
