"Today, too many theatre reviews do little more than describe something as 'great' or 'awful'. Even when the writing is stylish, reviews will often lack the knowledge that was taken for granted a generation ago. And increasingly, editors are sending in the critical clowns in the true joke spirit of contemporary journalism......Over time, the priorities have shifted towards 'personality' writers with no background in their subject. The long, slow haul of a career as a critic, with its period of apprenticeship, dedication and accumulation of wisdom and experience is suddenly becoming a thing of the past..."

Reviewers Reviewed is a web site that seeks to assess the performance of those who assess others regularly: Twin Cities theater critics. The creator of these pages is not affilitated with any Minneapolis/St. Paul theater company, music group or artist. The writer is a theater fan who (a) believes that those who pass judgement on others' work should have the opportunity to have their own work scrutinized, and (b) believes the quality of fine arts criticism in the Twin Cities can stand some improvement.

Awhile back, I Googled a Twin Cities artist to find out more about him. One of the matches that came up can only be described as a truly meanspirited review. Not only was it mean, it was very badly written and it had been posted by someone attempting to define themselves as a legitimate critic. I felt sorry that the artist and the production had this bit of nonsense attached to their names.

Moreover, my friends and I have shared an increased displeasure with reviews that told us very little of practical interest about the plays we were thinking of seeing. Professional critics (as well as individuals who simply call themselves critics) seem far more interested in fulfilling personal agendas rather than intelligently assessing the work on stage.

That got me thinking and I was inspired to try an experiment: I plan to research numerous reviews written by Twin Cities writers and see how they stand up to basic journalism and writing standards.

My standards, no doubt, will not be as lofty as Michael Coveney's. I don't claim to be a professional critic ---- I don't even know that much about theater. But I do attend theater and look to reviews to assist my choices. I also know a little about writing and I can tell the difference between good writing and bad. What follows are my opinions and they are very open to debate. It is my hope that this site might inspire blogs and interactive dialogue that will share ideas and will ultimately improve the state of arts criticism in the Twin Cities.

First up, the reviewer who inspired the site: Steven LaVigne of The Ameriprise Financial Ivey Awards and On The Purple Circuit........

Go to review

All reviews

HOME

Steven LaVigne: of The Ameriprise Financial Ivey Awards and On The Purple Circuit

Dominic Papatola: A pro. A flawed pro, but a pro.

Derek Miller: Good reviewers found in unlikely places.

Matthew A. Everett: The Humble Reviewer

Graydon Royce: The Snide Critic

Reviewers Reviewed: When Critics Don't Agree

Reviewers Reviewed: Odds and Ends

How Reviews Can Cut Through The Hype

Unfair Arts Coverage

Why Directors Get A Raw Deal