POSTED 2005

The Internet is making some interesting things happen. Among them, it's turning non-critics into critics simply by making web sites available to anyone wishing to post their opinions. (Um....like this one.) With the help of Google, suddenly any old person's rants about the merits of a restaurant, film, ball team or play can be known by the world. Suddenly, previous unknowns in the critical field emerge as distinct "personalities."

Take Matthew A. Everett.

I had never heard of him before I started Googling some Twin Cities artists and theaters and his review column, In My Humble Opinion started popping up everywhere. Whether Mr. Everett ever intended to be considered a "reviewer" or whether he is simply posting his daily thoughts online, it doesn't matter. Google is making him a reviewer. That is why paid, professional reviewers sit alongside amateur web authors in this experiment: the Internet is leveling the field of criticism.

Everett has more impressive theatrical credits that many Twin Cities critics discussed here. An M.A. from the Yale School of Drama sure isn't shabby and he seems to be a successful writer. I'm not 100% sure but it doesn't seem like anyone is employing him to review, he just writes on his own blog.

I'll give him points of the title of his column. Not too many critics these days wish to fess up that they are actually writing simply a personal OPINION and --- wow --- a critic being humble???? Good for you Matthew. But what points I give him for his self-effacement, I'll partially take away from his reviews. They read like director's notes. They are short --- paragraphs usually consisting of only a couple of sentences --- and almost seem like sound bites. Apparently the desire to see every darn show at the Fringe left him little time to write much of substance about any one show.

And here is where my own powers of criticism will falter because I am going to say what I don't like about his reviews and then I'll probably fail at explaining my opinion fully:

They're boring.

They really are. In attempting to read enough to get a feel for his style, I found my eyes glazing over more than once. They seem rather technical --- I feel like I have stumbled upon a note-giving session at the end of a rehearsal. There doesn't seem to be much interest in connecting with the reader and painting a complete picture of his theater-going experience. Ironically, he even takes the humble thing too far with wishy-washy pans that are frequently qualified by saying "well, it didn't work for me."

Having said that, I'll go back to giving him points for obviously having genuine knowledge of theater and a desire to support the artists instead of pursuing a personal agenda. You get the feeling he is excited about giving each play a fair shot and that he is not in love with his own writing skills.

But ultimately, the reviews come across has hastily typed sketches rather than thoroughly thought-out opinion pieces. This surprises me since Mr. Everett has the most impressive writing/theater credentials of the group I've discussed. Maybe it is just a blog, but I guess I was expecting more.

Let that be a lesson to all who post random thoughts online: someone may take you more seriously than you had intended!

Read In My Humble Opion

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