|
There was a movement in the
70's to establish non-sexist pronouns in public discourse. I worked for an
alternative newspaper at that time where we adopted words I can no longer
remember to mean "his/hers," "he/she," and
"him/her." Obviously the movement died.
These days, working for a
latter-day alternative newspaper, I sometimes submit articles using
"s/he," and depending on the copy editor it gets printed. In my
personal journals and letters I use "hier" for "his/her" and
"heim" for "her/him," but I don't expect to see these move
into standard use any time soon. However, I think there is a need.
Meanwhile, as a former
small-theater producer, a neglected playwright, and, in these days of shrinking
arts funding, an only-occasionally employed actor, I've found a paying gig
writing reviews, among other things, for an arts and opinion weekly. My regular
beat is the local LORT company here in
Norfolk, VA, based on my experience--27 produced scripts and my Equity card. I
have ambiguous feelings about this, having dissed the breed of reviewer/critic
rather roundly in my past, so I guess it's karmic justice. In any case I can say
how I go about my work.
First, after 20+ years in the
profession, most of that pretty much full-time, I am qualified to write about
theater from the point of view of the art of it--writing, acting, design, and
how well they come together to serve the play and the audience. Many reviewers
I've known are reporters who cover the police one night, see a play the next, go
to city council and school board meetings after that, etc. If they ever become
"critics," it's over time, when I've also seen some of them become
pretty reliable touchstones of how a community in general is likely to receive a
piece. I perceive that they are writing from the perspective of their
newspaper's often unspoken understanding of contemporary community standards.
That doesn't necessarily make them good judges of new or even contemporary work,
however, and, additionally, often what they write depends on their mood on any
given night, which can turn on whether their paper is paying them for the time
they're in the theater. Many papers do not.
For my part, I imagine most
of my readers to be theater people and my most involved readers to be those
associated with the play being discussed. I know how it feels to get a bad
review, so I try not to give one, or try to say something positive for every
negative. That's not always possible, of course, because I need to be impartial
and honest above all else and kiss no ass--an integrity issue. But the need to
be kind is next, also an integrity issue. And I always assume I am an advocate
for theater, especially good theater. Good theater involves an audience member
in what's happening on stage. It stays with "heim" after the show is
over and, if it's really good, for a long time after that. Artistry makes that
happen more effectively, but, as has often been noted, an amateur production
covered with warts but bursting with heart often tops a professional production
coasting on flawless technique. I want to see theater with heart, which revives
my passion for love and life and, ultimately, expands my world. I'd like every
play I see to successfully accomplish those things so I can write all rave
reviews. That doesn't happen, of course, and the less it happens for me with any
given show the less positive review I'll (regretfully) write.
Those are my principal
thoughts on current RAT subjects.
D.D. Delaney
|