That's what someone wrote to That Guy Who Watches Canberra Theatre, in the comment section of his review of Repertory's Don Parties On.
Ever since the Canberra Critic (remember that thing?) became a reliable source for anonymous crap-slinging in the comment section, people have become incredibly sensitive to anything written online. More than anything, this creates a vicious cycle, in which people become incredulously outraged when people criticise them anonymously, and yet people choose to post anonymously because they've seen how well certain people react to criticism.
So why do people pick and choose who to be offended by? It seems that is Bill Stephens, Alana McLean, Peter Wilkins, Helen Musa or Joe Woodward give a show a bad review, nobody bats an eyelid. Some anonymous blogger writes a few comments (quite constructively in the case of the Canberra Dilettante and the Guy Who Watches Canberra Theatre), everyone goes into an uproar? I think it's because you feel there's a tiny chance that their criticism isn't backed up by any actual theatre knowledge. Which is absurd. Even if they're not theatre veterans, they're paying audience members and they know what they liked.
This blog, which doesn't even do reviews (I figure everyone else does) has already seen comment tantrums because of things that have been written, and the fact that when things are written namelessly, they are apparently more insulting. (You make ONE comment about a not-to-be-named-again company...)
If you're going to be upset about what people write about you online (with or without a name) online, you should be just as upset when it's in the newspaper or on the radio. Otherwise, you're another ethically-inconsistent keyboard warrior, either trolling or being trolled in a comment section because you're too insecure to take the criticism on board. And if you're not going to accept people's criticism, you definitely should not accept their accolades.
(I know GIF's are someone else's thing, but this seemed appropo, so I assume it's OK)
Logical and relevant thoughts?
If you're going to be upset about what people write about you online (with or without a name) online, you should be just as upset when it's in the newspaper or on the radio. Otherwise, you're another ethically-inconsistent keyboard warrior, either trolling or being trolled in a comment section because you're too insecure to take the criticism on board. And if you're not going to accept people's criticism, you definitely should not accept their accolades.
Logical and relevant thoughts?
What is the link for the That Guy and Dilettante blogs?
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of anonymity in reviews. Knowing (as we all do) the fragility of the ego of the highly-strung Canberra Actorsaurus, the named reviewers tend to be slightly more gentle and conciliatory in their critiques because if they were savagely honest they may get home to find a possum head stapled to their front door.
Anonymity means whoever it is can be more honest, because poor fragile Actorsaurus can't seek them out and abuse them/poison their pet ferret/sob in a heap at their feet. As long as the anonymous reviewer is being honest and not just nasty for the sake of it ie "you slept with my ex you twat so I'll demonise you", it's fine. And it saves on those awkward moments in the supermarket when Named Reviewer and Actorsaurus come face to face over a pile of bok choy.
In shameless self promotion, my blog is http://cantheatrewatcher.blogspot.com.au/. Canberra Dilletante is http://canberradilettante.blogspot.com.au/.
DeleteI feel like there's an honour in a consistent pseudonym, and what that pseudoym means. I know I created my account in part in reaction to "The Canberra Critic" (my issues with them started with the use of the definitive article, as if there were no other critics that count - actually, there's as many critics as there are audience members, it's just most of them don't write things down afterwards). I didn't have a problem with the anonymity, I had a problem with the arrogance ("you need to hear my voice"). I also had a problem with the unmoderated comments policy (unmoderated comments pretty much mean free slagging) which is why I don't have one of those (I've reposted pretty much every comment I've ever gotten unless it was clearly spam or libel, but I think moderation encourages people to slow down and think about whether what they have to type is really publishable).
I'll be honest and say, it's also because I do have an involvement in some theatre in this town and I'd rather not get noses put out of joint unduly. But I have no doubt about my level of influence - if you want to get anywhere in amateur theatre in this town, it's far more important to impress, say, Duncan Ley, Jarrad West, Jordan Best, Jim McMullen or Anne Soames first...
Oh, one thing to bonus-post is that the comment that launches this is the only negative comment I've gotten in over a year of reviewing. So either there aren't that many precious fragile Actors (and Directors and Writers and Comedians and Designers - I'm sure I've picked on all of them in my time) or they just can't be bothered commenting.
DeleteI see you used a GIF. I don't condemn this. Congratulations.
ReplyDeleteSimon Tolhurst, Sarah Byrne, Lachlan Ruffy.
ReplyDeleteClose, but no cigar, Anonymous.
ReplyDeletehttp://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0z86v7SAH1qi7deco1_500.gif