Todd London writes in his letter (posted below, just scroll down) that the primary job of a reviewer is to watch and evaluate a work on its own terms. Do you agree? Why or why not? (and if you want more grist for the mill, look at Terry's review of Well in which he criticizes for not being a play while the writer/star tells the audience during the show that what they are watching isn't a "play" in the traditional so many times that it becomes a running gag in the show)
I'm honestly not sure how to answer the question, which is why I throw it to you, the noble hive mind to explore it.