Responding to Steven Leigh Morris

Steven Leigh Morris- critic for the L.A. Weekly, playwright, former guest-blogger for Playgoer- has some serious objections to Critic-O-Meter which he writes about here.  It will probably surprise readers not one bit that I have objections to his objections (obviously, if I agreed with them, I wouldn't have built the site)!

First, I will say, there are some good suggestions in his article, things that Rob and I were intending on including in the site and haven't gotten around to yet for one reason or another.  Of course, they're not phrased as suggestions but rather as complaints, but that's okay, that's Morris' prerogative and there's no way for him to know that Rob and I were always intending to add certain features to the site. The main suggestion, which is something we're working on doing, is writing about the quality of the critics we're reading.  We haven't incorporated this (although we intend to) for two reasons: first, the site is very new and many of the critics are relatively new to us, we want to feel like we have some feeling for them as writers as well some data on how they rate shows before we start discussing them publicly.  The other is that as Morris himself notes, Critic-O-Meter is currently a labor of love, and Rob and my time is pretty limited. As we get used to doing Critic-O-Meter and creating things like plug-and-play post templates etc, it gets easier and that frees up time to focus on other things.

Another problem he has is that Critic-O-Meter does not contain a regular feature on a similar L.A. themed site called "Bitter Lemons".  Quoth the Morris: "Bitter Lemons also includes commentary in a section aptly named “Ponderings,” which engages in some discussion, local and national, of what’s happening in the theater world. In some instances, it also puts the critics themselves on the hot seat."  There's a good reason that neither Rob nor I do that on Critic-O-Meter: We both have our own blogs, and on our own blogs we discuss these issues when we want to. Hell, I fucking called for Charles Isherwood to be fired during the Broadway Strike. My blog has a higher readership than Critic-O-Meter and I am now blogging for TONY which gives me a paid outlet for substantive thoughts about NY Theatre; Rob is himself a reviewer, which gives him opportunity to discuss these issues.

I suspect, however, that Steven's real problem- since he returns to it a couple of times- is that we don't weight the reviews and at least for now include as many reviews as we can find.  He writes in the first paragraph: "They are not grading the critic — his or her qualifications, experience, intelligence or capacity to place the production in a meaningful or relevant context. Rather, they are simply accepting the review — whether from The New York Times, Variety or the latest fellow with his own Web site — and attaching a letter grade reflecting that reviewer’s opinion."  And again: "the cumulative scores treat all critics equally, regardless of a publication’s rigor or a critic’s experience. Web site reviews carry the same weight as those in The New York Times".

While I hope in the future that Rob and I will start talking more about which reviewers to include and which not to include, I doubt my list and Steven's would measure up, because I'd cut a few print reviewers, a couple of them venerable from my list.  And my list would be different from Rob's. Furthermore, I'll admit the implicit elitism of this argument frankly rankles me.  I think, for example, that the early Playgoer reviews (from before when Garret started getting freelance reviewing work) were superior to a lot of what was going on in print. I thought the same of George's work before he wrote for the Times. (I mention these not to imply their work got worse later, but rather to take a period when they weren't appearing in print). 

In other words, I feel reading Steven's piece that he feels threatened by the venture because it equates Print Reviewers (like him) with Bloggers (like me).  But this has always been my project since I started blogging.  I don't think that writing for the Times or TONY or LA Weekly or the Voice inherently means anything about the quality of your work, the proof should be in the pudding as they say. I've just created a better organized way to do it.  In other words, the thing he's complaining about is a feature, not a bug (and that renders this a somewhat unresolvable argument).

The second thing that rankles me is that this argument is draped in looking our for artist's best interests, to which all I can say is: Spare me the concern trollery.  I'm a working artist. Every working artist I've talked to about this has been excited by it, with the exception of Silent Nick.  The original idea was suggested by a playwright. For years I've been talking with my fellow artists here on the blog and in private who have said that they wanted to find a way to have a conversation about plays that wasn't dominated by The Times, holding up London's four relatively-equal dailies as a model.  Critic-O-Meter was created in part to address a need that had been expressed regularly over the last five years by artists.  And, frankly, I get suspicious when critics claim to speak on behalf of artists to advance an agenda.

Adding...(I should probably note that Steven Leigh Morris is actually a working artist, but given that the piece he wrote is from a critic's perspective and not a critic/practitioner's perspective, I felt the last line of this post was justified. Furthermore, I should also not, since Morris doesn't, that Critic-O-Meter, when in Beta form, aggregated the reviews for a play that Morris himself wrote. It's score was  C+/B-, based on  four reviews.  We no longer aggregate plays when we can only find four reviews- our current cut-off is five- because we feel that that's not enough data to really get a picture of what's going on)

UPDATE: Rob also responds here, in the comments to Rob's post, Steven says that he was giving Critic-O-Meter a "B" and we interpreted it as a D or an F.  Considering he called it insulting to artists, and part of a growing trend that was bad for both criticism, theatre and American culture at large and compared it both to the Zagat Guide at the No Child Left Behind Act, I think the inference that it was a fairly negative critique was justified on Rob and my part. But the subjectivity of readership is part of the whole Critic-O-Meter thing... so this has now gotten so meta Charlie Kaufman could write a really depressing movie about it. 

UPDATE NUMERO DOS: Midnight Honesty at Noon has more here.

UPDATE NUMERO TRES: Steven Leigh Morris has a well-considered response in the comments, please check it out! I have to say, one of the things I prefer about blogs vs. traditional media outlets is conversations like these.  If I were to write a letter to the editor of LA Weekly it may or may not be read, and may or may not be responded to, but the most it could aspire to is being printed in the Letters to the Editor section and never talked about again by anyone ever.  Here, Steven can write something, I can write something in response, he can post a comment and on and on it goes. And the rest of you can join in as well!

I will just say this in response to what Steven writes... I was talking to a professional print writer friend yesterday and he said to me that he felt the virus that infects the blogosphere is immediate suspicion about people's motives for doing things. That it infects on some level all blogospheric writing (he is not a writer of blogs but a reader of them) and that one of the things he appreciated about Parabasis is that he can see I make an effort to resist that virus.  As Morris himself points out, in the above post I infer certain dubious and/or suspicious mental states and points of view that are not necessarily on display in his writing. I think when we do this it makes our arguments weaker rather than stronger. In other wrods... I have no idea if Morris feels threatened by the equation that is done on Critic-O-Meter between print and web critics, there are things in the article he wrote that lead me to believe that he does.  He says that he does not, that that ship sailed a long time ago, and I take him at his word.

Comments

[devilvet]

Everyone's talking criticism today. BTW, I think your reading of SLMorris' issues with Critic-O-Meter are pretty apt. I know Travis Bedard is talking about this. We have been brouhahain' in C-town about Critical stuff again too.

[Aaron]

I don't think that you guys should be focusing on *NOT* including any reviewers--that seems to work against the idea of having a Critic-O-Meter. What might work as a compromise is to aggregate the various reviews based on the *EXPERIENCE* of the critic (obviously a difficult task at this day and age).

Note, I say experience rather than medium: if Eric Grode were to start a blog in which he reviewed shows, you wouldn't want to give him the weight of a casual blogger. At the same time, you might not want to give too much credence to the new guy at New York magazine if s/he hasn't been covering theater. (I'm reminded of the tempers that flared when Caryn James, a book/TV/film critic started covering theater for NYT.) In any case, the more voices you can find.

I strongly advise reading James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds": the more voices you list (even if they're not wholly formal--for instance, why *NOT* include "Broadway & Me"?) the closer you're going to get to a fair average. Some specialized writers (like the people at Obscene Jester) may be able to appreciate a show better than the casual critic who was tasked with assigning the latest bit of shock theater. (Note how often people use the term "in-yer-face theater" but seem utterly incapable of describing what that means, or what it should.)

These aren't critiques of the site--they're suggestions. I don't see how your site could hurt anything other than one's ego.

[devilvet]

Personally I see no need to add weight to certain reviewers. If the consideration they've gotten thus far in life is not enough, too bad. Whatever weight their opinion has per show should be gleaned by individual readers. Why bother aggregating at all if certain reviews are deemed to have more value?

If from an objective POV their experience truly is deserving of such added consideration, let their work speak for itself in a fashion that it can't on corporate media conglom sites.

Experience is not always synonymus with integrity, ability, relevance or authority. Especially in our digital blogosphere. To my mind, reinforcing political paradigms in the material plane is contrary to most of these blogish endeavors. The very thing that bothers SLMorris, is the thing that has the most appeal.

Again if certain reviewers in any given town need to feel more valuable, it is not the job of Critic-O-Meter or agrregate sites like it to do that. Rather, reviewers should be talking to their employers about getting a bigger offices.

[Esther]

Just wanted to let you know that I've weighed in and I like what you're doing. Every other aspect of popular culture gets graded in this way and to argue that theatre is so fragile that it can't handle the scrutiny is offensive. It's another place to go for people who want to learn more about Broadway and off-Broadway and that can only help.

[Steven Leigh Morris]

Isaac,
Enjoyed your spirited response very much. Two counter-remarks on the issues I care most about: I think you took my remark about your giving equal weight to the NY Times and some web critic as some Custer-like stand on behalf of wounded print journalists. Like we're standing here changing our bandages and waiting for the next assault. Oh, please. That was two years ago. That war is over. Those of us left in print harbor no illusions about the bloodied state of the industry, and certainly no pseudo-superiority complexes because of it. The fear-based grandstanding that you attribute to me is a bit presumptuous, and it's also wrong. I'd fess up if it were true. The blogosphere, including Parabasis, contains some of the most perceptive writing and discussion around. Like the print media, it also contains some terrible writing. The medium isn't the issue for me; it's the brains, the passion and the experience of the writers, wherever they're writing. That's what I'm suggesting be weighted into Critic-O-Meter. How you do that, I'm not sure: I guess you'd find the standards that matter to you and plug them in. Second, I understand you don't want to see your child criticized -- if I'd framed my comments as "suggestions" rather than "complaints," I'd still be drawing fire for telling other people what to do -- which is all really beside the point. Critic-O-Meter is a symbol for something in the culture larger than itself. Who am I, on one coast, to belittle your efforts on the other? That's not my intent, and if you take it that way, I'll lob your charge of defensiveness back into your court. I love that the blog calls up multiple reviews, providing the option of instant comparison for readers; I don't like the grading, not because you're doing it, but because it reflects a trajectory in the culture that I find reductive. That's not a complaint so much about Critic-O-Meter as about what our culture has become. I think I have a right to express that, and there's no need to be offended by it, as it has comparatively little to do with you or the valuable service that you're providing. Your point about both you and Rob having your own blogs for more ruminative insights is well taken.

[Jason Grote]

I feel like Mommy and Daddy are fighting!

Seriously, I like Critic-O-Meter but haven't commented on it because I'm too busy with projects to blog, or frankly even think about any of these things. I can barely even muster the energy to think about reviews of my own plays at the moment.

Steven's points are all good -- I don't think he's being elitist -- but I also think that things manage to shake themselves out. When I read Rotten Tomatoes, for example, I take a brief glance at the percentages, but then pay more attention to certain reviewers (and yeah, I do take AO Scott more seriously than the MovieBoy, though everyone knows I don't take the NYT as the last word on anything).

I don't really like the tendency of 21st-century American culture to reduce everything to numbers or grades, but neither do I like the primacy of certain cultural outlets. I'll take the Critic-0-Meter in whatever state it's in, though honestly I choose to go to a show or not based on word-of-mouth, what I already know about the artists, and then the handful of critics and bloggers whose POV reflects my own tastes.