Isherwood opts not to apologize for being an idiot

[newintown]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 10:21am

As they say in Paris, quel moron.

He's clearly too dim to realize that reviewing a play is more than mere summary. Sadly, this ignorance is shared by many of his colleagues.

How not to be a reviewer Updated On: 4/1/11 at 10:21 AM

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 11:16am

I'll take Isherwood over Brantley any day.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 11:47am

"As they say in Paris, quel moron. "

I think they say, quel imbécile.

But whatever the language, the appellation is apt.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 12:47pm

After Eight, many do say quel imbécile. Some say quel débile. But my Parisian amis say quel moron.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 1:28pm

newintown: sorry, but i think your interpretation of isherwood's blog post is strained:

(1) isherwood has focused his piece on a particular aspect of criticism ... he doesn't really suggest anywhere that he believes it to be the *only* part of the critic's job.

(2) words like "idiot" and "moron" imho are excessive ... while it's perfectly reasonable to reject isherwood's criticism, terms like these suggest (to me, at least) a lack of knowledge that in isherwood's case certainly isn't warranted. again, one can disagree with his criticism, but there probably is no serious case to be made that the man doesn't understand his subject matter (i.e., is an "idiot" or a "moron").

i'm not an ardent isherwood fan, but not really a hater, either ... i think he does an OK job, and i thought his blog post was interesting.

just my $0.02 -- no doubt worth exactly that. :)

[newintown]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 1:43pm

All fair, whatever, I can certainly elaborate.

I consistently find Isherwood's reviews to consist of roughly 3/8 synopsis (often with significant errors) and 1/8 subjective opinion (lowbrow, by my individual standards). He isn't a critic, he's just a daily reviewer, so I don't expect cogent analysis from him. But I would expect him to actually use his brain and provide more evaluation, rather than just a summary of events onstage.

He also projects an image of a rather ignorant person pretending to be an intellectual, often stumbling over awkward syntax he has created in an effort to sound almost academic.

And thus the use of moron. He himself lives by the ill-mannered put-down, often whimsically impeding the careers of beginning writers, directors, and actors; there is no reason not to apply put-downs to him as well. Whatever he may say or have said about millionaires (Taymor, Bono, Elton John, Shaiman/Wittman, Mantello, etc.) is, of course, of absolutely no importance. Those people will remain rich and influential no matter what he writes.

But he really ought to exercise much more self control when discussing artists just starting out. Those careers are easily damaged.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 2:47pm

harsh!

but: fair enough back at ya ...

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 2:56pm

Isherwood's just didn't like "The Other Place" too much. It's not a great review but I don't understand why you're focusing on him in particular. What seemed genuinely and mystifyingly snide to me was Eric Grode's profile of the play's author in the The New York Times.
Creating Plays, but Holding On to the Day Job

[newintown]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 3:01pm

Only focusing on him in this thread because he forgives his own bad writing in the article linked in the first post.

I make no secret that, barring Feingold, my opinion of the daily/weekly reviewers in the NY area is very low. In my opinion, they all do their jobs very poorly.

Express this sentiment on the other board, however, and watch the screaming start - there are many low-rent reviewers and wanna-be-reviewers there, and they all think the position is sacrosanct.