Posted: 1/26/24 at 12:53pm
His book is on sale in the lobby!
Must admit, I enjoy Elizabeth reviews more. Critics Pix
Posted: 1/26/24 at 1:03pm
100%. The question shouldn't even have to be asked.
I'm sure that's why he didn't review DAYS OF WINE & ROSES at the Atlantic or PIAZZA at Encores, either. (He also wrote an extensive NYT profile on Guettel in '03)
Such journalistic standards don't exist everywhere, though. Variety, for example: Marilyn Stasio reviewed the '17 revival of DOLLY after cowriting Jerry Herman's memoir, and they hired Ayana Prescod to review certain Broadway shows in the same season where she was involved with producing other shows.
Posted: 1/27/24 at 5:21pm
Two points, one nitpicking.
1. Recuse refers to when one bows out of judging something because they feel uncomfortable doing so for some reason (typically an appearance of impropriety). One is not recused by someone else as the word is used in the subject line. If a person is, by rule or policy or simply one's boss, prohibited from judging something (a critic being a judge in this context), then they are removed, unassigned, replaced, etc., but not recused.
2. I do not believe that the examples mentioned in this thread would constitute per se reasons for removal as a conflict of interest. My guess is that the chief critic makes this call, perhaps with input of the editor, but that it is not a removal (or a recusal). Were every critic who has worked with, or is friends with, etc., someone significant in a production, prevented from reviewing their work, we would not have a lot of reviews that are well-known to many of us, going back (within my knowledge) to Atkinson who would have written just a patchwork quilt.There are cases of actual prohibition but I would be very surprised if that's what is happening here.
Posted: 1/28/24 at 7:44pm
I saw him at opening night but asssumed he wasn't reviewing with the book on sale and that he hasn't published any thoughts or reviews that I've seen so far.
Updated On: 1/28/24 at 07:44 PM
Posted: 2/4/24 at 11:34am
Based on the reviews, maybe it should be rescued instead of recused.
(I kid, I kid. Kinda.)
Posted: 2/4/24 at 12:32pm
HogansHero said: "Two points, one nitpicking.
1. Recuse refers to when one bows out of judging something because they feel uncomfortable doing so for some reason (typically an appearance of impropriety). One is not recused by someone else as the word is used in the subject line. If a person is, by rule or policy or simply one's boss, prohibited from judging something (a critic being a judge in this context), then they are removed, unassigned, replaced, etc., but not recused.
"
If you're going to nitpick then so will I. Although the word "recuse" typically refers to pulling oneself out of something, people can be recused. In the legal world, there can be a motion to recuse someone if there's a perceived conflict of interest and sometimes that is settled by a judge (or if it's a judge in conflict, by another judge). As noted in this definition, it says "oneself or another person": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recuse
Now I don't think that is the situation here but just pointing out that the term recuse is not always an act by oneself.
Posted: 2/4/24 at 12:46pm
a permanent recusal would be nice.
Posted: 2/5/24 at 12:39am
@Mr. Wormwood,
<sigh> I suspect this is why our mothers tried to persuade us to avoid nitpicking. :-) Unfortunately, there remain some nits. First, if you look at Merriam Webster rather than dictionary.com, you might agree that "recuse" implies "oneself." Second, I don't think the legal analogy helps you. In Federal Court, there is a statute that provides for "disqualification" (and removal if there remains an issue) for enumerated actual conflicts of interest. Everything else is left to the judge's discretion. (In New York, there is also a distinction between (a longer list of) actual conflicts and things that fall within the judge's discretion based on appearances. Conveniently, the NY law does not include the word "recuse" within it.) Finally, perhaps we can both agree with the sentiment expressed by Impeach2017. (I do.) :-)
