Read The Critics Say...: 57 Theater Reviewers in New York and Beyond Discuss Their Craft and Its Future for Free Online

He often wrote about very real issues that nobody else would touch—the stuff that’s very tricky to deal with—but he wrote about it with such a lack of empathy.
    Robert Faires: Benedict Nightingale influenced me very early on. There was a period when he left England and spent a year writing in New York. Out of that, he produced a book called Fifth Row Center , about not being in his home country and trying to understand theater from a different perspective. It really struck a personal chord with me. I had a sense of both the work he had seen and of his personal journey through that work. I can’t say I’ve stayed on top of his work throughout the years, but I do find myself going back to that book periodically, reading passages from it, and finding it very inspiring.
    MATT WINDMAN: Is there any kind of difference between the titles of theater critic and theater reviewer?
    Jeremy Gerard: It’s just semantic bullshit.
    Zachary Stewart: While the former title suggests an effort to critique a work within the context of theatrical tradition and the latter suggests something closer to a consumer report, it actually really depends on the branding of the publication (with critic connoting something more highbrow).
    John Simon: This is something I’ve always been fairly fastidious about. Reviewers—either because it’s their kind of mentality, or because it’s the kind of job they have, and it’s what is expected of them—manage to like a whole lot of pretty cheesy, wretched things. It may be purely to stay at their jobs. The Daily News , or perhaps even the Times , couldn’t stand to give as many bad reviews for so many things that a true critic would have to give.
    Elizabeth Vincentelli: Some people say the reviewer is more of a consumer guide. They see the reviewer as having a lesser status than the critic, who’s highbrow. I think that’s very self-serving—as is so much in theater. It’s bullshit.
    David Cote: A review gives a quick impression of what the show is. It is written under greater time constraints, and probably with less intellectual energy expended and less context. The critic writes longer, and isn’t concerned with spoiling elements of the plot. There’s more space in criticism, but that doesn’t necessarily make it more valuable or insightful than a review. I write reviews, but there’s criticism embedded in the review.
    Michael Dale: I think we mostly use the term critic because it’s short and sweet, but reviewer is probably more accurate. Critic implies that the writer is offering a complete analysis of every aspect of the production. But given the limitations of time and space, that’s impossible to do on a regular basis. Reviewer implies that you’re simply giving an overview of what you saw.
    Steve Suskin: A theater critic isn’t so much concerned about the plot as a show’s value and what it’s like. Walter Kerr was a critic. John Chapman and Burns Mantle of the Daily News were reporters. They were giving reports to their readers. They weren’t giving keen, analytical viewpoints. The question being asked was, “Should you see it or not?” The theater reviewer is really a theater reporter. A reporter covers the show and tells you what it’s about and who’s in it.
    Don Aucoin: I respond directly to the work in front of me and spread the word to my readers as quickly as possible. Whether that makes me a reviewer or a critic is not important to me.
    Helen Shaw: A reviewer writes about something that is still open and includes a directive of “go” or “don’t go” to the show. Criticism is what happens as soon as the show has become history. If you find yourself writing about a production that you saw last year, which no one will ever have a chance to see again, that’s de facto criticism. I am a reviewer who wants to be a critic. I hope my writing will be useful after the show has closed, but I also want to issue an invitation to people to come and be changed by whatever