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

the show is.
    Howard Shapiro: Some people say that you can’t write a piece of criticism with only 500 words, but I don’t really see any difference. I don’t see a difference in the old term drama critic either. We all do the same thing.
    Jesse Oxfeld: What I did for the Observer was really being a reviewer, not a critic. Criticism is not service journalism. Criticism is engaging with the art form and having a conversation with the artist. Reviewing is saying, “This was nicely done, and it’s worth your money.” There was a period of time when I would call myself the New York Observer ’s theater reviewer instead of its theater critic, but the distinction was just too tiresome to make.
    Andy Propst: It comes down to how you view your own work. On my best days, I approach criticism. On the worst, I’m a reviewer.
    Ben Brantley: The terms are used pretty much interchangeably. My title is chief theater critic. I think criticism is not consumer reports. It should give a little more. It should let the reader figure out for himself or herself how they would respond were they in the critic’s shoes, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the critic.
    Chris Jones: I consider myself a critic. It’s true that I write for a daily newspaper, so maybe my criticism is not as considered, and it does not have the hindsight of history. It’s immediate, but I don’t think that makes it any less valuable.
    Peter Filichia: The critic tells the show’s creators where they’ve gone wrong. The reviewer tells people whether a show is worth their time and money. For newspapers, I’m a reviewer. In my books, I’m a critic. A lot of pros in the business tell me that they enjoy reading what I write because I try to find solutions for problems in a show. It’s not enough for a critic to say that something stinks.
    Roma Torre: A reviewer is somebody who just says whether a show is good or bad without going into any real depth. A critic is somebody who analyzes the show in a methodical fashion. I hate to admit it, but I am more of a reviewer—only by virtue of the time and space limitations that have been imposed upon me. It’s thoroughly disconcerting to me because I have so much more I want to say about each work I see. On the other hand, it has forced me to be far more economical in my writing. I have very little room to wax poetic on anything. It’s a constant frustration, but it’s the nature of the beast.
    Adam Feldman: The critic may have his or her own set of standards stemming from a particular approach. That can often be seen in academic work, where people delve into a particular work of art or a set of works within a specific intellectual context. They often have more space in which to do it, and it can be more analytical and have less to do with a recommendation or non-recommendation. For those of us who write reviews fairly quickly, it’s a balancing act to describe what the show is and let audience members find the right shows for themselves while also making critical judgments about the quality of shows.
    Scott Brown: That’s a pretty artificial distinction. What’s important is that you’re saying something that’s relevant and interesting, and that you’re fully engaged with the material. I don’t want to be preachy and say, “Theater reviewers just check the boxes of what the show did or didn’t do and have snarky comments, while theater critics spin glorious curlicues of wisdom into the air.” It varies show to show, too. I’ve turned in things that were just reviews and other things that might be classified as criticism.
    Jesse Green: I prefer to be called a critic. That said, I don’t think criticism (as I would define the term) really exists anymore. I may be disrespecting the great work of many people, but if criticism does still exist, it’s not popular. I’m sure there are academic journals where you can find drama criticism, but the only thing I would like reading less than a manual on how