On Reviews

The reviews came out for my Chicago production.

At first, I didn't want to look at them. But I thought about Dietz, who reads his worst reviews out loud in class. And I thought about Halena Kays, whose response to rough moments tends to be "rub dirt in it." And so I looked.

They weren't good -- "eviscerating" is the word that comes to mind. "Embarrassing" is another.

What to do? I could say "reviewers don't know anything -- let's see THEM write a play, clearly they didn't see all the nuanced, sophisticated things I was doing. I could say "I'll never read reviews again" or "They don't know what they're talking about" or "I can't define success by what a couple of people tell me" or "I'm a terrible playwright, my career is over." And honestly, I said all of these things, in quick succession.

Then I rubbed dirt in it.

Because the thing is, there were some common threads in what the reviewers had to say...some underlying dissatisfactions, places where they were pointing out problems I'd tried to solve but know I didn't solve...because I wasn't sure how to solve them.

The question, I think, is this: "do I treat these reviews as a verdict leveled on a finished product, where I now take my lumps and go home, or are these reviews an opportunity?"

The reviews gave me some new lenses through which to view my play. These are people who don't love me, who don't know me, who haven't seen the multiple drafts of the play, who don't know my intentions. And the fact is, they saw the play and still don't know my intentions. Which means I have work to do. And their reviews are a tool I can use to do that work.

I always argue that I learn as much from going to see bad plays as good plays -- often more. I think the same, in this case, is true of bad reviews. They took apart my play, but insodoing, they're giving me a way to put it back together.