Critical Ratings

I am starting the new year (that is to say, the new academic year) with a commitment to making my critical intentions clear. This blog will continue to broadcast four types of criticism. I'll even mark the type up in the labels.

Type O: Traditional Criticism (reviews, previews, interviews - the sort of thing you can get less personal versions of by reading a proper newspaper or magazine)

Type A: Churnalism (press releases, either with or without my sardonic comments. Again,you can get this in proper newspapers, although I tend to identify it rather than pretend that the press release is either my own work or the genuine research of scientific scholars)

Type AB: Experimental Criticism (not available anywhere else, aside from the output of my Young Critics classes - this group can include reviews of events that never happened, a pretty picture based on a show, anything that denies Type O)

Type B: Provocations (rather like one of those columns you get from proper newspaper, except I am less likely to believe a word that I am saying. For best results, please bear in mind the Erisian mantra: 'this is true, in some sense, this is false, in some sense, this is meaningless, in some sense.')

There is also an additional level of grouping: each piece can be RhD positive or negative.

RhD positive: concerned with issues around an event or performance, seeing it within a cultural context. We could call these extroverted.

RhD negative: focuses on the event as an end in itself.

If it lacks a RhD rating, it is most likely all about me.

Let's see how long I remember to put these warnings onto the articles. In addition, please assume that a large minority of articles will include some swearing. After I saw A Respectable Woman Turns to Vulgarity, I decided it was Big and Clever.