Drama outside the theater: ART vs. local critic

I appreciate your comment, even though I disagree with much of it. Just so you know, the Boston theatre community has decided that serious bloggers should be accorded "professional" status (I'll explain why I'm using those quotes in a minute). Of course a theatre can't hand out free tickets to anyone who claims they're a blogger, but if a blogger produces reviews regularly and can demonstrate an audience, local theatres generally offer comps.

Contrary to popular opinion, it's draining work maintaining a blog over the long haul, and there really has been no explosion of online writing about Boston culture as a result. I'm probably unique among the city's handful of cultural bloggers in that I maintain a sizeable audience, and my influence extends far beyond that readership. When I notice a performer, or a company, for instance, they're soon recognized generally, and I've been the leader in turning around the reputations of more than one major organization. And as a result, I get comps basically everywhere I want to go except the ART and Company One. Indeed, what's funniest about this whole imbroglio is that several of the theatres who signed that letter against me actually expected me to keep on reviewing them! They were surprised and dismayed when I refused their comps. I'm not quite sure how that was supposed to work, but there you have it - I'm refusing their free tickets at this point.

I also want to comment just briefly on your apparent idea of critical "professionalism." First off - there is no more critical profession. There is only one full-time theatre critic in Boston, at the Globe; everyone else is a freelancer, essentially. Almost all the IRNE critics are bloggers, just like me, or work piecemeal (hence their fear of Kati Mitchell). There's no profession.

And even when the "profession" existed, it was riddled with corruption and back-room politics that in my current incarnation I'm able to dodge. Believe me, I know, I wrote for the major local daily. Certainly I felt all kinds of pressure while I was writing for them. Why do you think Kati Mitchell thought she could get away with these tactics? Because she very likely has gotten away with this kind of thing before; you just never heard about it.

Thanks, btw, for calling me "insightful and erudite," and sorry I disappoint you by so often calling a spade a spade, but I'm afraid I'm never going to write like Caldwell Titcomb, and that's just that. I will always write about those whose actions deserve my anger and contempt with, yes, anger and contempt. You're quite right that doing so at a major paper would get me fired - but it's odd you don't appreciate how dismaying that is! That's what is wrong with print criticism, not what's right about it.

Believe me, sometimes I miss being a "professional" - but at the same time, the fact I'm not trying to make any money at this, or build a career, etc., gives me an incredible degree of freedom that no other local critic has - or perhaps has ever had. And I like to think my brains and critical talent do the rest. For after all - why, do you think, the ART should be so concerned about one little blog? They cut off my press tickets ages ago, after all - why are they trying to simply silence me? Because, of course, my arguments against them are extremely persuasive, and by now thousands of people are reading them.