I have read enough pernicious theatre reviews done by Keiran King and Marcia Rowe, to have been motivated to write this letter. A number of things irritate me including the fact that little effort is spent on actually critiquing the plays. That the writers of the reviews have more than adequate use of the English vocabulary is overly evident. Pleonasm is, however, totally unnecessary and in local parlance is rather 'buttu-ish'.

If it is that the reviews are meant to exclude a certain type of audience this is very unfortunate. Readers who are able to wade through the abuse of sesquipidalian words are sure to agree that simplicity is often the best way to exhibit mastery. Is the objective of the review to ascertain whether I know where to locate my dictionary? Well, obviously, I do and would rather spend the time gaining additional insight into existing productions.

I am also disturbed that the reviews consistently prescribe approaches to theatrical work, often citing Greek, Shakespearean, and in the more modern context, European modes. Your reviewers have clearly done some reading, but based on their crude application are definitely not percipient. I have never known the winners of the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer, or any other individual who has been recognised for ground-breaking work, earning that right through mimicry.

It may be that had your writers invested some time in appreciating the socio-ideological context of the works they so nauseatingly use as a benchmark, they would be alarmed to find that they are simply resounding the cynicism levelled at the same works of which they make reference. The saying 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' is quite applicable here.

When did theatre become restricted to quantitative expressions which are then reproducible through measurements and tests? Or did some 'Greek god of theatre' come down and declare your reviewers the proctors of Jamaican theatre? As an avid theatre goer I view all genres of work and believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with personal taste. It is, however, quite unprofessional of your reviewers to bash constantly the products for which they have no liking and incorrectly assert that individuals of a certain class dislike as well.

One recent review by King insinuated that he wanted to throw bottles on the stage and thus, irresponsibly introduced the idea of an audience engaging in acts of violence. I was appalled. The Broadcasting Commission clamps down on music and videos which suggest violent and lewd acts, but it is okay for writers in the print media to do so?

Let me be clear, criticism is a necessary evil. However, critical observation does not need to be offensive in order to be impactful. Given their penchant for replication, I recommend that King and Rowe take a short course or at least do some research into previous and existing approaches to theatre criticism.

I am, etc.,

JENNIFER JACKSON

jenniferjackson123777@yahoo.com

Gwendon Park Avenue

Norbrook