By Jim Berg

He makes no friends who never made a foe.
Tennyson

A director, in a fit of anger about a bad review that squarely placed responsibility on his shoulders, promised to withdraw all support for the publication that ran the review, and do everything within his power to get others to withdraw their support for the publication, i.e., dissuade potential advertisers.

This scenario is not unusual. The decision to publish a bad review is not taken lightly, especially by this publication. One of the primary reasons that this magazine exists is to support the creative community, including live theater. One of the ways to support theater is to review shows, which gives needed publicity to theaters at no cost to them. A dilemma is created when a bad show is produced. The question arises as to whether or not it is being supportive to publish a bad review. We, the editorial decision-makers at NoHo Magazine, have decided that, yes, it is supportive of the creative community to publish a bad review, and while it may not seem very good to those on the receiving end of a bad review, it is good for the creative community at large.

A bad review begins with a bad show, or at least a show that is judged to be bad by the critic who sees it. Whether or not a critic’s judgement is sound is something that readers have to decide for themselves. Generally, a review contains the grounds for the critic’s opinion, but, ultimately, the way to evaluate a critic’s judgement is to see the show and compare notes. The critic’s opinion is only one opinion, but it is the opinion that gets published. When I, as publisher, decide to publish a review, bad or good, I am making a commitment to the critic’s judgement. If I don’t have confidence in the critic’s judgement, the review does not appear in the pages of this magazine.

If a show is bad, I could choose not to publish the bad review. I could decide to publish only good reviews, and simply ignore the bad ones, but I think that this would be a disservice to the readers of the magazine. If I have information that might serve the readers of this magazine, I feel a certain obligation to publish it. But it’s not really an obligation—it’s doing what I choose to do as a publisher, which is inform the readership. Personally, I don’t like bad theater—and I get to see it for free. I would really resent paying $15 to see a bad play, so I feel a duty to inform people—to warn people—about bad theater. Again, I must emphasize that the opinions expressed in this magazine are the opinions of the writers. They carry no greater validity that any other opinion, and it is entirely up to the reader to decide what weight to give them.

This position is ultimately good for the creative community as a whole. By publishing good and bad reviews, a discussion is created, and occasionally, some controversy. Art is about ideas, and like the tree that falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound unless someone is there to hear it. We at NoHo Magazine hope to make some noise in the forest of ideas, and if we have to fell a few trees to do it, so be it.