Thom Garvey, in a comment to me on his blog, said that he had received what appeared to be a mass e-mail. He then clarified with the Huntington and it was confirmed.
Bill Marx, in the comments section to my last post says that he confirmed it with the Huntington as well. Marx is suggesting some type of civil disobedience would be appropriate:
But who cares? The Huntington can only reques a critic not come -- the event is free and any critic, blogger, whoever can attend. Mr. Garvey simply has show up, sit, and write about what he sees. I could do the same -- it does not frighten me to dismay a theater.
This is a non-issue -- it would only have significance if a critic is
intimidated by the request, or his or her editor tells the critic not to review the show or not take in a reading.
Apparently, Mr. Garvey is afraid to go to Breaking Ground because the Huntington has not invited him.
In a comment to that post I noted that while I understand his argument, Marx appears to be sidestepping the question of whether or not he also received the same e-mail rebuff as Garvey.
As for Marx's suggestions of crashing the gate, Garvey sees this as very uncivil disobedience:
To ask that no one review a script in development is perfectly
understandable; to throw a veil over the very process of development itself is something else. And to have the supposed critical scourge of Boston seemingly pleased as punch with the effort is something else again, isn't it. (It almost makes you wonder - is Marx invited, while other critics aren't?)
As for the recommendation that I simply show up at the theatre anyway: really, Bill, only you could be such a jerk as to barge into a theatre where you weren't wanted (and even if I did so, I doubt the playwright in question would be much pleased). No wonder you call yourself persona non grata, and have obviously researched the legal questions involved!