Tony then reveals the following:
Here's the rub. Due to unforeseen circumstances, (a trip to the
emergency room) the critic was only able to see the first act. Which until now only The Wife and I, and the folks at centerstage know. So since it's a good review I could/should probably have kept shut.
The review still ran, even though the critic couldn't make the second
act. I've written before about that before. This case seems different. I don't know if it is better, but there are two differences. One, the critic had to take someone to the hospital, which is a pretty good reason to leave a show. Two, this was not a blogger free from an editorial board. As a part of the Sun-Times Media Group they have editors who, I'd assume, would have to okay anything being published. It it a unique case? (Or it is similar to Weiss' writing about partial shows a few years back.) Is it different? Or does it only seem different
because it was a good review and not a scathing one?
It has already run so there is little we can do about it.
Earlier in the week, I posted how Sinan Unel had set up a blog to discuss the disconnect between his play and a bad review he had received.
Here Tony Adams is using his internet voice to explain a disconnect in a good review he received.
The Internet, with regards to cultural journalism is definitely going to be an interesting world.