Analysis gives readers the opportunity to evaluate a critic's judgment, to see if he or she can make sense of his reactions to a show . Readers and theater companies don't have to agree with me, but I should reinforce my case with arguments and evidence. If not, I am a blurber rather than an evaluator. Theater criticism has a role to play as a pragmatic consumer guide. But that doesn't mean critics have to accept the demeaning role so readily.
Reviewers have to cram more matter into less and less space.
Few publications give their theater critics room enough to develop their views or forge an argument. I can expound but not explicate. But technology has changed these restrictions. I want to suggest a course of action for reviewers who are genuinely concerned about serving the theater and the responsibilities of criticism. The writer wouldn't have to add points to every posted review, only those he thinks needs expansion, where a fuller consideration of the acting or the script is called for.