To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
A review is, presumably, a service–not only to the theaters and artists but also to the audiences involved in a given production. And while Tom Boeker is entitled to his opinion, no one is served by his bilious attitude. (Except, possibly, Boeker himself.) His unfavorable reviews are so extreme and so odious that they render his favourable ones suspect. Who wants to go to a show that Tom Boeker likes? Without meaning to cast aspersions on those shows he has professed to enjoy, I ask: if Tom Boeker likes it, how good can it be? Of what possible value is a reviewer who prompts his readers to employ this perverse sort of logic?
During preparations for my company’s last production, serious thought and discussion was given to courses of action that might be taken if we were to learn that Boeker was coming to review us. Conclusion: A Boeker review is worse than no review at all. We decided we could request the Reader to send someone else, and if they couldn’t or wouldn’t comply, we’d simply decline to be reviewed. And if he arrived anyway, we wouldn’t let him in.
