However, can you submit some evidence of what you mean by ‘establishment critics saying that no one else should be able to post a note on a blog saying something they disagree with’; i.e., attacking the SOYP blog specifically for publicizing opinions contrary to their own? Quotes tied to specific authors, with links, for example? Also, some of my own – because I can speak for myself better than I can for other people.

Also, how do you suggest we (you and I) reframe the conversation? Democratization, point of view and context are all interesting, but please expand on your points. As much as I’m tempted to tell you all I think about them, I want to be sure I know what you mean when you mention them.

The thing is, in the Australian discursive sphere as it is, it is just about impossible to make a substantial negative comment without being reduced to your subjective position – from a very limited pool of options. Review a show negatively, and immediately you hear that you are just envious, should go make your own art, are just being mean, haven’t read enough… Make a negative appraisal of a blogger, and you’re envious, just being mean, have read too much… More narrowly, either you are the inner-city overschooled elitist or some mumsy suburbanite.

It seems to me that this has lead to a situation where people simply fall back on their subjectivity and socio-economic background at all times, and often don’t even attempt to ground their argument in some objective criterium. ‘I hated this play, but I went to a private school where all we read was Aristotle in Greek’, or ‘I’m too working-class to be bothered with this’. It reduces the argument to a class war, five minutes in. And then everyone either descends into ad hominem accusations, or agrees to disagree, lest someone get personally offended.

Both JS (I discuss her style above), the Global Mail article, the comments on TheatreNotes, and you in the above comment, basically employ this same mode of arguing. So do blogs throughout the country, theatre-goers in private conversations…

Seriously, it’s not important whether you’re anti-elitist or not, whether I remind you of the girl who wants to be class representative, whether JS or I or you find anything or anyone off-putting. It’s not enough, incomplete, to stop at someone’s feelings. Please let’s argue with arguments, not with the person.

I have described in great many words what I think of SOYP. You have given me nothing to respond to yet.

For Spark, Carl and I would get inquiries from prospective reviewers, and we often talked about requesting a sample of negative reviewing as a way of portfolio. Being all positive is a very safe position to take. Being damning with style and depth and name and surname is the real challenge.