You rightly question the universality of the best plays and who is best to critique them. I think sometimes the most significant plays are not universal; instead they push audiences to think about experiences far outside our own, particularly when it comes to new writing. Amphibians, for example, showed audiences a glimpse at the intensely competitive mindset of elite swimmers and made for inspiring and unfamiliar theatre. Little Platoons by the same playwright, is an equally important piece of theatre about the education system. Not everyone will be familiar with the subject matter and it might be especially hard to relate to if you’re not a parent. Nonetheless it’s compelling, crucial theatre.

These might not be classics that stand the test of time but they deserve attention now. An ability to place what we see in the context of the world around us is essential for all journalists, including arts journalists. So when we find ourselves baffled, isn’t it our job to research what we don’t understand? To find out why cultural references are significant even if we never really get them? I, for example, don’t drink and was brought up in a teetotal household so often don’t understand a lot of references to boozing. Does that qualify me any less to review a play in which drinking or pub-going are major themes? So when you wonder “how and if those critics can understand work that’s often far beyond their own cultural or socio-economic frame of reference,” I think research is the answer.

You also asked why there isn’t greater diversity of race, class, gender within the circle of UK criticism. I think we need greater diversity in thought. That can come down to race, class, etc but I think the best critics are the ones that come at the art they see from a unique angle regardless of their background. I take Lyn Gardner’s point about comparing a critic’s taste to your own but that’s more about the individual review readers rather than the wider discussion. Something else Lyn said at the YPIA discussion about critics following each other nose to tail hits the nail on the head. What’s the point of the same group of critics repeatedly writing about the same types of plays and audiences?

As you say about your job (and I think the same about mine), it’s “about broadening the scope of common understanding to include new or unheard viewpoints, to make our shared cultural life that little bit richer”

Thanks for the heads up about this post.

I think my question was less about how to get ‘mainstream’ critics to non-mainstream theatre and more a general wondering about how and if those critics can understand work that’s often far beyond their own cultural or socio-economic frame of reference.

There’s a big part of me that thinks that the very best work deals with the essentials of human experience and so is universal. But then there’s another, slightly rebellious, bit of me that wonders if that’s really true. Let’s take Shakespeare as an example – there are whole swathes of the Bard’s best that are lost on modern audiences. As theatre makers we edit or update and expect our critics to be well enough versed in the context of the play to understand the difficult or obscure bits. We also acknowledge that often, audience members with a broader understanding of the context will enjoy the production more because they aren’t floundering in a sea of bafflement.

However, if a critic comes to see a new Nigerian play for example, it’d seem churlish to expect them to get all the references, colloquialisms and cultural references because, let’s face it, most of our critics are middle class white folk. I find myself wondering if it’s that fear of being an outsider, of being out-of-your-depth, of not understanding (and god forbid somehow writing a review that makes some form of faux pas) that is what keeps a lot of critics from engaging with non-mainstream artists and audiences.

The question I asked at the YPIA was really more about trying to understand how the critics present felt about reviewing across a cultural divide. Like you, I was disappointed that on the whole they failed to engage in a more robust manner with the issues behind the question. And like you, I don’t think the matter is black and white, but I find myself wondering why there isn’t greater diversity of race, class, gender within the circle of UK criticism. As Lyn said during the discussion, the best way to use critics is by comparing their taste against your own and then using their verdict as a barometer to indicate what you might enjoy – but if they don’t like something because they didn’t fully understand it, then how can that verdict be accurate?

I see a big part of my job at Oval House Theatre as being about supporting the kind of voices that you just can’t hear in other theatres. It’s not about tokenism, but about broadening the scope of common understanding to include new or unheard viewpoints, to make our shared cultural life that little bit richer. For me, it’s like adding a sliced chilli to a pasta sauce – the un-initiated might find it too much at first, but with acquaintance the added depth of flavour becomes a vital part of the dish. I think Lyn, Mark, Matt and the Whingers all do an admirable job in many ways, but I find myself wishing that all critics worked that bit harder to broaden their palettes.