Abstract
B ETWEEN 1975 AND 1980 I REVIEWED the Shakespeare productions at the Oregon Shakespearean Festival this journal. In doing so, I had several advantages denied reviewers who must provide timely accounts newspapers or magazines, I was able to see the productions more than once, talk to key personnel, test my reactions against those of other playgoers, and then, when my muse chose to sing, write my essay (which appeared six months to a year after the shows had closed). The advantages that accrue from the absence of a deadline, however, only spawn a new set of problems. The reviewer who is addressing not a potential playgoer but a reader who will not have seen a production must wrestle with the question: what should a review for the record do, say, or record? The comments that follow provide no definitive answers to this question but rather single out some of the problems involved, as well as several yardsticks I worked out my own use.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
