Here’s an interesting article I came across on the NY Times about how to talk about plot in popular criticism. NYT theater critic Charles Isherwood talks about his discretion when describing the stories of plays in reviews — how much plot can a critic give away to the reader without ruining the fulfillment of going to see the play for future audiences? It’s a question I come up against a lot, both as a playwright discussing my own work with potential audiences and as a student of theater discussing plays that have taken me on a journey with other students who haven’t gotten there yet.
How much summarized exposition is too much and when do we need to sacrifice suspense in order to critically discuss and evaluate plays?
(Also, holla at Jess Rothenberg)
