« Latest Dance Articles | Main | An English Miscellany: I - London Nuts and Bolts »
June 1, 2005
Rules I try to follow when writing on dance
These aren’t The Rules, but I think they’re helpful. I’m sure other writers have their own, and I’d be curious what they are.
1. Know your audience. A review in The New York Times or any general publication is different than a review in Danceview Times or any specialist publication. I may need to explain or summarize background, but the reader may also want to know less detail.
2. It’s a completely different skill to write a 350 word review than a 1500 word one. It’s not the same review, only shorter. One is a summary, the other an analysis. For me, it’s easiest to write shorter reviews a bit later after the performance. The minutiae of performance that enrich a longer review recede in my mind and I can concentrate on the broader view.
3. Make sure you tell the reader what s/he needs to know. What are the most newsworthy elements of the performance? A debut or a new production has to be mentioned, as do the performances of the leads. I try to think about what they came to find out, not what I want to tell them. [added 6/2/05] Much of what I write here I learned or honed from doing weekly reviews for Danceview Times. Alexandra Tomalonis' background is newspaper work (The Washington Post) and there's a different set of requirements. A useful corollary to this rule is that if a production is new, review the production. If it's already been reviewed, focus on the specific performance.
4. This one is the most difficult for me, because of my background. The dialogue is with the audience, not the artist. No matter what I might be able to guess about the process, I am writing from the audience’s perspective. I wasn’t backstage; I don’t really know what went on. I only know what we all saw from the seats. My knowledge of the process is useful for the audience, but it’s not my job to give helpful suggestions and they’re usually not appreciated. It’s my job to tell the audience what was on stage.
5. Dance writing has to be more than a litany of opinions and judgments. Nobody really cares whether I liked dancer X or not unless they agree with me. This performance is gone, never to be retrieved. If the reader was there, s/he knows whether it was good or not without me telling them. It’s more valuable to demonstrate a method of analysis and give the reader a path into the work. What can I help him or her to watch for the next time?
6. Damage your credibility and integrity and you might as well quit. Everyone has his or her own weaknesses; I’m more likely to omit information than falsify it. It’s preferable to gloss over a performer’s one bad night rather than fixate on the details, but what if this is a consistent issue? If the reader - or the record - needs to know it, I need to put it in.
7. Dance writing is not scholarly writing and criticism is not a graduate school paper. Style and readability are essential. A review has to be entertaining.
8. Avoid gratuitous zingers. If I couldn’t admit I wrote something to the person’s face, I try not to put it in.
9. It starts to be a problem when you give a specific company or dancer the same bad review over and over. There are problems with continuously harping on the same thing. One doesn’t always have the option, but if I’ve exhausted what I have to say about a certain subject, I try to avoid it for a while.
10. Avoid superlatives; they damage credibility and they’re lazy writing.
[added - 11. I don't read any other reviews of a given performance until I have submitted mine for publication to guard against plagiarism.]
Posted by Leigh Witchel at June 1, 2005 6:03 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.leighwitchel.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/123