ITF Not The Drama Seminar: Conversation - Keval Arora and Shanta Gokhale
Duration: 00:44:13; Aspect Ratio: 1.333:1; Hue: 356.358; Saturation: 0.099; Lightness: 0.264; Volume: 0.150; Cuts per Minute: 0.023; Words per Minute: 133.319
Organised 50 years after the original Drama Seminar in 1957, the Not the Drama Seminar (NTDS) brought together theatre practitioners from all across the country to convene at Ninasam, Heggodu in March 2008. This seminar meditated on the nature of theatre in India today, on how we got to where we are. The attempt was to understand 'Indian Theatre' in all its multiplicity and diversity, bringing these several faces of Indian theatre face to face, and problemetize the issues that arise therein. These ideas were exchanged through a series of presentations and discussions over five days, and each day ended with a performance.
Conversation: Shanta Gokhale & Keval Arora
KA: Ok, Shanta. So, how would you respond to a comment that you just heard, that perhaps India has some very fine critics, but the worst of them write in newspapers?
SG: I think, as an instinctive reaction, I would be very angry, because I immediately think that the finger was pointed at me. And then I know it's not. I know that it's pointed to the 99 others who are doing it. And that can be pretty bad. So, by and large, I would agree, because, as you know, theatre is covered in many newspapers. It's not reviewed. So if people call them "reviewers", it's their problem, but these are not reviewers. They are junior reporters. They have never really seen theatre before the ascent of the (?), they don't know theatre head or tail. But, they write. So I'm not surprised if people find that their writing is not quite up to the mark.
SG: If you remember, in Ranga Shankara, we had a group of them that we were talking to. These were people who were already writing about theatre in newspapers, and they were now looking for tips on writing.
KA: Yeah....This is, you're talking of a time when newspapers didn't even think it fit to have cub reporters report on theatre. Theatre is a soft option. But that isn't the case now either, because I don't see the news coming out in papers. There was a time at least, when the review used to float, sometimes page 4, sometimes page 9, embedded under all kinds of news. But that kind of space is shrinking altogether.
SG: Ya, it has shrunk. Let's put it in the past. It is not shrinking, it has shrunk. And of course, there are reasons. When I was editing the arts page for the times of India, that was between '88 and '93- not all of those years, the first 2 and a half years- and I was given a more or less free hand to devise that page and to edit it. During those days, I had to deal with a lot of people who had been reviewing music and theatre, and occassionally dance, for the paper. It wasn't as if there hadn't been reviews. These were all old people who'd been doing thise for 30 to 35 years. They used to report to the News Editor.
SG: The News Editor was not a man known for his interest in the Arts. So, for him it was just "so much copy". So the reviewers got to write exactly what they pleased. Nobody really, in the editorial, was interested in what they were writing, as long as it came on time, and it stuck to the word limit.
SG: S, when I started editing the Arts page, I had about 3 reviewers on hand, who I felt needed to be put to use, but in other ways. They wrote Victorian English- that was one problem. The other was that, if they were reviewing a music programme, they thought that the way to review it was to go from one end of the programme to the other, making 4 lined comments on every item. And their comments were always couched in more or less the same language.
SG: So, for me, that of course, was not 'reviewing'. So I managed to take on a bunch of young people, who had other ways of dealing with works of art, and brought in a lot of fresh insights, fresh language of reviewing. And I was very lucky really, to have the chance to do this, and to show that it is possible to make arts interesting for the readers, if you care for the way things are written. All of us got our little perks in the feedback that we received.
SG: We suddenly realised that there were readers out there who were regular readers of reviews, which the manager felt nobody actually read. So, in that sense, I've had that luxury at one point of time. But very quickly that page was taken away and the reason given was that "we would require more newsprint to cover for the Gulf War." The Gulf War was just being spoken of in those days. But I think my newspaper was really looking forward, excitedly to the Gulf War happening so that they could then cover it, rather than the arts.
SG: So, 2 and a half years, and that was that. And after that no reviews appeared in that paper at all. Reviews, since then, have been out.
KA: That's been common to several papers, not just the paper that you were writing for.
KA: ...and it's an argument I've heard being advised(?) by different managements possibly with different shades of intensity, and conviction. Maybe ...(?) management has been particularly abrasive about this. But the idea that 'there is no readership out there, why should we carry stuff if nobody is reading?' I remember you, once a long time ago saying that you all did carry out a signature campaign saying that there are so many readers. But they just quickly pitched that figure against a circulation figure.
SG: Ya...no ...that's not quite the way it happened. It was worse than that. They threw out a challenge at me. They said "when you say that there are that many readers out there, how do we know? So if they write to you, please hand over all their letters to us, and if it's a sizeable number, we assure you that we will bring the arts page back."
Not a single letter came. Not one single letter came. And I knew that there were people out there who were reading this page. But, I also knew that most people simply just can't be bothered. Can't be bothered to get what they think they deserve.
SG: They don't even ask themselves "do we need this? Do we deserve this?" People would call and say "what's happened?" And I told them, they would consider it the prerogative of the newspaper to do what they pleased. Bring the page in, take it off - no problem. They did not feel that they had the power to influence the newspaper.
KA: See, that's...that's perhaps also the wrong way of looking at it. I mean, I can understand why managements are looking at it that way. But that is the wrong way of looking at it, because you're not only selcting news to print according to what the reception of that news is going to be like. And I would imagine that that editorial policy, if it is informed enough to recognise that culture is a space that needs to be covered.
KA: And ...what I find intriguing is that even at the best of times, let's imagine that you do have- whether an Arts Editor, or someone sitting up, higher up in that ladder- saying that "alright we will cover Culture regardless of what it's readership is like." One of my problems in writing was that I never did know who I was writing for. It's not 'how many' I was writing for, even so...who is this person? Who are these people I'm writing for?
I don't know what it's like in Bombay, because...I've got an idea, that perhaps in Bombay, reviews get pegged into a higher degree of usefulness, simply because plays have an extended shlf-life. That, you have a performance now and then maybe 2 weeks later that performance is shifting to another auditorium or something.
KA: In Delhi, a play would run for about 2 or 3 days in one auditorium, and then it closes down. And it's very rare for a play to come back, unless it's a festival or something like that. Which means that 9.99 times out of 10, a review that I would write would always be post-facto. ...I sometimes wonder when I read a review, what am I looking for when I'm reading that review? Do I gravitate towards a review of a play I have seen and I am testing out what that review is saying, as against what I liked or didn't like? Or am I reading it as a form of compensation, the way some people read book reviews rather than read books. Am I compensating for not having seen a play by reading a review about it? Because if I could figure out in my head, if I was talking inside a circle, or outside a circle, I would write differently.
SG: ...I remember a friend, and reader, who called up the management, and told them that reviews were information. It didn't matter whether the reader could now go on to see a play or not. That such a play had happened, and this is one informed opinion about that play. And he told the management that you had to treat coverage of cultural events as information, important information that must go out into the public.
KA: ...which perhaps explains today, why there is still space for previews. I mean papers that would refuse to carry reviews would still in a sense tell you what's coming to town, indexed according to their idea of what is important and what is not. But there is follow up after it happens, as to what happened, and how do we negotiate that, how do think about it, talk about it, etc.
SG: You see, there's ...I feel the management plays safe also. Because you can't control a reviewer and her/his opinions. But this is 'pre-publicity'- they call it 'pre-publicity'- it's part of the entire advertising scenario. So...groups will go to the management directly, in the old days, when pre-publicity was frowned upon, they would go directly to the management, and say exactly what you've been saying. That "we don't know how many issues we'll do. It might just be 2 or 3. So we are not interesting in reviews. What we want is pre-publicity, so that we get an audience in the first place."
SG: And the management saw this as the right thing to do. And the other thing that attracts the management to pre-publicity, is that then you are not actually engaging with something that has happened, and using a certain kind of language which the management fears, that the lay reader that they have constructed in their heads, will not understnad. There is always this fear that critics use terminology that the lay reader does not understand. And whereas in pre-publicity, what's happening is that you're talking to people, you're quoting people, you're giving general impressions of how the rehearsals have been conducted. The whole theme becomes personality oriented. And that's what journalism is all about now- the personality of the Director, the personality of the lead actor. That kind of thing becomes very interesting copy for the management as well. And it serves the purpose for the group. And that's how reviews are left out
KA: ....we keep aside that kind of down and down... let's just come back, because this is something that I have often encountered, as responses to things that I've written. Samajh mein nahin aa rahaa hai. Kya keh rahe the.
(I do not understand. What they say.) More frighteningly, "so did you like the play, or did you not like the play?" As if the review has to push into a kind of evaluation. It's happening with film reviews all the time- 2 stars, 3 stars, 5 stars- did you ever have to go through that kind of... that you must crystallise an opinion into a recommendation or not?
SG: No, not at all. In fact, going back very briefly to the Arts page, I specifically told the reviewers, that they weren't called on to make that final statement "do go and see it". It's so corny, I used to hate those last lines. I say, leave it at that, the reader is intelligent enough to gather from your review that you have liked it, and may go and see it. You don't have to add that line.
KA: So what does one end up doing in a review then? I think I've got some idea. It took me some years to figure out what I was doing in a review, I'm not very sure ....the strange thing is that I didn't meet enough other theatre reviewers to sit and talk about it, to share ideas about methods or aims or whatever. It was pretty much a lonely course that you chart. I didn't see myself as being accommodating enough to alter what I was doing, depending on the feedback I received. I know one of the things I did do was, because I teach, and there is a very easy tendency to use lit-crit language, it comes naturally on the term, to constantly just go over what I've written and say does it sound as if it's spoken? It shouldn't look as if it's written. It should sound as if it's spoken.
SG: ...spoken, yes...
KA: ...and most of the time one manages it, there are some things one can't get away from, and if you're working with a word-limit, then sometimes the only way to be economical is to push the vocabulary harder- that was implied. But I know what I would end up doing is to say that I'm not obliged, as you said, to the earlier people who reviewed music- that they'd go from one end to the other. It's not my brief to be comprehensive. Because I can't be comprehensive in the words that I am allowed to write. Can I find a thread? Can I find a hole? Can I find a door I can walk through? ...and pick up one aspect of that production which I think is worth sharing with other people? It could be something which could damn the play, or it could be something that would kind of...in awe...shock and awe..
KA: As a result what happened is, sometimes, I would myself reread the review a couple of weeks back and not recognise a page(?) from that review. So I know if I was a reader of that review...then you know...let's say now t he person who is r eading my review may be engaging with the ideas that I am dealing with, or a particular problematic.
KA:...but if a person wants to get a slightly broader- not the whole picture- slightly broader picture, of the play, then am I playing fair by that reader? It comes right back to the question- I don't know who that reader is. And I don't know what that reader wants.
KA: Somewhere in the back of my head, I started saying that maybe I'm writing for the theatre fraternity. I'm writing for people who are doing theatre. Because they are mainly the only people who are reading this in the first place.
SG: There lies the problem.
KA: I was just telling you this, sometime ago, that I've often heard this comment- I heard it today, right now,- we spend such a long time talking after my play, and you didn't write about it.
SG: My strategy, going back to your earlier question- is to allow the number of words I have to dictate how I approach a play. If I have to write in 350 words- first of all, if I have found some qualities in this play that have excited me, then as you said, quite rightly, this is something I want to share with my readers.
SG: It's a question of sharing. Which means, that somehow I'm using language to maybe evoke an experience- the experience that I had in an immediate kind of way. That's one of the themes that I try and do. Otherwise, I pull back and do what you just said. Some aspect has interested me. For instance, in a recent column of mine- I don't review anymore, but I have a column-
KA: Neither do I....
SG: ...a column in which I occassionally write about theatre. And I feel a kind of -(this is a little bit of derision)- I feel a kind of moral obligation, in a sense, to write about Marathi theatre in English press. Because as far the English press is concerned, Marathi theatre doesn't exist.
SG: But it does. It does, and sometimes good things are happening there. Not all the time. But it's something that I've had to deal with throughout my writing career. Editors who have said "what is all this Marathi Marathi business you're bringing in?" It's this kind of completely westernised view of culture, where I could write about some third rate pop group, and that would be welcome, big photos, big copy. But if I'm writing about Marathi theatre, then there's a problem. I've always worked against that. In any case, the last time I was in a mainstream theatre, watching a play, and I had nothing at all to say about that play- it was an atrocious play- absolutely.
SG: And because I wasn't involved, I realised that this was probably the 50th year of Marathi theatre when I was seeing that good old boxset, 7 feet in height, pink walls, empty to begin with, doorbell rings, woman from inside says "I'm coming, I'm coming..." and she comes out wiping her hands on her saree. And as I was watching this is exactly what happened.
So I wrote about the history of the boxset in my column. And the people who saw me at this play, thought I was going to write about it, were a little taken aback, which included ofcourse the people who are in the play.
SG: But, you know has to...one cannot write about something that hasn't evoked in you a strong response one way or another. Some kind of excitement, some kind of ...you know... element... even if it's just a single element... and that has struck you, and prodded you on to writing about it. Without that, I can't do it just as a sort of matter of cause and I have space to fill. So I'm going to do it.
KA: You're talking in context of a colum, which has to come out every 2 weeks. Whereas I imagine with most theatre reviews, it would be a case of- you're free to write, and you're free to not write.
KA: So perhaps the fact that the review doesn't come out at all can cause one kind of offense, but not the kind of offense which a review that comes out and yet talks about pink walls, rather than what had happened in front of those walls.
KA: I'm thinking, what other obligations the ...the constant...I think refrain that one has to live with ..this idea of being biased, or being subjective, and not playing fair. ...I know, as a theoritical position, you find easy agreement. But when it comes down to black text on a white page, that agreement seems to disappear. That there is no such space called 'objective response'. One can only work through an informed subjectivity. I always felt that my obligation... for me, the main obligation...sorry- the obligation on me, has been that ...it's so much easier to say "I liked the play."
KA: So much easier, because, I had never felt it then necessary to explain, what it is that I write. Perhaps, something (?) ...and I can get by. But is there something I am taking issue with? Is there something that I'm criticising? Then, I have no right to that conclusion unless I present an argument. Where the problem of words comes again. And therefore, my way out was, 'alright, open that window, guide me through there, don't go in through the main door of the play. Find the corner that's (?) you, and then create that space whereby you can also in a sense, lay out your argument, lay out the criteria by which you're saying what you're saying.
KA: And in that sense, keep yourself open to response, to criticism, to counter-criticism. Because I think one of the worst thing that can happen to someone writing within this space, it's not a problem in academic criticism- but seriously, the kind of reach that the newspaper has, not withstanding what the management says- the kind of immediacy of that comment, is that, in a hierarchy of production, from the performer to the performance, to the critic, is that the critic always seems to unfairly get the last word in.
KA: I often wondered whether it's possible to let a review be the opening of dialogue. Or at least allow, as a constant policy, allow for people to write in, or write back.
KA: I don't know whether it works, whether anyone's tried it. But I would hate to claim that what I have said is the
last word on the subject. It's my word at the moment, on the subject. So that conditionality has to be built in. But I think somewhere it's a system which forces an absolute quality on your words. And I think then you get damned for that. Whereas you're trying your best to say, to claim, that 'no this is not it.'
KA: The place where I would say that I have been subjective, is in terms of shifting the bar, when it comes to the (?)...the theatre group. Not the play. If I see that it's a young group, if I see that these are people- it's their first production, it's their second production.... I know there are times I have not put in a review, saying that -I have nothing nice to say about this play, and it would be so unfair to comment that. Much better to make phone call, get an email ID, write in, and say better.... I'll comment for your next production. The converse side has been that, if it's an established group, these are established names- directors, performers, etc- I think there is no need for (?) to be given or asked for or whatever.
KA: So to that extent, I think yes, some objectivity does come in. And I see that as an obligation I place upon myself, as someone who would like to believe that I have one foot in the theatre world, and necessarily one foot outside. I don't know which is the backfoot and which is the frontfoot. Sometimes I feel like I'm spread-eagle.
SG: I go with you there. It is ...I think this is something that a lot of people do. That if you have unfavourable things to say, then you devote more space to what you're saying, substantiate, qualify, ...because you are saying something unfavourable. Whereas when it's favourable, you don't feel that obligation necessarily to spell out your reasons. Though, everytime you have to, you must. But much more so when you're saying something unfavourable. But there are concessions to be made in my case. Because I write about the mainstream, and I write about what is called the "Parallel stream", which is off-mainstream. A number of friends who were working in the parallel stream, object to how I look at mainstream theatre.
SG: There is a framework within which I must look at the mainstream. And I work within that framework.
KA: What do you mean by 'mainstream'?
SG: Mainstream is a professional theatre, the theatre that people are living off, that the maximum audience goes to see, is a theatre where there is a kind of relationship that's being built up between audience and actors and directors and playwrights. Over the years there are certain expectations of the audience, that the directors and playwrights are (?) how to, I would say, even a person like Vijaya Mehta, I'm naming this person because when she went from the parallel stream on to the mainstream, she made tiny adjustments to the scripts that she did, in view of how the audience would react.
KA: Scripts that she would have worked on earlier...?
SG: ..Earlier...If she had got them when...they were basically scripts which were really the kind of well-made play that goes on to the mainstream. It's not the kind of play that she had handled earlier, in any case. There is a difference. So since there is a difference, I appreciate any kind of risk that is taken within that framework. Because, it makes a huge difference. It's something that the audience takes away and talks about. This happens with the mainstream theatre, that people go away, they discuss it, then the issues get discussed in the press. All of this is happening. So, when there is some risk taken, when it becomes a talking point,...and I might find that some performances are substandard. I might find that visually this theatre makes no sense. And yet, I devote the small space that I may have to talking about that one theme the director or the playwright has done to move this theatre half a step away from where it has been.
SG: And whereas, in the parallel stream, where there are no huge financial stakes, where you know that like-minded people are going to come and watch, then there is absolutely no excuse for dumbing dumb. And then I'm going to be severe about that. And give my reasons why.
KA: So then when you say that your friends have asked you questions about this, does it imply that they feel that you have...
SG: ...double standards...
KA: ....you're soft....you're soft on mainstream theatre.
SG: Not soft. They think I have blatant double standards. That's one way of putting it. Yes, ok, I apply a certain kind of framework for this kind of play that's happening in this kind of space. And completely different things...things that are happening... in the school hall in Mahim where Avishkar works from... and yes, that's it. It has to be accepted. Because we have an ongoing dialogue- the off-mainstream people, and critics like me. There is an ongoing dialogue in which other things can be said about their work.
SG: It isn't all confined to that little bit of space. And there, again, I do exactly what I do otherwise- which is to pick on things that I have responded to warmly, and speak of them, but also talk about things that shouldn't have been there.
KA: There is one disconnect I feel, when I write, and when I watch. I know when I watch a play, there is a large part of me that responds to what's happening on stage in terms of the actors' presence. The acting. But then I come to writing, that somehow takes a backseat- I don't know why. I know start engaging much more with directorial input, with what the text is doing, the narrative, the movement, and much more, the play.
KA: At the same time I know, when I watch a 3-act and I know several other people, that sometimes for friends of mine who watch plays, the play tends to melt away. It tends to somehow recede into the background. And the actor gets foregrounded much more and spectating.
KA: So, sometimes I think that I have to perform that rescue act, because this whole business of providing the pleasure of watching a performance, an actors' performance, allows for a whole lot of trash to get piled. Because sometimes there are very problematic things happening in the play, and it's just that visceral thrill of watching a big actor or well-known actor, or a very gifted actor.
KA: ....this function is a blinker, in fact. So I tend to in that sense, as I said, compensate in the writing, to say "no, we've got to talk to what these texts are doing sometimes subliminally, and sometimes that acting presence functions as a screen....
KA: ...which blinds us to other things we got to look at...
KA: But then, as I said, the problem that comes in as I say is that I am not in a sense... the text so-called, the performance text I'm engaging with, is not the performance text that everybody else was watching. And that becomes an act of violence, I feel as a reviewer, that I tend to first refashion the text and then negotiate it.
SG: You know there was a huge kind of ...debate happening at one point of time in Marathi theatre, which as you know, is extremely verbal. It's verbal theatre. The script had always been given that kind of status in Marathi theatre- that it could not be touched, not a word to be changed, no editing to be done, etc. And then came this debate about the script and the production. And what is theatre? -Theatre is not the text. Theatre is the total text that's happening on stage, which includes light, music, of course...all the usual things.
SG: So ...you cannot actually speak about the play, unless you're speaking about all these ends- whether they hold together, whether they don't hold together. Whether they stand out... Whatever it is, but this is something that you have to talk about first and foremost. And of course then, that this is how the production...Because very often, you've actually read the script before, and you're going for a performance. And you've staged a certain kind of performance in your mind, because you've read the script. Scripts get published before they are produced. And then you see this, and what stuns you is the fact that this is a completely different script!
SG: They have... the production itself, which is direction, performance, and everything else, has shifted what you thought was the emphasis, what you are certain the playwright thinks is the emphasis- that has been completely shifted in the production. That for me, becomes an extremely important talking point.
KA: But not a problem?
SG: Not a problem at all. Because it has to hold internally in terms of the performance.
SG: Yes, absolutely.
Cameraman: Can I change a tape?
SG: One of the problems that I have felt occassionally, and it sort of struck me today most forcibly after we had these 5 narratives in the session that we just attended at the seminar, where people spoke about doing theatre in the margins, so to say. And doing theatre consistently with this purpose, with these people, which is not the theatre I have ever reviewed. It's not the theatre that is visible to me. "to me" I mean- generally. It's not that I have never reviewed that kind of theatre, because there are always friends who will tell you 'such and such thing is happening in this corner of Mumbai' and you rush there, and you know you're thrilled to see something that doesn't belong to either of the 2 streams that you've been constantly engaging with- the mainstream and the off-mainstream.
SG: Neither of them excites you as much as some of this theatre that you sometimes see in some corner of the city. And when I was listening to these people today, I just felt...I just want to go there. I want to be there, and I want to write about this theatre. Not that it's going to matter to them. They are not like our mainstream and parallel stream people who are waiting for reviews. They are doing their own work. And that's what makes it so interesting....would make it so interesting, to engage with and write about. I feel deprived.
KA: ... There is a logistical problem here. Chandradasan and Sushma, in the sense you said 'off-mainstream'- that's the phrase you're using, I can see it being eminently possible for a Chandradasan performance...production, or a Sushma production to enter into the space that is discovered by your...by the space that the newspaper gives you. The problem is posed by the other 2 (?) was talking about...
KA: ...is that they can't enter your review format, because the value of their work does not lie in the singular performance.
KA: ...that actually what they need is what your newspaper would call a feature.
KA: And when you're already combating this shrinking space....I moved from 800 down to 500 down to 450 down to 425... and each time I told myself - you know that's also a challenge- to write succinctly- came down to 250 and found out I could still do it with 250 words. It's possible.
KA: ...that's ...I think to do justice to their kind of work, one would require actually, amplitude.
KA: And this kind of space they would get only in, I think, academic criticism. The newspaper ....
SG: Yes and no. I dont know...no I don't know Keval. There was a time when one could- again we are coming back to the same problem- there was a time when one could push this kind of field. We're talking about writing about theatre. We're not necessarily talking about reviewing theatre. That's only one format. But of course I could have written about theatre ...
KA: ..At some time long ago when that space was available. Where is the space now?
KA: Its certainly not the newspapers...
SG: ...yes yes....but it's something that I would want to do.
KA: What's interesting to me, is the number of ..going under the guise of a 'theatre Mumbai update' website....these are actually what's happening in the city...
KA: But they are carrying criticism. And suddenly space is not a problem there.
KA: And if in any case, this whole business of where are the readers and what are they....it's already a dedicated clientele. Then might as well work off a mailing list.
SG: Yes. Sure.
KA: That's one space where I think perhaps the whole area could open up again.
SG: Yes. yes.
KA: I don't know if it's happening. I receive reviews over the net. I've subscribed to 3 or 4 reviews. It's still very very uneven.
SG: It is.
KA: And very uneven, both in terms of the writing, as well as in terms of the coverage. But I think that maybe there is some space that can open there. But it's going to become (?) a house conversation.
SG: Yes, exactly.
SG: And also, suddenly you find there's a dearth of ...good actors, of good critics. Suddenly you find that a few of the reviews that I have read in this area...are actually so amateurish, there is a lot of space if a person can write 1,200 words which is like a luxury to us. But it's not used the way it should be. Because the writing is...it lacks rigour, it lacks perspective, it lacks language. So when people starting off web magazines of this kind, I think they need to scout around (?) move, not just sit back and allow people to write- whoever thinks they can write. And actually to scout.
SG: There are a number of people out there who have a very fine kind of analytical faculty, if you're coming out of a theatre and listening into conversations, sometimes you are stunend by perceptions. There are people who then should be picked up- actually I have done it- in the old days again- somebody who wrote a letter in response to a review we had carried, and the letter was so good, I wote back to him and I said "will you review Carnatic music for us?" And he began reviewing. He was a wonderful reviewer.
SG: So there are people out there, but one needs to scout for them.
KA: So maybe that's the next space to find for theatre reviewing, - in letters to the editor.