Writing Reviews

[Small Man Big Horse]

I've been sporadically writing reviews online for about 25 years now, I ran my own tv/film/music reviews site from 1999 to 2006, have contributed to a few other sites, and set up a comedy review blog back in 2018 which ran for a few years before a year in to the pandemic I gave up.

But in the last year or so I've started posting reviews again, but this time around I've largely stuck to the idea that I'd only post about comedians / productions that I either loved or thought were awful and not bothered with anyone who was just average (though I do have a round up page with very short reviews which covers them).

I've also found myself feeling a lot guiltier when writing a negative review, mainly as in the past year I've self-published a novel and a comic and I know how bad reviews of them have upset me (well, the novel, everyone has been very kind about the comic so far). I feel more aware of the amount of time and effort that goes in to creating a show, and how hurtful a bad review can be.

At the same time, if something is really expensive, and really bad, I still want to warn people about not going... So um, yeah, my mind is all a bit of a mess concerning this, and it's something I've been thinking about a lot. Though apparently not that enough as I wrote a review of Peter Pan at the Hammersmith Eventim Apollo which wasn't flattering, and it led to this:


(which for the record I did not @ anyone involved, or the venue itself).

And I know I shouldn't be upset, and yet I am. I still think the show is terrible and I don't regret writing it, but I still feel something of a cunt for upsetting him so much. Ugh, I don't know, maybe I'm just too sensitive to everything right now, but I find myself wishing I hadn't reviewed it now.

So, um, I don't know, maybe I'll just stick to writing positive reviews? Or learn how to ignore responses like that above? Gah, I just don't know.

[lazyhour]

I'd be delighted by such a clichéd petulant thin-skinned response from Boy George. You should maybe adopt it as your new sig?

[superthunderstingcar]

Sounds like Boy George got some bad karma there.

[katzenjammer]

That's fucking hilarious

[Oz Oz Alice]

In your position I'd be delighted to have upset a rapist whose crime has been allowed to slip under the carpet and in Boy George's position I'd be thankful the critique was of my terrible performance rather than reminding the world of the sexual assault I committed.

[madhair60]

this is extremely uncouth. i propose this man's membership be revoked and he receive a lifetime ban from the culture club.

[madhair60]

in all seriousness, it is fucking stressful isn't it. on two occasions now i have written that i enjoyed one game more than another and spent the weekend getting absolutely belted up the twitter arsehole by thousands upon thousands of absolute fucking losers. it does not feel good. it's not exactly the same situation but it's that same "oh fuck, i've actually pissed someone/people off" sort of thing. it's very anxiety-inducing.

[sevendaughters]

I had run-ins back in my music reviewing days and because I was practically gagging for it (it = oppobrium from artist and their fans) I fucking revelled in it. But this was pre-Twitter, and I didn't have the potential for any clapback to be broadcast to lots of easily riled trolls, any one of whom might reveal my name or where I work.

Thing is, Small Man, you're a measured and sensible person who doesn't deal in provocative extremes. You stated your case and the response from an easily riled rapist is that you don't have a lot of followers. He is rattled, and you remain serene and floating above the clouds with your dignity intact.

Retweet it, flaunt your hater, and move on with your reviewing - which I and many others enjoy.

[Steve Faeces]

Seems churlish of him to focus in on number of followers as if that matters in the dying days of that platform.

The review (I haven't seen the show fwiw) reads fairly to me. If you'd started with "that wanker Boy George is in a panto and here's why he and it are worthless" then he might have a point.

I used to review political books for a newsletter with a tiny readership. I gave a quite critical review of a book that the author (a largely sound person who I think was just having an off day) got wind of and sent me an email that at length detailed why I was wrong, why I was personally objectionable (we'd met once for about ten minutes) and how I should never write again. It all seemed a bit much to be honest. 

I can understand why his response would make you anxious or think what's the point but anyone who puts something into the public domain has to, in my view, be able to accept reasonable critique. I don't think it speaks well of those who can't.

[Gurke and Hare]

Boy George would like it to be known that he didn't get mad. Please don't put in the papers that he got mad.

Wonder if he uses Hostage Tape?

[jobotic]

To be fair to BG, he does want to put the kidnapping and beating he inflicted on that guy "behind him and move on with his life" and he hopes the guy he did it to can too.

So you could suggest that he puts this bad review "behind him and moves on with his life".

[dontpaintyourteeth]

Tried finding this but just found about a million posts about where his book is in the amazon charts and got bored

Sorry small horse my man, I had intentions of defending your honour but am also lazy

How about this: fuck you boy george. I wouldn't have even gone in the first place. Stuff that review up your oversized hat

[neveragain]

To be fair to BG, he does want to put the kidnapping and beating he inflicted on that guy "behind him and move on with his life" and he hopes the guy he did it to can too.

So you could suggest that he puts this bad review "behind him and moves on with his life".

Yeah, I was going to say something similar. Don't worry about upsetting Boy George, SMBH, he's not a nice man.

[FeederFan500]

While impossible to remain purely objective as long as the review is about the production and not personal I think negative reviews are fine. If something is bad, it doesn't matter to me as a punter how much time and effort they've spent on it.

I think negative reviews are easier to write though which skews things slightly. Things that work well are harder to communicate beyond general positive platitudes, especially when good stuff sweeps you along with it and bad stuff allows you to coldly look at it.

I dislike negative reviews when the reviewer uses the work as a launchpad for personal grievances petty or severe, which must be very satisfying as broadsheets and serious magazines do it. "George had as little regard for the audience as he had for the consent..." that sort of thing.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Thank you all for your kind words, I have to admit that my mental health is all a bit shitty this weekend so I'm definitely over sensitive to a situation like this. I do still feel guilty, and negative feedback from a few fans of his was a bit bleak as well, but having reread the review I think it isn't a vicious attack on anyone.

in all seriousness, it is fucking stressful isn't it. on two occasions now i have written that i enjoyed one game more than another and spent the weekend getting absolutely belted up the twitter arsehole by thousands upon thousands of absolute fucking losers. it does not feel good. it's not exactly the same situation but it's that same "oh fuck, i've actually pissed someone/people off" sort of thing. it's very anxiety-inducing.

I actually missed it when it happened (on Wednesday) as I don't visit twitter that often, and I got off fairly easily on that front, but it still wasn't pleasant to read, and yeah, the anxiety about pissing people off got to me in a way it hasn't in the past.

I had run-ins back in my music reviewing days and because I was practically gagging for it (it = oppobrium from artist and their fans) I fucking revelled in it. But this was pre-Twitter, and I didn't have the potential for any clapback to be broadcast to lots of easily riled trolls, any one of whom might reveal my name or where I work.

Thing is, Small Man, you're a measured and sensible person who doesn't deal in provocative extremes. You stated your case and the response from an easily riled rapist is that you don't have a lot of followers. He is rattled, and you remain serene and floating above the clouds with your dignity intact.

Retweet it, flaunt your hater, and move on with your reviewing - which I and many others enjoy.

Thank you for such a considerate (and kind) response. And yeah, I think the fact that his followers could be shitty is something of a concern, so the sensible thing would be to stop using Twitter, though that is where most of my readership comes from. He's blocked me on twitter so I don't think I'll retweet the post, but will try and just put it in the past and forget about it.

Tried finding this but just found about a million posts about where his book is in the amazon charts and got bored

Sorry small horse my man, I had intentions of defending your honour but am also lazy

How about this: fuck you boy george. I wouldn't have even gone in the first place. Stuff that review up your oversized hat

Yeah, I was going to say something similar. Don't worry about upsetting Boy George, SMBH, he's not a nice man.

Thank you both, and I'd forgotten a fair amount of what had happened during the radiator incident with the male escort, but it definitely seems to proven how unpleasant he is.

While impossible to remain purely objective as long as the review is about the production and not personal I think negative reviews are fine. If something is bad, it doesn't matter to me as a punter how much time and effort they've spent on it.

I think negative reviews are easier to write though which skews things slightly. Things that work well are harder to communicate beyond general positive platitudes, especially when good stuff sweeps you along with it and bad stuff allows you to coldly look at it.

I dislike negative reviews when the reviewer uses the work as a launchpad for personal grievances petty or severe, which must be very satisfying as broadsheets and serious magazines do it. "George had as little regard for the audience as he had for the consent..." that sort of thing.

I agree with you on how it's easier to write a negative review, if only because I find it difficult in a five star review to come up with new ways of saying "It was hilarious because..." without spoiling the routine / jokes in the set. That's something I care less about with a negative review, but I'm absolutely with you on the not making it personal front, and hope I've not done that in the past.

[Mr Vegetables]

I think George is the small man here, and you are very much the big horse

[Milo]

Not *all* the audience loved it.

[Icehaven]

I once wrote a bad review on TripAdvisor of a hotel I hadn't stayed at because it was on a TV show and the owner was horrible. The review was silly rather than mean and I didn't say anything particularly offensive, but my partner at the time was convinced they were going to sue me or something, which was hilarious (this was about 15 years ago and TripAdvisor was quite new). Anyway a few days later I got home and he presented me with a letter addressed to me with the TripAdvisor logo on the envelope. He was absolutely full of I-told-you-so as he was sure it was notice of legal action and I was being taken to court, so I opened the letter and it was a TripAdvisor window sticker, sent as a reward for posting my 10th review. I don't know what's weirder, that he was so pathetically scared of absolutely nothing or that I must have used my real address on TripAdvisor.

[Vodkafone]

Sex? I'd rather have a nice cup of rape.

[The Mollusk]

Not *all* the audience loved it.

[Vodkafone]

It's the double negative effect, SMBH. A cunt called you a cunt, therefore you are not a cunt.

[shoulders]

You'd think Boy George would be able to process and handle criticism by now.

Anyway, my advice is to consider Arrigo Sacchi's maxim, "you don't need to have been a horse to be a jockey".

The amount of followers you have, the amount of talent you have (at what, he doesn't say - theatrical performance?) is completely irrelevant in respect of your work at a critic.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and end somewhere, in his case a tired performance in a long overdone piece of theatre.

I wouldn't panic, this is definitely good publicity for you.

[Oz Oz Alice]

In a parallel universe, obvious GBOL George Michael is taking your review in his stride with good humour. However it's hard to imagine any universe where the Good George winds up as washed up and corroded from the inside as that Poundland Pagliacci. Maybe Schopenhauer was right.

[Joe Oakes]

If he gets this angry at people criticising his performance in panto, imagine how irate he gets if you say his music is shit.

Reply asking if someone has hacked his computer while popping out for milk and cigarettes, again. That should cheer him up.

[checkoutgirl]

my mind is all a bit of a mess concerning this

Not apportioning blame or anything but aren't negative health things a consequence of using Twitter? I'm sure Boy George being famous amplified the effects of his opinion.

A review is an opinion. Telling someone to stick their review up their arse is an opinion.

There's a tonne of crap I say on here that I wouldn't dream of putting on Twitter or Facebook. I've never even put a single post on Reddit despite enjoying lurking. These are huge ponds with millions of people who might dox you and get you fired or be famous and give you a telling off.

A negative review is a provocative act so you'd need to be prepared for blowback.

[katzenjammer]

Don't worry about it SMBH, all his response says to me is he knows your review is spot on

[phes]

seems like a bellend and his play looks shite

still, look what happened to Glinner the last time someone said 'this ain't great, mate'. Popcorn

[shoulders]

A negative review is a provocative act so you'd need to be prepared for blowback.

Yes. I run a guide and so reviews are part and parcel, but I decided only to enthuse, so it is a selection of very good, excellent and unbelievably good bars.

However, social media fills the blog/diary element of it allowing people to follow activities and sometimes there are disappointing pubs and bars with very active social media profiles laid in wait to REACT.

Early on I gave an assessment of Artichoke in Chester (a bar restaurant with a beer focus, with a nice canal side outdoors bit and quite bland indoors, fairly upper middle class type affair) and that got a certain set furious with my opinion and trawling through my guide looking for ways to be disparaging as a reprisal. That definitely taught me to toughen up a bit.

More recently, the new management of Fagans in Sheffield have been on my back for having the temerity to not lick their gaping arseholes clean, but pointing out objectively what's better (beer), what's stayed the same (interior mainly, and the music) and what's worse (no live-in family, no home cooking, sudden obsession with Guinness and Irish slanting that the pub had not previously been). Last time they posted a very sniffy reply boasting that now they're full every day of the year (total bollocks).

I'm glad most of my time is spent describing why things are good, but there will always need to be the negative for perspective and context.

What you do with theatre reviews can't ever be anything less than honest. Be honest (you can be so respectfully) or don't do them, is my conclusion.

[Blue Jam]

Yeah, fuck 'im. Waitrose aren't gonna shag you mate.

[Jockice]

Was your so-called 'reviewer' even at the same show as I was?