But after reading this diatribe it’s clear that the writers don’t know how to take their reviews with good humour, so how can I be sure they’ll bring good humour to their audiences?

Your email address was not published, and we have acted completely in accordance with our privacy policy. You, on the other hand, have abused our comments policy by posting misleading commentary.

If, in fact, it was your brother (with no email address… how interesting) posting he still neglected to mention this fact. As previously stated, we are happy to publish comments from audiences, performers, family members or whomever. All we ask is that you are honest about your opinion and don’t mislead readers. Which, by not disclosing your/his bias, your brother did. You will find other reviews also have comments which disagree with the review. We are happy to publish these.

I didn’t acuse you of “slamming”, only mentioned that the reviewer did the decency of offering considered opinion rather than a rant or ill-conceived review. I accused the comment of snark, by which I was referring to the comment “Comedy is subjective (and you’re obviously a fan of the contrived “edginess” of international acts!)”. Zilla clearly states in her review that she may not be the target audience for the show, and that other audience members appeared to relate to the material. That, for the record, is her openly and responsibly stating that comedy is indeed subjective, and some people enjoyed it. To attempt to palm off her reasonable criticism by inferring she must just be into ‘mainstream’ international comedy is snark in its silliest form.

‘Tad’ almost entirely misses the point of Zilla’s review, including the fact that she doesn’t criticise the show’s length, but in fact the early signposting of its end, leading to an audience expecting a close to the show but instead sitting on the edge of their seats for another ten minutes.

Happy to take your accusation of being “snarky”, Troy. In the face of such a blatant attempt by a show to undermine a reviewer in a totally cowardly fashion, as an editor I do become irritated. You’ve now blown a rather humdrum review into a conversation about you (or your family) attempting to pass themselves off as a run-of-the-mill audience member who disagrees with a review. We’ve had performers, friends, family members or other comics comment on the site before disagreeing with reviews, and we welcome a respectful discourse. But only if all parties are as honest as each other. The very fact that we encourage comments is testament to our belief that reviews are subjective, and that discussion of different ideas and opinions are often as enlightening as the review itself.

Your reaction to your review is enlightening, indeed.

Appreciate that – actually it was a my brother (with no email) – hence my personal email address and not
the above work one… but don’t see much “slamming” there? Also, thanks for living up to “Mail
(will not be published)” – how’s that Privacy Policy looking? Ours, for reference is;
http://www.humouraustralia.com.au/privacy.htm

“Snarky”… hmmm someone definitely is!

Troy

The reviewer has put forward valid criticism, attempted to be balanced in reporting where other audience members appeared to be enjoying the material and has backed up all of her opinions. The least you could do is have the decency to respond, if you choose to do so, as yourself. As you rightly point out, comedy is subjective, and the author has clearly offered a perfect example of stating her position without slamming you. You could have offered the same decency rather than the snarky aside.