As personal as it may be, a comedian has to be aware of the image they’re projecting; which can be hard to do by yourself when you’re so close to your own work. Criticism of any kind is a very powerful tool and being made aware of your own flaws can only be an advantage to a comedian. Whether you choose to alter those flaws or embrace them can only strengthen your performance.

Speaking as a comedian, I have only had a few “bad” reviews but each contained valid points which informed my choices in subsequent shows. I personally think comedians should harden up. This is entertainment, it’s about creating the best experience for the audience, not about getting acclaim for yourself.

I’ve read almost all the reviews on The Pun, The Groggy Squirrel and The Age and I found that in every case my experience of the show has pretty much equalled what was written in the review. If you look over them objectively you’ll probably reach the same conclusion.

Is it possible that every review on The Pun is accurate except for yours? Not likely.

I reckon there are four types of review: good, bad, negative and positive. Just like a comedy show, a review of one can be well-written and insightful, or self-indulgent and useless – regardless of whether the show is loved or hated. I’ve had some very negative reviews in my time, but thankfully they were still “good” in the sense that even when I didn’t agree, I could still gather useful criticism to inform my performance or writing for the next show.

Finally, while reviews are useful – I use them myself to get an impression of things I haven’t seen – it always pays to remember that comedy is perhaps the most subjective of art forms, and while a critic may offer great insight, it’s still a single (if well-publicised) opinion. While there are technical aspects which a good student of comedy can comment on without much controversy, there’s no objective scale for good or bad. After all, we love watching David and Margaret the best when they disagree about a film.