Changing Critical Perspective over the Generations

Time changes everything, including how works of art are perceived by critical audiences. For example when comparing two reviews of Tom Stoppard’s play “The Real Inspector Hound”, one published in 1968, when the play was first produced, the other from the more recent year of 2011, there was a staggering difference in the impressions the reviewers had of the play, the length of the reviews, and even the very language used within the critical analysis.

This last point is quite interesting to look so we will explore it further. When looking at the 1968 review’s language its most striking feature was its apparent lack of industry-specific language. In fact the most I saw to this effect were as follows: “baronial décor”, “fruity Edwardian phrases”, and “grisly parody”. Other than these small crumbs the overall language of the review is kept informal. Perhaps this was done with intent: the review may have been looking to reach a wider audience which would require simpler diction or perhaps the critique’s profession had not yet developed into the more formalized and scholarly image that we have of it now. In contrast the 2011 review oozes with industry-specific language: “farcical trappings”, “Marquee”, “play’s ingénue”, “whodunit”, “journalistic impartiality”, “lampoons the conventions of murder mysteries”, “hackneyed dialogue” and “sense of absurdity” are a small sum of examples seen within the review. It has appeared that the vocabulary of the critique’s world has developed by leaps and bounds over the successive generations. As such we are given the impression that there are two possible reasons for this change of language, a. that the target audience of these reviews have shifted away from the average play-goer to that of a critique’s peers, or b. that the profession of criticism has formally defined itself within the scholarly world, thus adopting its language.

In the other aspects mentioned at the beginning of this blog there were also points of difference in length and the critic’s opinion on the play. The 1968 Review was extremely short, only equaling one page and most likely didn’t have more than 500 words to its name. All the same it managed to express its dislike of the play to a great degree: “the pretext for getting them onto the stage…is feeble” in the end the critic dismisses the play’s critics as being “creatures of fantasy as the inmates of Lady Muldrom’s dining room”. Ouch, this review is quite to the point and focused. The 2011 review was much longer, and detailed. The review positively looked into analyzing the play beyond its structure and organization, in regards to characters and other analytical elements. This review ended with the positive “you could never call Hound purebred Stoppard, but it is one of his mongrel bits of fun”. As a whole reviews have gotten wordier, longer and take more into consideration when reviewing a work.

 Works Cited:

Blanchard, Jayne. “The Real Inspector Hound” Rev. of The Real Inspector Hound by Tom Stoppard. DC Theatre Scene. 27 April 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.

"New Light Comedy by Tom Stoppard Playing in London." New York Times (1923-Current file): 38. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2008). Jun 19 1968. Web. 20 Mar. 2012 .