As Dogberry says, "Comparisons are odorous". The same might be said for the urge to put out Worst Play Lists, as a few writers have done this year. What purpose does such an exercise in personal spleen serve? It may be galling to sit through some ill-conceived theatrical event, especially if assigned to be there. And at the time, warning prospective audiences what they might be in for is appropriate; flogging a dead horse months later isn't.
    Being included on such a list helps neither the theatre group so stigmatized nor the general theater goer. If audience response was negative, most troupes get the message then and there and will try something different as soon as possible. If their audiences liked what the critic(s) rejected, they'll make the obvious choice. It's only the unknowing who might read such a list who'll be discouraged from taking a chance on future shows. Or not risk live theatre at all unless it's presold as an "event." Given the diminishing attention given to criticism in all the arts, collections of negatives seem fruitless at best.
    Personal best lists and awards can be risky as well. Such exercises give the reader a sense of what a particular reviewer remembers being impressed by. This probably speaks to that writer's sensibilities as much as to the quality of the work being recalled. Perhaps summarizing the overall state of live theatre and spotting trends rather than simply mentioning selected winners and non-winners would be more useful. As we head into the national awards season, everyone needs to remember, it's really is a matter of opinion.

Will Stackman