Notes:

Well, I didn't win any friends with this review. Folks posted comments at the Daily Herald Web site with the usual cries of bias, unprofessionalism, etc., etc. (see below) Despite my labors to say as much positive as I could, someone else mentioned publicly that my review had "absolutely nothing positive to say." A discussion on another Web site led to the same old claims about most of my reviews being negative (a notion that is quite easily disproved by merely looking at the letter grades I give and seeing that most of them are A's and B's). And so on and so forth.

It's gotten to where, when I'm sitting through a terrible show, I get depressed not at how bad the performance is, but at the angry letters I'm inevitably going to receive when the review is published.

Am I biased against Ruth Hale plays? Yes, in the same sense that you'd be biased against rattlesnakes if you got bitten every time you saw one. It's not a blind, unreasonable prejudice -- like I just woke up one day and said, "I'm not going to like Ruth Hale plays anymore." It's based on sad, sad experience.

Some of the Herald comments, all of which were anonymous unless otherwise noted:

Perhaps the gentleman who reviewed the show should first learn to write well himself (or at least pass this by an editor) before he is so quick to critisize other's attempts.

...And thank you for citing specific examples of bad writing from the review so we'd all understand what you were referring to.

Then this one:

Oh boy! Another POSITIVE review by the "all knowing" Mr. "Snider"!! His name fits -- nobody is more snide than Eric. [I've said this before, but why do people still think this is a clever insult? I've written a column called "Snide Remarks" for nearly four years now; the connection between "snide" and "Snider" has already been made.] I have learned if I want to see a good play, etc. I just read the reviews of Mr. S and if he doesn't like it, I usually do. [I guess that means she only enjoys about 30 percent of the plays I review, since that's how many I give negative reviews to.] Of course, I am not an expert... just an appreciative audience. I appreciate the hours of rehersal, the dedication of people trying to give us a little entertainment while they practice their skills. [It's usually clear that effort went into it. But effort doesn't always mean an entertaining product.] Mr. S forgets that these people are not professional actors, directors, etc.--just good people trying to do their best. Thank you to the Hale Theater, the Scera Shell and Scera Encore season and many, many others for giving us so many hours of quality entertainment. And, DAILY HERALD, get a clue and get a PROFESSIONAL critic. [If you think "professional" critics never say anything negative, which is apparently what you want, then you've got anothing think coming.] We are sick of this guy and his negative and arrogant attitude!!

This one was originally posted anonymously, but then Sanford Porter, a local actor, owned up to it:

At the risk of sharing an opinion and then being shouted down or mocked by Eric D on his own website, I have a few things to say in response.

I just couldn't resist pointing out the stupidest thing Eric has ever said in a theater review. According to the wisdom of the genius that is Eric Snider this play contains "events occurring merely because the author wanted them to." This is, of course, opposed to all of those other plays that the Theater Critics get to decide what event occur or those shows where they put it up to a vote. I suppose someone needs to decide what events occur, and I personally can't think of any other person more qualified to do it than the author. Maybe Eric can enlighten us as to who should be deciding what events should be taking place in plays, if not the authors.

I also liked Eric's preemptive strike to anyone who might disagree with his review. Insulting anyone who might actually enjoy the show by implying that this show might be some sort of a punishment for the less intelligent.

Thanks for the wonderful service you provide to the readers of your paper. I'm sure knowing how you feel will save them from the awful two hours they might have to endure watching this trite, labored, sub par, painful, vanilla-bland, average, weak, rickety, ineffective, low-level, uncreative mess of a show. Either that or they can see through your attempt to sound a little smarter than you are by ripping apart the show and go and see for themselves. [Not explained: How ripping apart a show that one honestly sees as being really bad constitutes trying to sound smart.] (Or read the review from another paper and see what someone who doesn't have an over-inflated ego to satisfy thought.) [Again, not explained: How he knows I have a big ego.]

In a follow-up post, he explained that he knew what I was getting at with the "because the author wanted them to" comment: I was criticizing the fact that things happened for no good, logical reason within the play, but rather because the author saw them as necessary to get to the conclusion she was aiming at. Sanford Porter's problem with the way I phrased it was that he saw it as an unnecessary jab at the author specifically, rather than just at the show or the script or whatever.

And so on, this one written in the style of Larry King's stream-of-consciousness newspaper column:

And finally:

What a fun play this was! You can always count on one of Ruth Hale's plays being a great night of entertainment. It seems that you can't trust what Eric Snider writes about these plays. He's always so negative, [I'm not going to address the non-factual "he's always so negative" thing anymore] and I feel he just doesn't know how to have a good time. We've been coming to the Hale Theater for years now, and feel"I Came to Your Wedding" was one of the more enjoyable plays we've seen in a while. A talented cast, along with a somewhat predicatable happy ending play was just too much fun for Eric Snider once again! [Yeah, I shouldn't have criticized the talented cast. What? I didn't criticize them? Oh. Hmm.]

The end (so far).