My first magazine editorial position was with one that received quite a few letters to the editor. And when it came to those letters, the head of editorial department was a stickler. We had to follow up on each letter that was being considered for print and find out if indeed the person who wrote it wrote it. That, and we never ever ran anonymous letters.
To me, anonymous letters to the editor are nothing more than cheap shots, sucker punches. Printing them allows someone to fire off an opinion, slur, praise without any recourse.
Unfortunately, publications often print anonymous letters by way of promoting their point of view which takes on legitimacy because it appears in a letter from an independent source- a reader.
For all the bashing The Bulletin gets, the paper does not run anonymous letters and meticulously follows up to make sure of the authorship of the signed letters they might run. After verification, the Bulletin‘s editorial board decides which letters are worthy of including in their “Letters To The Editor” section of the editorial page.
Now what letters The Bulletin editors decide to run is entirely a different matter and one for perhaps another blog.
Here I want to focus in on the anonymous letter in the current edition of The Source on Cricket Daniel’s play, “Couple Dating.”
Under the cloak of anonymity, a writer blasts the play for all sorts of un-PC stereotyping. In short, people should be picketing performances because of the play’s lack of sensitivity.
I read the script two years ago and my take on the obviously unenlightened male lead character was that his part was written such as to show him to be just that — unenlightened. Unenlightened and stupid, if you will, which in turn makes him the perfect foil for what transpires in the play.
He’s a character not a spokesperson for the playwright’s personal beliefs.
Now I have not seen a performance of the play, but will do so. Family members have and said they enjoyed the evening, weren’t offended and were very happy to see a local playwright get a chance to produce and direct her play on a Bend stage.
In fact, one family member, very enlightened mind you, has been back to see the play with friends. All those friends seemed to enjoy it as well.
Before The Source printed the anonymous letter, word on the street among local theater people was that the paper would not review the play because of the complaint of one person: the anonymous letter writer. That is simply not true. There will be a review.
If it had been true, it would have been a real slap in the face to readers who might be looking for help in making a decision whether or not to see the play.
One person’s mind is made up-“Couple Dating” is insensitive. I’ll bear that in mind and find out for myself when I see the play next week.
In the meantime, why is the person who damns the play doing so anonymously? Why is he or she scared of doing the right and honorable thing by stating who they are and being open to a dialogue on the subject?
Nothing has been gained by printing that anonymous letter. Perhaps it might have even the reverse affect getting people more interested in going to the play just to see what all the fuss is about.
One thing I know is that Second Street Theater owner Maralyn Thoma is an enlightened and caring person as well as careful in what she puts on stage at her theater.
As to the playwright, I think she’s way smarter than the anonymous person gives her credit for being.
I believe printing anonymous letters should never be condoned in any publication. Others disagree I’m sure.
This article appears in Apr 15-21, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I was surprised by that anonymous letter, too. Mrs Elliott and I have not yet seen the play, but we know a couple of the people in the cast, including KPOV’s Mike Ficher, and we know that they’d have nothing to do with a homophobic, anti-semitic message.
The writer of the letter doesn’t give the impression of cluelessness, so I’m chalking it up to either a hidden agenda, or the writer simply had an off night.
Okay, let me at least clear up one thing and then go on to Cheer you people who are brave to not only write your review and/or comments, but do so with your name displayed on the top. A reviewer from The Source came to my play on Opening Night. We had a sold out performance and a standing ovation. Maralyn Thoma and I rushed out to get The Source the following Wednesday excitedly flipping through pages looking for the review (I was asked for pictures of the play from The Source the night before). When we did not see the review, Maralyn called The Source and spoke to Mike Bookey, editor of the Arts Department I believe. He said that the reviewer found my play to be racist and offensive among many other things. He opted to not run a review (I don’t believe one was ever even written) because it would not have been a positive one. I was actually thankful that Mike did not run the review because I do think it would have affected ticket sales. I did e-mail Mike eventually saying I was shocked that the reviewer found it so offensive and really surprised that she couldn’t at least find positives in the brilliant cast, director and set. This play has gotten an overwhelming response, all positive from what I can tell. People have come back to see it twice and I’ve been there every night watching the entire audience laugh and cheer. I do push the envelope and touch on controversial topics. But I also make it very clear why this couple (mostly the husband) are the way they are and it does come to a moral conclusion. I stand by my play, my actors and my director. I find my play to be contemporary, edgy and funny. I thought Bend was ready for a play like this, but apparently not. But..we are selling tickets like hotcakes thanks to all the controversy…so, get your tickets now before they are all sold out! Cheers!
Just to clarify a couple things. A review was, indeed, written. We do post negative play reviews and have done so in the past. The reason this was held was because it was so overwhelmingly negative that we wanted to find a second opinion, which we couldn't find by press time. I will be attending the play tonight and we will be publishing a review.
So, will everyone knowing who wrote it make them look at what they’re saying honestly and critically? No, it’ll be more people sticking up for Cricket and giving all the venom from the Couple Dating supporters a person to be directed at. The question I want to ask is if you didn’t know Cricket personally would you like or dislike the play any more or less? It’s not a play about homophobia or anti-semitism, it’s about an ignorant guy getting slightly less ignorant.
Yes, Cricket. Your play is sooooo far advanced from our primitive minds we just can’t wrap our brains around it. I’m sorry the overwhelmingly positive response you’re getting isn’t enough for you to think Bend is getting it. You totally contradicted yourself. Which is it? Overwhelmingly positive or that Bend doesn’t get it?
Point well taken theaterfan, I do know alot of people in Bend, however this play premiered in Klamath Falls where I don’t know a single person and it has gone on to be their highest grossing play of the season (they have since selected my second play for their 2010-2011 season) Again, this play isn’t for everyone, but I do think the majority of the people are enjoying it. We’ll see what Mike thinks – see you tonight Mike, please come up and introduce yourself okay? Let’s hope it turns out like the Life cereal commercial “Hey Mikey, he likes it!”
You’re right about the kinds of letters The Bulletin publishes, Bob. They even printed one a couple of days ago by some suspicious character named Bob Woodward.
Oh Jesus Theaterfan.forget about it. You’re right..I’m wrong. Have a great day!
Cheer up, Cricket — when Synge’s “Playboy of the Western World” premiered in 1907 it started a riot. If you write anything at all controversial there will always be some people who are offended. It comes with the territory.
Why is it a HUGE BIG DEAL TERRIBLE THING that the lady wrote anonymously? Sucker punches and secret agendas indeed. I know five other people besides myself that found the play cringeworthy and offensive. There were obviously more people than just the lady who wrote the letter. So she’s shy, so what? Who wouldn’t be? Maybe whether or not the play is offensive is the issue.
Why is everyone so outraged that the writer of this letter decided to remain anonymous? If we were living in a city there’s a good chance very few readers would know who the writer was anyway. All the letters printed in papers published in places that aren’t small towns are for the most part ‘anonymous’ – excepting the writer and the writer’s friends. If someone writes a letter that’s published in The New Yorker say, then to 99.99% of readers will not know the writer and that letter will be ‘anonymous’ as such.
So, that considered – what’s the agenda of people here in Bend wanting to know who the writer of this letter is? What would happen if it was known? Would they be hassled in the post office, accosted at the bar? Would they be bad-mouthed and gossiped about? Would they be refused service at the supermarket? Find their library card revoked perhaps? Would they be character assassinated on Facebook? How exactly would this pan out?
I didn’t find the play ‘offensive’ exactly, but I can see why the writer would. I did however feel uncomfortable that humour was being extracted from intolerance. Someone who sees this play and is homophobic will find their views validated. I don’t feel that ‘making fun’ out of intolerance towards lesbians is acceptable when in some parts of the world people are killed for being homosexual.
Whether we find it offensive or not, I would like to point out here this play is NOT a ‘beautiful piece of art’ – not because of any of what is brought up so far, but because the writing is immature, the scenarios mundane, the character’s unlikeable and uninteresting…And if you try and argue that, everything else you have to say looks pretty questionable.
I’ve signed here anonymously – under the pen name of writer who took to anonymity to overcome intolerance.
George Eliot
I just can’t get over this silly argument raging against someone wishing to remain anonymous. I guess it must’ve been the same argument Dick Cheney used to validate outing Valerie Plame. People remain anonymous to protect themselves. Especially in a town where everyone knows everyone. Especially when you want to voice a strong opinion against homophobia. Especially when people who gay bash also sometimes literally bash gays.
If what Bob Woodward is saying is ‘Suck it up’, maybe the same theory could be applied to ‘Couples Dating’. Where’s the apology from the playwright to an offended and obviously lesbian woman looking to protect her identity? (Maybe her boss would fire her, for example, you really just don’t know where the anonymous woman is coming from…) If I had any inkling I might have offended someone in any capacity I wouldn’t justify myself, I’d just ‘Suck it up’ and apologize.
Furthermore @ H. Bruce Miller: There’s a difference between the controversy engendered by Synge and the controversy engendered by ‘Couples Dating’. Just because one thing is controversial and another thing is controversial doesn’t mean they’re controversial in the same way. I noticed 2nd Street (again, rather than apologizing) exploited the ‘controversy’ for all it was worth, and laughed all the way to the bank, after disparaging The Source for censorship and all sorts of other malarkey.
Saying the controversy over ‘Couples Dating’ is like the controversy over ‘Playboy of the Western World’ is like saying ‘The Godfather’ is a mafia movie. And then saying: ‘The Whole Nine Yards’ is a mafia movie.
Sincerely,
Shout Out to Anonymity
HAHAHAHAHA: Bob Woodward holding The Bulletin up as a PARAGON OF LETTER TO THE EDITOR VIRTUE. I write anonymously to the Bulletin all the time. I set up a fake email account and if they call my house: ‘Is Tom Smith there?’ Then I say: ‘Yes, that’s me, I’m “Tom Smith”, I wrote the letter!’ Plus The Bulletin is burdened by its barely concealed right wing agenda so it has to publish letters that make the Bulletin letter page ridiculous on a daily basis. I THINK THE SOURCE HAS A TERRIFIC LETTERS PAGE. I did not see the play discussed but sounds like it had a barely concealed right wing agenda too. TO SEARCH AND DESTROY someone who wrote an anonymous letter is also the stuff of right wing agendas. I agree with the person above: why worry about anonymous people when you should be worrying about having no bigotry in our nice town of Bend.