In my first post on this blog, I said that “you won’t be hearing about projects that I am involved in or how my writing is going…but who’s to say where you draw the line between a personal and a more broadly cultural blog?” Alison Croggon rightly pointed out in the comments below that half the interest in reading a blog is in the personal, and I’m beginning to rethink my position on the issue.
The catalyst for the change has not been sudden and is difficult to pinpoint; while it is true that I feel more inclined and more able to talk about writing and theatre work that I am developing, of equal importance is my feeling that this blog is becoming too narrow, too review centric and probably, too boring. There are other things that I want to be able to say about theatre, both in the context of contemporary Australia and the rest of the world, and some of them extend beyond my analysis as a reviewer and into my roles as writer and director. Some of them are just plainly personal. However, a range of questions emerge from the inclusion of such material in the mix: how does it affect and shape the way people respond to reviews in the light of supposed objectivity? Does anyone really expect objectivity from reviewers anymore, particularly in the internet blogging age? Is it still possible to love / hate a work and not be considered biased? So sit tight while I draw up a new constitution (note: will probably remain metaphorical) and assesses the politics of the personal in theatARGH.