What do comedians expect from reviewers?

If I asked a lot of my comedy colleagues what they expect from reviewers, I’d probably get a knee-jerk response of “a load of bollocks”. Getting past that though, during my 14 years on the Scottish comedy circuit, I’ve encountered a lot of insightful, dedicated, and well-informed comedy reviewers. I’ll try to use them as the benchmark in putting forward the standards I think comedy reviewers should be aiming for (and that most of those in Scotland do reach). I was about to make this very complicated, but I’ve realised that there are two simple things that make good reviewers stand out.

1) Knowledge. I’ve heard it said before that reviewers are there to give the paying public’s point of view regarding a show. I can understand this, but reviewers should also bear in mind that the public aren’t being paid to write their review of the night and have it published in a newspaper. There’s no shame in knowing what you’re talking about.

Having a grasp of different comedy venues, different comedy performers, and different comedy styles dramatically slashes the potential for glaring factual errors that will see a review lose credibility both in the eyes of the comedy community, and also in the eyes of more knowledgeable sections of the public.

Most importantly, having a breadth of knowledge gives the reviewer the ability to judge a gig in context. For instance, if it was the first time you’ve seen a comedy show – everything would seem original to you. You wouldn’t have any criteria on which to judge that aspect of the show. The same thing could also apply to the strength of the language used or the subjects discussed. People used to live comedy would judge those things against other live comedy shows. People only used to television comedy would judge them against that. Hence, someone who knows the circuit would probably give a vastly different review of a night to somebody who doesn’t. I’d take informed criticism as my preference every time. I think the public would too.

2) Caring. Comedy and reviewing are very similar. The harshest words aren’t offensive or gratuitous if they come from a position of concern. It’s not a question of positive or negative reviews, just whether or not the criticisms a reviewer makes are intended to improve comedy or to damn it. Reviewers picking up on unoriginality, topical references that have outstayed their topicality, or out and out plagiarism (where they have the knowledge to pick up on any of those things) aren’t being damning of comedy, they’re being protective. That’s just tough love.

So there you go. As demanding and diva-like as we comedians seem, I’m only asking for two things from a reviewer. Heck, I’ll even let the knowledge one slide if someone’s working their way up to gaining it. So long as they care.