Bland, Useless, Tired, Shop-worn, Dog-Earred Jokes

I found this mumbling sub-par podcaster who gave us a little audio review. This guy is ever-so-prepared to make his recordings and I find his barely coherent, stumbling rambling to be quite amusing. The internet breeds negative folks like this ... guys who would like to believe that they are so much more intellectual than they really are. Guys who fancy themselves as liberal newscasters of some sort. This guy admits to not even staying for the entire show, spells out one of our actors names because he's obviously too intimidated to pronounce it, obviously wasn't paying too much attention to what little plot our little play has and closes with the obviously well-thought-out critique of "It sucks." With all that tossed at us, how can I really be offended? I want to be offended ... but it's like when a kid calls you a "doo-doo head" ... more cute than offensive.

As a counter-point, here's a quote from Martin Denton's blog (a quality guy and a quality reviewer, in my opinion) on the topic of reviews from last year: "My own view, when I write a review, is that I'm engaging in a conversation with the artists who created the show. The conversation starts when I enter the theatre. My job is to listen to the artists and try to hear what they want to tell me; to open my heart and mind to the experience inside the room, to actively engage myself in it, and to receive whatever's there to receive. Then, I go home, think about what happened, talk about what happened, and eventually write down a response—my half of the dialogue, back to the artists."

At least I've never read Martin's response as being, "it sucks!" He has a touch more class than that. He's not a "doo-doo head."

Ahhh ... the sweet smell of success.

That's right, "success." Our goal is simply to have fun and give our audience an opportunity to have fun as well. On top of that, we're all about getting a rise out of our audience ... had our little audio critic friend stuck around for Act II he would've heard our legal disclaimer about getting a rise out of our audience ... and in at least one instance, we certainly did that.

This fella's blog entry also reads, "... recommends Weasel Erotica for anyone seeking to squander a modest sum of cash for a miniscule portion of fun, a minute level of creativity, featuring an infinitesimal amount of talent ... To the production company: If Weasel Erotic [sic] is the best you can do, here is a career recommendation for all those concerned, including but not limited to: the writer, the director and the cast [He then links us to WalMart's webpage.] My only question is, with all the "Talent" listed in the program how come none of it showed up on the stage?"

Oh my goodness ... we've gone from "doo-doo head" to "poopy pants" in no time.

Immediately upon finding this useless, tasteless review ... I shared it with everybody I know. Why? Because although this guy obviously thinks of himself as a critic, he's no such thing. He's just trying valiantly to be insulting. He's just a rambling guy with an opinion ... that I welcome him to share. Nail us to the wall, my friend. The Talented Talent Brothers are big enough to take whatever pot-shots you want to dish out. Go ahead and take your little shots at our "sub-par actors with a sub-par script" because we find it nothing but amusing. It reminds us that we're on the right road. Good reviews, bad reviews ... at least the word is getting out. For that, we thank you!

Hey, Weasel Erotica is silly. Weasel Erotica is fun. Weasel Erotica is positive energy in the form of good (and not-so-good) jokes streamed together for no other reason than because we like doing it and our audiences like to laugh.

"You can't please all of the people all of the time, and last night they were all at my show." -- Mitch Hedberg

Also on the topic of reviews, feel free to visit this post from back in January to get my opinions on the subject. Whether the review is good or bad isn't nearly as important as getting your facts right ... this fella didn't even bother cover those bases. Instead of drawing his information from the program itself, he pulled it off of out-of-date info posted on a website three months ago. Way to pay attention ... "doo-doo head."