Although I admire the writer’s sense of voice and humor, the review of “The Glory of Living” was embarrassing for all parties involved. Embarrassing for the writer, as it displayed his complete lack of tact and knowledge when approaching criticism; embarrassing for us, as a theatre department, that our work and the work of the playwright would be denigrated to an episode of Law and Order: SVU (“The Glory of Living” was the runner-up to the Pulitzer Prize in 2001); and embarrassing for the Dakota Student, that a review of a theatrical production would be less thought-out and informed than an Acting 1 paper. At the very least, it’s ignorant. At most, it’s offensive.

I feel sorry for the writer. He obviously has a nice voice, but not the confidence in his own ideas to sustain a respectable review of a serious topic without making the entire experience a joke. Domestic Abuse happens. Rape happens. Murder happens. I’m sorry that this kid can’t experience it through any lens but levity. And if the acting was as good as he says it was, then I can see no fault but in his own immaturity, which, by his own admission, is that of a thirteen year-old. I then feel sorry for the Dakota Student, which resorts to publishing this sort of bloggish review in an effort to connect to the student body and this millennial disconnect to experiencing true feelings.

This type of writing isn’t inherently bad. He shouldn’t stop. I want him to keep writing and to keep seeing theatre. It’s for people like him, people who cannot break the dykes inside them and around them, that theatre should be made.

(Disclaimer: I play Clint in the UND’s production of “The Glory of Living.”)

Daniel Johnson,

Theatre Graduate Student