Condescension

From Our Readers

To the Editors of The Crimson:

We were in the audience of "You're a Good Man Charlie Brown" the same evening that Peter Krause reviewed it. We found several aspects of his review disturbing. Even though Krause is clearly aware that Charlie Brown was a "charity production," the content of his review suggests that he has a singular lack of sensitivity to this fact.

We were particularly irritated by the repeated references to the physical qualities of the production. Obviously, a benefit production does not have the financial resources to construct elaborate sets and costumes. In this context it seems more appropriate to focus on the spirit with which "Charlie Brown" was conceived and performed.

Another example of the reviewer's carelessness is the obvious misunderstanding of the character of "Patty." Krause writes that Jennifer Joss has mistakenly portrayed Patty as "a shallow, bubbly, valley girl" when she should be an "irritating tomboy." In fact, it is Krause who is mistaken. The character of "Patty" in the musical is based on Schultz's earlier and entirely different character of "Patty," not on the more recent comic strip character, "Peppermint Patty."

The pervasive condescending tone of the review is out of place in light of the intentions of this production. The reviewer appears to be more concerned with being witty than with presenting a fair assessment The review could have been negative without being mean-spirited, and without missing the point of a charity production. All too often, Crimson critics mar their reviews with self-indulgent forays into verbal gymnastics and typically Harvardian condescension. Kate Robin '88   Sarah McKearnan '87   Zak Klobucher '87