´óÏó´«Ã½

'Tis the season to be jolly but not if you're a critic.

Or worse, on the receiving end of a bad review.

As newspaper circulations plummet and the internet expands, critics seem like a small and endangered species.

The trade newspaper Variety caused consternation recently when it laid off its film and theatre reviewers.

But do we need them? And would we miss them?

I should point out that I'm NOT one of that very small band of critics in Scotland.

Although a long time ago when I worked as a newspaper journalist, I reviewed theatre and music.

It's a very fine line to tread - between telling it like it is, and facing the full wrath of a self righteous, enraged fan.

I remember in particular reviewing Bob Dylan's concert in Cardiff in 1996.

He's one of a bunch of artists who are totally hit and miss with their performances.

Sometimes they're completely electrifying and unforgettable. And sometimes you wonder if they sent someone else along in a wig and dark glasses to mime along to the CD.

I'm afraid it was one of those, a performance by the numbers with very little personal connection with the audience.

I wrote that in the review - and I got letters in green ink for months afterwards, for what fans saw as a personal attack on their hero.

So the number one qualification for a good critic is a thick skin - particularly vital in a small country where you're easily recognised.

It helps to have some experience - to be able to put the show in context, particularly if it's one you've seen before.

You need to think on your feet.

Newspaper reviews have to be in before 11pm - the show often only comes out half an hour before. With the internet, reviews are instantaneous. You have to be sure of what you want to say and say it.

And you have to be entertaining - you should want to read a critic's review even if you haven't seen the show.

So why have critics fallen out of favour?

I hate to blame the internet - but it plays a huge part.

It's now much easier to sample something you want to see or listen to - before you buy.

Everything from books and albums to films, even shows.

On top of that, there's much more emphasis on the amateur opinion - fans with typewriters, only now they're more likely to be armed with a blackberry or an iphone.

And they're fast - sometimes speedier than the professionals.

When Andrew Lloyd Webber's show Love Never Dies opened, the press night had barely begun when the show had already been nicknamed Paint Never Dries on the internet.

There are loads of sites now where ordinary opinion is as important as anything a critic has to say.

When you buy a book on Amazon, you can read what previous readers thought on the same page.

And because of all that, critics no longer wield the sort of power they once did - like New York Times critic - Frank Rich - who it was said could close a play on Broadway with a bad review.

So how do you justify the critic? Well it does have an old-fashioned feel to it.

If you don't know who to look out for, you might well imagine a monocled gentleman in smoking jacket, wearing a cravat and, pre-smoking ban, brandishing a pipe.

The ladies would be tweed-clad with stout sensible shoes.

But I have to say there's a very small circle of critics in Scotland - I know most of them - and that doesn't match any of their descriptions.

It is still a much-maligned pursuit - and a misunderstood one.

Where else do we talk about "critics"? In sport they're commentators, elsewhere, they're bloggers or columnists.

This is the only area where people are encouraged to criticise - it's immediately quite an agressive term.

Way back in the 19th century Elizabeth Barrett Browning said "we have all known good critics who have stamped out a poet's hopes".

Playwright Channing Pollok was a bit more direct - "a critic is a legless man who teaches running" but I think that's a bit harsh on the vast majority of critics who genuinely care about the wider art form and far from criticising work, actually want to sniff out stuff which would be otherwise overlooked.

Something like Black Watch - a wee gem in the midst of the Edinburgh Festival, which is still touring the world, four years on.

It's also about encouraging debate - not just about saying that something's good or bad.

A good reviewer will have the experience to put a performance or a book, or a film into context.

The shock of the new often takes a bit of getting use to.

Without a critic's championing, many works would be lost from the outset.

A good reviewer will be entertaining - you'll want to read what they have to say, even if you haven't seen the show they're reviewing.

We might all pretend we're on the side of the swooning luvvies but who can't help chuckling at reviews like these?

"The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented."
-Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

"Such is the mind-boggling awfulness of this family show (El Peter), performed in Spanish with inept English surtitles, that you wish the Lost Boys had not shot at Wendy but taken aim at this great white elephant and finished it off instead."
Lyn Gardener, The Guardian

Or a headline on a review of Gone with the Wind the musical - Frankly, this show is damned.

And if that offends any actors or performers out there - they can always hold out for the day when a critic puts their own work out for criticism.

Or reply with the words of the American playwright, Wilson Mizner.
"A drama critic is a person who surprises the playwright by informing him what he meant".