In defense of Toby Zinman

The passion of the 'joyless' critic:
In defense of the Inquirer's Toby Zinman

JIM RUTTER

Most of Jonathan M. Stein’s recent complaint about the Philadelphia Inquirer’s theater critic Toby Zinman concerned his frustration that Zinman’s opinion of the Wilma’s recent Eurydice failed to match the excitement he felt over the production.

Reading Zinman, Stein writes, leaves him “saddened by her joyless spirit and her apparent lack of enthusiasm.” She pens “dour responses,” “damns with faint praise,” and infuses her articles with a “burned out quality” and spirit of “picky cynicism or elitism.” Yet Stein insists that he’s “not one to say that critics must be uncritical cheerleaders.”

Stein alleges that “most Philadelphia theatergoers look almost exclusively to the Inquirer for direction.” Maybe so. But it does not necessarily follow, as Stein contends, that “such a monopoly of opinion requires a critical look at what the Inky’s main theater critic writes.” Before we examine that question we must first ask how Zinman has earned such a following and reputation in the first place.

I rarely read Zinman’s reviews because (apparently like Stein) I rarely share her aesthetic judgments. And I too have been stunned by Zinman’s nastier comments (like the time she remarked, of a performer with 1812 Productions, “Who ever told Mary Carpenter she could sing?”). The fact remains that Zinman is probably the most knowledgeable theater critic in Philadelphia.

A full plate

Zinman sees and/or reviews more than 150 productions a year, interviews prominent playwrights, and attends international theater conferences, all while teaching a full load of theater-related courses at the University of the Arts. If Stein is upset that Zinman didn’t feel the same thrill that he experienced from Eurydice— well, try attending 150 shows a year and maybe your standards for excellence will change, too.

As for Zinman’s “joyless spirit,” anyone who could write not one, but two books on Edward Albee clearly loves the theater.

By her own admission, Zinman suffers for that passion. During a recent “critic’s panel” at Villanova, a member of the audience asked the panelists if they thought they could associate— whether as friends or colleagues— with theater artists. Zinman qualified her negative answer by observing that “some of the most interesting people I know are theater people.” She implied that she would like to know and interact with these artists both professionally and socially, but that for professional reasons she must keep her distance. The flip side of the power inherent in an Inquirer critic’s position is the isolation from the people you write and care most about. (Maybe that’s why Zinman seems “burned-out” or unwilling to write feeling-centered reviews that mirror others' experiences of a play.)

No pain, no gain

But let’s assume that Zinman’s style and judgment merit discussion. It’s not the job of Zinman (or any critic) to support local theaters. The Inquirer hires critics like Zinman to help sell newspapers serving the needs of readers— above all, the readers’ need for honest insight, whether favorable or unfavorable. Besides, many people love a caustically abrasive critic. Why shouldn’t Zinman cater to those readers as well as to Jonathan Stein?

As Winston Churchill put it, “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” Churchill also once noted, “I am easily satisfied with the very best.” When Zinman likes a show, her reviews do indeed fill seats. Many critics would love to exert a similar effect, which I regard as one of the critic’s useful— though not primary— functions.

And if Zinman thinks a production less than admirable, she does theatergoers a favor by telling them they could better spend their time and money elsewhere.



To read a response, click here.