This mentor feedback is part of the LitNet | STAND theatre review workshop. The ten participants each submit a review to the workshop mentors for feedback. The participants will then be able to edit their submissions, receive additional feedback from the mentors and finalise their reviews.
This is the final feedback on version 2 of Alberto Smit’s review.
Feedback from Tracy Saunders
The replacement of the first and second paragraphs in this version works well, and the edited, succinct but enticing depiction of the narrative does the piece more justice. Examples of productions and other creative references to the moon add more texture than was in the first review. A bridge from these very diverse examples to the relevance in this play would have made the paragraph feel more complete. I appreciate the added details provided as to why the soundscape works so well.
Editing can feel unnecessary and burdensome, but it is often through a critical edit that you uncover real gems. It may be tempting to overlook the basics when editing for a second time, but pay particular attention to grammar and spelling when finalising your edit. A few extra minutes of proofreading will ensure that your reader is not distracted by errors. The final two paragraphs, which were unedited, would benefit from rephrasing and clarity. Reviews are often written with a very quick turnaround time, and one is not afforded the luxury of rewrites and deep editing. When afforded that opportunity, grab it with both hands.
Keep on writing, Alberto. I look forward to further reviews in the future.
Feedback from Nkgopoleng Moloi
Smit took into consideration feedback from the last review to create a well-balanced and well-structured text. The author struck a balance between being an audience member enjoying the review and a critic analysing the work – both elements are reflected throughout the review (especially in the first and final paragraphs).
The author showed a good understanding of the play’s formal and conceptual ambitions and backed this with interesting examples from other plays. With more editing, the flow of the text could be improved to turn the review into a coherent whole with a clear sense of style.
Mentor feedback: First version
Theatre review: First version
LitNet | STAND: Theatre review of Jessie, die man en die maan (version 1)
Theatre review: Second version
LitNet | STAND: Theatre review of Jessie, die man en die maan (version 2)
Also read:
LitNet | STAND: Teaterresensieslypskool 2023 | Theatre review workshop 2023