The past two weeks have been very unsettling; after my review of the Conservatory’s fall opera, Dialogues of the Carmelites, was printed, I was confronted with a large number of unhappy readers who strongly disagreed with what I had written. For two weeks, I have had numerous people yell at me, throwing unfair accusations left and right.

While I encourage the expression of differences in opinion, I was appalled at the way the situation was handled. As other writers for the Arts section have also borne the brunt of enraged readers, I feel that as an editor, the issue of ongoing hostility must be addressed.

If any publication prints an inaccuracy or something a reader opposes, the polite, professional route is to send a letter to the editor. Rather than acting in this appropriate manner, many students have approached me in Dascomb, DeCafé, the library and hallways to noisily express their dissent.

I wish to clarify certain points that seem to have caused confusion. Some readers have disapproved because they believe that I attended a dress rehearsal on a personal whim and reviewed a not-yet polished performance that was intended for practice purposes only.

In fact, in the time prior to that final rehearsal, the Review had received a number of e-mails from Joanne Winograd, publicity assistant to Marci Janas, director of conservatory publicity. These e-mails, directed to the newspaper’s account as well as the arts editors’ personal accounts, invited the Review to attend the dress rehearsal on Wednesday evening in order to take photographs and review the opera.

Many reviews are written after viewing a final rehearsal, also known as the press showing. Since the opera’s publicity team had invited the Review to attend the rehearsal, it is logical to conclude that the singers knew that the performance was to be attended by the press. Asking the Review to come to the Wednesday rehearsal was an attempt to balance the amount of coverage between the two casts; two other papers were slated to review the opening on Thursday.

The Conservatory’s operas are lavish productions, with this one being no exception, drawing a large cast and crew, with expenses totaling $17,000, exceeding the allotted budget by 21 percent. Such a monumental performance is taken very seriously, and reviewed critically, by the Review.

Dissatisfied readers have stressed their opinion that I am unqualified to have authored the article. What I still fail to understand is why my “inexperienced” opinion seemed to matter so much to them. If what I wrote was that far off track, then those who are well-versed in the subject matter will certainly understand that. These opinions, then, should be the ones that matter most.

In this situation, if a campus paper’s review of a student’s performance is enough to cause such strife, then I fear to imagine how those students will survive professionally on the stage. The words of a seasoned critic at a larger publication will weigh much more; if anything slightly negative is printed, then those who have reacted so strongly this time around will be even more at a loss.

On Nov. 14, Bernard Holland of The New York Times wrote, “Gerard Powers has a tenor of moderate size and...rough patches in the middle of his voice need ironing out. From there, the standards for this big cast dropped...Ms. Millo[’s] teary laments may have approached the shameless...” Anthony Tommasini wrote on Nov. 16, “The tenor Ramon Vargas, who sang Romeo...[was] a stiff actor. He often seemed ill at ease here, but again...[he] looked rattled.”

Negative comments in professional papers are read by a larger following and can do incredible damage to performers who do not learn to take these criticisms with a grain of salt. Musicians should understand that their art is highly subjective and extremely personal. Either the audience will love it or hate it (or worse, the performance was so mediocre that nothing will be retained in memory).

Writing reviews is more daunting than readers realize. It seems that the most qualified writers would be those who had experienced the stage in that field. However, it is difficult to remain unbiased; some may plug the careers of friends, while others may lash out at rivals. And of course, the failed Broadway actress is most likely to err on the vengeful side. Journalistic integrity must be upheld; a review is an honest opinion, and that opinion may be negative.

In this situation, I did not view myself as a student reviewing her peers; I was an editor reviewing a performance. My opinion, although published, is mine solely, and does not reflect the views of others.

If readers disagreed so strongly, they must have believed that had they written the article, it would have been more refined. So my last word to those who feel that way is to urge them to aid in the Review’s continued efforts to print interesting, newsworthy material by writing for the Arts section. Interested individuals should e-mail arts@oberlinreview.org.