This piece essentially comes from being nosy. So there I was, innocently flicking between Facebook and Plato in the faculty computer room, when I overheard a very interesting conversation indeed. Some poor creative type was fuming to her equally arty looking companion over a review on a recent musical in this very publication. Obviously, lacking the self control not to, and having it on great authority from a friend that this particular night was really rather good, I took a little look at this review myself.

It was easy enough to spot. Two stars; not exactly generous. It was perhaps a little snide and wordy for my tastes but unarguably well written, and, if you can believe it, very interesting. Scrolling down to the bottom of the page however, and the comments could have come from a thread on Mumsnet about, lets say, legalizing cannabis for Under 12s; the outrage was hitting menopausal levels.

This made me think; what is the point of reviews? Are they written to entertain or to inform? And how, when dealing with things so individual and subjective as theatre, music, art, and even food, can a journalist’s opinion be trusted by a readership with such complexity of taste?

The answer is, as I believe, that it simply can’t.

Moving away from the small yet cut-throat Cambridge dramatic scene and the occasionally over-enthusiastic world of student journalism, this constant three-way slagging match between reviewers, reviewees and readers continues. All you need is 30 seconds on the website Trip Advisor (and I recommend it – these guys don’t hold back) to see that what justifies a five star review for one person, barely gets a two from another. Nevertheless, each review makes entertaining reading.

So, presuming that if these reviews are to be entertaining or interesting in any way, they simply have to be subjective, after all, if they’re not, you’re just reading a synopsis. Why then do people allow themselves to get so worked up about a review they don’t agree with?

I myself have fallen into this trap many times. I remember, as a laughably self-satisfied fifteen year old, having read a review by A. A Gill in which he compared the presenter of a documentary to her mummified subjects, writing a letter to The Times, and coining what I thought was the incredibly scathing line; ‘for a food critic, this article was in dreadful taste’. I really shouldn’t have been allowed a pen, let alone stamps, and needless to say it was never printed. But somehow I held onto the hope that Mr Gill read it, and in a moment of revolutionary epiphany decided to change his ways forever. He didn’t.

All reviewers should be entitled to their opinion, but we must accept as a given that these are the opinions of one person, not of many, much in the same way as the BBC legal team distance themselves from the musings of its more outrageous broadcasters.

In conclusion then, I would like to offer two pieces of advice.

To the poor creative type upon whom I ever so rudely eavesdropped, I leave this, a noteworthy point left by one of the commenters on the review; ‘I think the standing ovation begged to differ’.

And finally to the reviewers themselves; perhaps a little disclaimer wouldn’t go amiss. Maybe something along the lines of; ‘These are the opinions of me and me only. It is entirely possibly you will think they’re a load of shit’.

Disclaimer: These are the opinion of Lottie and Lottie only. It is entirely possible you will think they’re a load of shit.