By now, regular readers are well aware of Guthrie Communications Director Melodie Bahan's complaints about local theater reviewing, and Star Tribune Senior Arts Editor Claude Peck's pointed response. Despite feeling a bit like Eddie Haskell, I asked Bahan for her rebuttal:

Wow. I've clearly struck a nerve here. It's telling that the first thing he does is attack my writing skills and speculate on my internal motivation. Seriously, Claude. Is that the best you can do?

I have no interest in getting into an online "he said, she said" argument with Claude. I would urge people to read my entire essay and draw their own conclusions, because Claude seems to be willfully misreading it.

I would also urge them to read an editorial in the January 6 Star Tribune, written in response to the article on Dowling's salary. What Claude neglected to mention is that in this "conference" we had before the story was written, my unwillingness to assist the paper was based on my belief that they would not be able to accurately tell the story or give it the context it deserved. And my e-mail to him after the fact, which included the Molotov cocktail comparison, also stated that I found the story shoddily reported and lacking in context. The editorial writer actually did the reporting.

Ultimately, I think it's fantastic that we're actually having this conversation in public. When Claude comes to the Guthrie next week to talk to students from the Minnesota High School Journalism Association about arts reporting and reviewing (as he has graciously done for several years), I know he'll expertly guide these students in what is probably their first experience reviewing a play. But maybe this year we can also talk about the need for critics to be able to accept criticism themselves.