What makes a review a review?
I have very definite ideas about the topic, but they're not always in harmony with what gets used as common parlance. For example, I would argue that there is not a single blog entry in "Front Row at Lansing's Theaters" that qualifies as a review. I talk about shows and things that capture my interest, but I'm not reviewing any of them.
Likewise, I would argue that what gets published in the Lansing State Journal is a review, but not a critique. I would make the case that some of the blog entries that Don and I wrote earlier this year about Doubt qualify as critiques.
However, there are textbook definitions and then there are reader perceptions. I find more often than not when I talk to people that they interpret my blog entries to be reviews--even though I don't bring the same level of rigor to most blog entries that I do to a review.
Is it a losing battle? Do most readers make distinctions between theater talk, theater reviews, and theater critiques? Or is that something that is done only in the trade?