¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This section and the next include reviews that address a mediated performance, online editions, and prominent Shakespeare resources on the web. Reviews present one critic or viewer’s response to a performance or resource, conveying a sense of how it works and what is interesting about it. Performance reviews have a specific set of demands. While articles on performance strive to create a broader account of a production, often connecting it to other productions, other texts, or theoretical constructs, reviews have a narrower scope. They focus on one experienced viewer’s response to one performance. Reviews can be of interest to other viewers of that performance or production by providing an alternate perspective; they can also be of interest to readers who have not seen the production by recording aspects of a performance, providing insight into ideas about how it works and glimpses of current performance trends.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In a forum such as this, responses to reviews can be useful when they present additional information into how others have experienced the performance or web resource under discussion. Responses can also be helpful from commentators who did not see the production under review (or have not used a specific resource) but who seek clarification, or who can offer points of comparison or insight into relevant contexts.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 In her recent column in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Hot Type: No Reviews of Digital Scholarship = No Respect,” Jennifer Howard discusses the value of scholarly reviewing for online resources — and the fact that traditional humanities journals have, largely, neglected this important professional function in regards to digital scholarship. These reviews represents a small step in the right direction for Shakespeare studies, in this regard.