I'm a Writer Too
It seems hard to argue that Nick Green [reviewing Terror in June, May 4] is not a writer. Clearly, he uses words, composed consistently and entirely of letters, without the slightest indication that he would do otherwise, say, using a combination of numbers or other symbols, like sl%#!b3erg. There are spaces between the words he uses to indicate to his readers when one word begins and another ends. Also, he uses punctuation nicely, with a flourish, not too excessive, but in the most correct and timely intervals.
However, after the first few words of the review, it becomes very obvious Green is not really writing. After reading a whole phrase, like, the play "is full of false starts" one gets the notion that Green has nothing to say, or nothing new to say, in the least. His frequent and tiring use of the words "the," "and," "play" show the author's unimaginative and uninspired sense of language. Since writing is speech, sustained, it seems language in review work is highly important. Green's juxtaposition of small words like "a" with bigger, fancier words like "hubris" may be meant to demonstrate one of three things:
1. The author desperately wants someone to believe he is a "real writer," since he frequently makes use of multisyllabic words like "monotonous" and "theater."
2. The author is, in the least, well-educated.
3. The author is a robot.
Green's sense of structure and timing seem arguable as well. He devotes all but one final line of the review to discussing the playwright's former works, while making no mention of the set design, direction, audience reaction, and most dubiously, the acting. It seems inconceivable that a review of a play, which is a performing art, would not make mention of the performers in any respect, except as a passing thought.
Two rewarding things regarding Nick Green's writing: one, it is short and two, it ends, eventually.