Mark Lawson admits his personal morality dictates his criticism.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/no...r-play-exit-mid-show

Why would this piece be labelled misguided. The writer is expressing a concern and is open enough to admit he doesn't know how to deal with it. He says he couldn't find support in any of the internet reviews so raises the possibility his judgement is out of line with other critics.
Censorship of any kind is a difficult subject. Finding the right boundary can only be achieved by communication, either to the theatre management by a walk out or by writing about it. this guy is questioning what is the best approach, can't see any problem with that.

Hi;

I think he did well to write that. Personally, I would have done my utmost to pass on the job.

AH

an odd piece because he really destroys his role as a citic.

At least he pays homage to to the geatest living English writer...Alan Bennett !

I'm not sure why anyone would get upset or angry at a woman (fictional or otherwise) saying that she found a strange pleasure in being raped. People react differently to different situations. Some people take great pleasure in being made to feel pain. It's weird, but it happens. So why should a play be censored when it acknowledges that there are such people, and why should we feel uncomfortable when it's mentioned?

Exactly JC and why should such a passing comment provoke a critic into thinking he should abandon all objective thoughts about the quality of the piece and walk out?

It's not as if the playwright advocates rape but even if he did, surely a work of fiction should be judged on the quality of art and not the morality espoused?

This dangerous road is an extension of the kiddy porn philosophy which inevitably eventually locks up readers of murder mysteries.

Bloody Othello! Suggesting you should kill your unfaithful wife! Leave the theatre immediately.

JC's & JK's position appears to be that as long as something occurs in real life any representation of that act in a creative setting is acceptable. I disagree.

I consider myself liberal and open minded but I still have to accept that there must be censorship of some sort. Who draws the line and where that line should be are the difficult questions, but I firmly believe there has to be a line.

Real Kiddy porn exists. Some people really enjoy Kiddy porn. Would it therefore be acceptable to present a play were a (very) underage boy or girl enjoys being exploited and everyone lives happy ever after - I don't think so!

What about hard drugs, self harm, extreme politics - Should all positive views expressed on these subjects be acceptable?

Yes I'm afraid my opinion is that anything is permissable in a work of fiction and the conclusions must be drawn by the viewer/reader/listener.

The start of the chipping away censorship ends in a holocaust.

Yesterday they came for me. Tomorrow they may come for you.

If issues are not raised in some kind of art format, then they tend not to be properly discussed by the majority in society. Ignorance is our worst enemy.

Further proof that anything outside the norm must be stopped...

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts...e/article6933699.ece

Just because something is controversial doesn't make it good or appropriate for a particular slot on a Xmas TV schedule. I agree with the reviewer from The Times who also thinks a line has been crossed.

“The graphic duets are lurid and sexually abusive and some may draw the line at seeing a pregnant woman punched in the stomach and garrotted with a rosary. It’s not often you hear boos at the Wells, but these were well deserved.”

Maybe (just maybe) the fact that people are walking out of the theatre means that the content isn't going to be popular/good enough to justify a national TV screening.

Maybe, just maybe, the vociferous complainants are right. I can't stand the writing of Salman Rushdie. But I wouldn't want his words supressed or him killed however. Others would.