To the editors:
Tony! Tony! Tony! You surprise me [Letters, March 3]. While I understand you backing Tom Boeker (in much the same manner I understand Ron Brown backing Rich Daley or Cat Stevens backing Khomeini), I don’t understand your mean-spirited name calling. I can only conclude that this is something which you and Mr. Boeker learned in critic school or that it’s a virus spreading through the offices of the Reader. If you read my letter of 2/3/89 (“Theater of the Abused”) carefully, you would understand that gagging Tom Boeker or keeping him out of my theater was the furthest thing from my mind. My intentions were to make Boeker think prior to substituting name calling for criticism and to state that I intend to play his games in a justly theatrical fashion. I have no desire to tell you what to do. In fact, I look forward to seeing Mr. Boeker’s name on our reservation list. This isn’t “intimidation or blacklisting” as you suggest. This is sport! It’s also good theater. I, like the author of last week’s [March 3] “Another Boeker Backer,” don’t agree with the anonymous managing director who decided to send Tom Boeker packing [February 24]. Our doors are open to all and we welcome any and all criticism. It is my wish that Tom Boeker continue to write truthful, passionate and coherent articles as you suggest. Obviously, many of us read them. I hope, though, that good or bad he provides thoughtful insight rather than just needless name calling. You too, Tony. There is a mutual responsibility theaters and critics share in making the art more vital and accessible.
So, until Mr. Boeker comes to our theater, I remain . . .
Anonymous Artistic Director
Chicago