Not only does a review have the potential to make or break a show, it can make or break a person.
Theatre-maker and facilitator Libby Taylor from our Volunteer Collective reflects on adopting a trauma-informed approach to arts reviews, highlighting the significant impact that feedback from critics can have on artists’ mental health.
2025 marked my second year of reviewing at the Edinburgh Fringe. Not only was I more confident in my style through experience reviewing for multiple platforms, I was also more aware of and committed to bringing a trauma-informed approach to my reviews. Whilst developing my practice as a theatre-maker and trauma-informed facilitator, I have come to recognise the deep impact of feedback and criticism on creatives. Not only does a review have the potential to make or break a show, it can make or break a person. I feel the weight of responsibility every time I submit my opinions for publication, and I believe this is a burden every critic should carry. I am not calling for a non-critical approach to arts reviews, but I am calling for greater recognition of the people behind a piece.
This space will mainly be used to examine the world of theatre reviews, as this is where my expertise lies. There will, however, be references to reviews outwith this artform, as there is much overlap in the style and content of reviews across different fields, and this can help inform where challenges lie and learning can be had.
What changes would becoming trauma-informed entail?
Reviews have long been a way for people to critically analyse art and share perspectives on the merits and shortfalls of different works. Prior to the digital revolution, this role was restricted to professional journalists who held authority on the subject, but since the rise of blogs and social media, arts criticism has been democratised1. Whilst there are significant benefits to more viewpoints being represented, there are now limited to no controls over what can be written about another’s work in a public forum. This piece will examine the need for certain standards to be introduced for the benefit of artists and audiences.
To determine whether a trauma-informed approach within reviews is what is needed, we must explore what this would mean and how it would differ from common practice today. Trauma-informed practice is becoming more mainstream since the wider recognition of the physical and mental impact of adverse experiences. The Covid-19 pandemic, in particular, spurred on decision-makers to respond, with the Scottish Government now supporting the implementation of the National Trauma Transformation Programme.
Three principles, identified by the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, have inspired practices combatting all forms of trauma. These principles are reducing stress, building positive relationships, and strengthening life skills2. They overlap with the increasingly popular school of thought surrounding “growth mindsets”. Instead of focusing on talent and output, this approach encourages us to place significance on the process we took to achieve a goal, and our resilience when facing adversity3, both of which compliment the three principles raised above.
This indicates that to write trauma-informed reviews, arts reviewers must consider the context in which a production was staged, recognise hard work paying off, and try to avoid putting creatives under unnecessarily high levels of stress from the (impending) publication of reviews.
So, how do reviews affect artists’ mental health and wellbeing?
Having understood what a trauma-informed approach would entail, we need to determine whether reviews are exacerbating past traumas and/or causing new ones. Equity conducted a global scoping review of studies on mental health and wellbeing within the performing arts and found that performance did contribute to poor mental health, with a key reason being due to exposure to evaluation4. In 2022, The Guardian published case studies of the impact of bad reviews on theatre-makers, with one playwright describing the experience as “devastating” and sharing: “I was 23. I didn’t write another play until I was 38”5. The impact of reviews was found to be so significant at the Adelaide Fringe in Australia that its organisers and the South Australian Mental Health Commissioner partnered to organise an information session for critics on “The Impact of Reviews on Artist Wellbeing”6. The risk of a detrimental impact on artists from being publicly exposed to a critical interrogation of their work is clearly widespread and needs attention.
To further explore the effects of reviews and the need for change, we need to look at their influence beyond artists and creatives. Reviews also exist for stakeholders to gauge the standard of a piece. In a study conducted by The Stage, it was reported that 47% of respondents admitted that “media reviews” were one of their top four (out of 10) factors when deciding what show to book7. And, as highlighted by theatre producer Chris O’Grady, funders are, likewise, influenced by reviews when considering who to support financially8. The more a critic recognises and highlights the journey of a production, the more stakeholders can make an informed choice about the true merits and potential of it. If critics are only evaluating shows at face value, based on what they did or didn’t see on the night, they risk deterring potential supporters of the show, leading to greater stress and, potentially, trauma for the creatives who invested themselves in it.
Are star ratings compatible with a trauma-informed approach?
The use of star ratings is a key concern regarding how well-rounded, informative, and fair a review is perceived to be. The shortcomings of this approach has been highlighted over the years, with articles such as that in The Guardian questioning their usefulness as far back as 20159, The Scotsman doing the same in 2019, a Scottish Youth Theatre think piece reigniting this debate in 202510 and Time Out taking the action of scrapping its one and two-star reviews in 202311.
Critics have highlighted the lack of clarity and nuance in this grading system. Josie Young suggests star ratings don’t reflect the context within which a play has been staged12. They don’t, for example, acknowledge whether we are looking at emerging artists, or the budget and space available for a show. By using stars as a headline for reviews, publications imply that critics have adopted a blanket rating system for all shows. This fails to recognise important factors impacting the decisions made by a creative team, thus preventing a trauma-informed approach being taken.
There is, however, evidence that critics do keep these influences in mind when determining a rating. What could be called the show of this year’s Edinburgh Fringe (considering its multiple awards and its being adapted for the screen, with the director of Adolescence on board)13, Eat the Rich (but maybe not me mates x), received five stars from The Guardian15. Having reviewed this show myself, I know it had minimal set and lighting and was set in a bunker converted into a performance space, so, a big contrast to the large-scale, complex West End set designs that readers may expect is necessary for the top rating. The recognition the show received, however, suggests that critics will, at least sometimes, base their judgements on the show within the context the creatives were working and on the type of experience they were aiming to make.
Even if contextualisation were to be common practice for all reviewers, what it doesn’t resolve is the lack of a shared understanding of what star ratings indicate. In The Guardian in 2011, Lyn Gardner had already questioned the consistency of star ratings15. The reality of this problem was evidenced in an article in The Scotsman, which referenced a show that “managed to get a five-star, a four-star, a three-star, a two-star and a one-star”16. Similarly, when chatting with a fellow reviewer this year, they comfortably reviewed a show as a four-star production whilst a peer categorised it as only a two-star. With more reviewers out there than ever and no guidelines for stars, creatives are at the mercy of the critical nature of each reviewer.
Star ratings are not a reliable indicator of the quality of a show. Considering their impact on artists and audience members, especially with the fact that “more than half [of audiences] acknowledge that star-rated reviews are a factor in what they choose to see”17, a trauma-informed approach would bring a welcome end to this unhelpful practice.
How can subjectivity and tone influence a trauma-informed approach?
A trauma-informed approach not only recognises the subjectivity of star ratings, but the subjectivity of the content in the main body of a review. In order to give the air of authority, reviews are generally not written in the style of an opinion piece, but rather as if what is being said is fact. To get readers to completely trust in the reviewer, there is no “I felt…”, “I believe…”, and so on; we are instead told that the experience of the reviewer will be the experience for us all.
This false objectivity is something I have struggled with; working as an artist, I am well aware of the individual interpretations people have and the frustration artists feel that reviews often don’t acknowledge this. If we then consider individual biases18, this false objectivity becomes even more problematic. What could be a deep and meaningful performance for a particular community, or could connect with and engage those with a specific lived experience, might be missed or not felt by a reviewer.
To be trauma-informed, reviewers need to be more open about what is opinion vs what is fact. If they were, potential theatre-goers might feel more agency to interrogate further whether a show is for them, even if it was not for the reviewer, and it could make “success” feel less black and white for theatre-makers. Acknowledging that reviews are personal viewpoints would help artists maintain self-confidence and pride from knowing that it was just another person who didn’t get or like their show and their view may not be synonymous with public opinion.
My final note on style from a trauma-informed perspective is the need to consider the tone of reviews. As with any other form of content, a review and its headline is written to draw in readers, and what is better to catch the public eye than extremities? It’s rare to see a damning theatre review, particularly with reviewers becoming more conscious of their impact on artists’ careers19. However, they do still exist and when weighing up the pros and cons of being compassionate or tearing apart someone’s work, how can we ever justify the latter?
We know the risks of unnecessarily harsh criticism on people’s mental health, exemplified by the heartbreaking case of headteacher Ruth Perry and her school’s Ofsted review20, and maybe it’s time more industries reevaluated how they come to and share their conclusions. Restaurant critic Jay Rayner put a pause on his highly critical reviews following the pandemic, which had created precarious economic conditions for restauranteurs21. It’s fair to say that the arts world is, largely, not known for economic security, so removing the risk of a bad review could save stress and strengthen resilience of artists (and, thus, the industry), which is a hard ideal to argue against.
Towards a trauma-informed arts criticism
I do want to make clear that I understand the benefits of reviews; I just believe that a trauma-informed approach would make them more effective. Many artists have expressed the learning they gain from reviews, giving them direction and clarity in their work. In the Guardian article on the impact of bad reviews on theatre-makers, referenced above, there was one example of a performer who requested more feedback after reading a review of their show22. Likewise, I have received thanks from emerging theatre companies whose shows I have reviewed, for sharing my thoughts on their developing work.
Growth mindsets can be cultivated when people believe in their potential to make things happen and are able to enjoy working towards a goal. Whereas, reviews that are not trauma-informed can create fixed mindsets, leading artists to believe they’re either good or bad and that’s the way it will always be. Artists need to play and be willing to fail in order to unlock their most exciting and innovative creativity, so it’s in everyone’s interest that trauma-informed approaches, supporting a growth mindset, are adopted.
Where does the responsibility lie? As much as reviewers themselves need to examine their approach, where it concerns recognised publishers of reviews, the role of others in the publication process should not be underplayed. There are often those beyond the critic who have the final say when determining how subjective or objective an article is, what a piece’s headline will be, and which elements of it will be highlighted to draw the readers in. There needs to be a shared commitment to becoming trauma-informed. Let’s empower creatives to take risks, and then watch the innovative and exciting work grow.
by Libby Taylor
Libby Taylor (she/her) is a facilitator and theatre-maker who is passionate about making arts spaces inclusive for all identities and voices. She is currently delivering CR8 with Ten Feet Tall, an 8-week drama programme within primary and secondary schools for Promise Groups (care-experienced young people) to support their skills development. And, she is regularly travelling down to London for the Old Vic Theatre-Makers Programme. In her free time, she loves to practice yoga.
18 The Influence of Criticisms and Reviews on Theatre Projects by Ibifuro Francis Sokari, Ph.D.
Image: Milly Sweeney performing at SMHAF 2025
Photo by Ingrid Mur
