UPDATE Wed Jul 2: This post originally referenced a post at another blog that expressed, for specific reasons, that blogger's opinion that downtown, sit-down productions like Wicked weren't good for Chicago's native theater. Because that opinion bumped directly up against certain things the Tribune's Chris Jones had said in his follow-up to the Tony Awards (still linked below), I chose to note the disparity.
Shortly after I linked to this blog post, it was taken down, and now, a week later, the author of that post has asked me via email to remove reference to it because of the repercussions it might have for the author's future theater career. I don't want to silence the reasoned, thoughtful discussion that's taken place in the (so far) 15 comments on my post; but I'm also willing to honor the blogger's request even at this late date, especially since their original opinion is no longer available for commenters to see.
It's not a great solution, but the compromise I've come up with is to edit this post, and its comments, in an attempt to obfuscate the original blogger's identity but keep the subsequent discussion alive. It's not ideal, but it's the best I can do to satisfy all parties. Thanks for understanding.
[redacted link to anti-Wicked opinion] Chris Jones finds this thinking dangerous and destructive. Okay, I'm kidding—Chris's post at the Theater Loop went up on Saturday and this other blogger's today, so he couldn't have been talking about them personally when he wrote: "Some see such New York exports as detrimental to Chicago’s homegrown theater. This is dangerous and destructive nonsense." And the other blogger made no bones about it: "Instead of helping the rest of the Chicago theatre community, it hurts it." Welcome to the dangerous and destructive club!