So it's "whining" to point out when a reviewer literally makes stuff up to support his view of the play? "Kabuki puppets"? "East Asian music"? Associating a playwright with a Twitter account when said playwright doesn't even have a Twitter account?
You'll note that Isthmus finally decided to edit out Mr Connors' ignorance with respect to Kabuki. And one of the Midsummer musicians himself commented (on the review page, go see for yourself) that the music is definitely NOT "East Asian" either.
You'll also note that Isthmus edited Mr Connors' other review (for "The Arsonists"), removing Mr Connors' reference to the Twitter account and its "scatalogical humor".
If this is whining, then more people should "whine" more loudly and more often, because Isthmus reviewers are guilty of this A LOT. It's insulting to the artists involved when a reviewer can't even get basic facts straight, yet uses his delusional worldview to make observations on the art. More egregiously, it's intellectually lazy as well as journalistically sloppy and unethical.
For me, the most important thing with respect to Isthmus' recent reviews was:
A critic's job is to evaluate two things: what you are attempting to do and how close do you come to pulling it off.
I can't remember the last time an Isthmus reviewer came to a show and analyzed the production in this manner. It's more like, "Yeah, I sorta liked it. Didn't think this one guy could act so well, but the lead female was great." THIS
is what passes for criticism?
Just ... don't.