To the Editor:
Re “Bravo! Hurray! Wahoo! (Meh.),” by John McWhorter (Opinion, April 16):
The currency of the standing ovation is indeed seriously debased. The impulse to stand up during the ovation following a performance may in some cases represent a kind of unconscious one-upmanship. “I’m more sensitized than most people to the sublimity of what we all have just witnessed, and it is imperative that I separate myself from the underappreciative herd.”
Needless to say, if other audience members follow suit by rising from their seats, then you can raise the ante by hoisting your clapping hands up from the standard mid-torso level to over your head — signifying that the artistry one is acknowledging is not just merely great, but really most sincerely great.
I confess that although I invariably applaud performances, I usually “sit out” the competitive appreciation derby, and haul myself to my feet only if I feel particularly inspired. I avoid the over-the-head clapping mode at all times. Maybe this marks me as a philistine; I’ve been called worse.
David English
Acton, Mass.
To the Editor:
I admit that I’m often among the first to give a standing ovation. I always wondered why the holdouts would deny something so simple to these hardworking actors.
You have to walk out of the theater a few minutes later anyway, so why not stretch your legs and participate with your fellow theatergoers in the shared joy of theater? Perhaps it’s generational, cultural or regional, or maybe it’s a combination.
Jumping to my feet in appreciation of the actors’ hard work is my way of giving back, and it feels really good! I’m sure the actors like to feel the good will as well.
It has to be a really bad production for me not to stand. Nowadays, many of us turn to social media for the extra shout-out if we really enjoy a show.
Try standing ovations more often if you have enjoyed your evening. Maybe you’ll see how good it feels!
Hilary Wendel
Miami Beach
To the Editor:
John McWhorter is so right about the lack of discrimination when Broadway audiences leap to their feet while applauding everything they attend, good, bad or indifferent.
The only thing worse is when a movie or TV star steps out to perform a part onstage, and fierce applause greets them. The play is interrupted so audience members may congratulate themselves on recognizing a famous face.
Susan Kennedy
Chattanooga, Tenn.
To the Editor:
With regard to the prevalence of standing ovations in Broadway theaters, for me it’s not so much that I was enraptured by the show, but that I have arthritis in my knees. After a couple of hours sitting in those little seats so close together, I just want to stand up, period!
David Jenkins
New York
To the Editor:
I used to be in John McWhorter’s camp, resisting what I called standing ovation inflation. But Covid was the end of that.
When I attended my first post-pandemic play at ACT in Seattle on Feb. 18, 2022, everyone in the small, masked, vaccinated audience was so grateful to be there that there was no doubt we would give a standing ovation. And my gratitude for live theater has continued to get me standing after any reasonably good production since then.
To the Editor:
Re “Is China Our Best Bet for a Green Leap Forward?,” by Jacob Dreyer (Opinion guest essay, April 22):
Unfortunately, Mr. Dreyer misses some overarching realities of the climate challenge that undermine his suggestion that China provides the right leadership model for the rest of the world to follow.
One rub is the choice that Xi Jinping has made to ally with Vladimir Putin in a “no limits” friendship that includes the purchase of approximately half of Russia’s fossil fuel exports.
Mr. Dreyer’s dismissal of the use of forced labor in Xinjiang to make solar panels as irrelevant to the big picture is also jarring.
Global climate progress can come only through the recognition of human rights as well as the rights of nations. Autocracy and wars of aggression do not point the way toward a climate-friendly future.
Eric W. Orts
Philadelphia
The writer is a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
To the Editor:
The essay says, “Together, China and the United States could decarbonize the world.” We could be the unreliable partner in this.
China can plan for decades in advance while we are handicapped by the uncertainties of our elections. The last administration ignored climate change for four years. If Donald Trump wins in November, any efforts to address climate change will be in peril.
American voters must recognize the dangers the current and especially the future climate changes pose for all our children and grandchildren — and elect representatives who want to address this urgent issue.
Jack Holtzman
Irwin Rubenstein
San Diego
Kids’ Reactions to the ‘Cringe-Worthy’ News Today
To the Editor:
As if the Donald Trump trial in Manhattan doesn’t generate enough cringe-worthy moments, here’s another. “Mama, what’s sexual assault?” asked a young child. My friend next door bemoaned similar curiosity: “Daddy, do we have any hush money?” Just as we taught them to, our children are paying attention.
Airwaves are exploding with news of cruelty and war, yet in the name of protecting children, we ban books rich in life lessons and encounters with compassion and wonder, including “Charlotte’s Web,” “A Wrinkle in Time” and “Bridge to Terabithia.”
Much as we try to protect our children from the news, they’re hearing it anyway. It’s in the neighborhood, it’s at school and it’s on SiriusXM.
“I heard Donald Trump farted in court yesterday,” said a middle school student I know. While a perfect news bite for a seventh grader to encounter, I couldn’t help remembering that William Kotzwinkle’s book “Walter the Farting Dog” was added to a list of banned books because grown-ups were uncomfortable with the word fart.
How are we ever going to reconcile these differences and prepare our children for this world? Let’s begin with good literature, stories worth hearing, and strive for greater moxie and wisdom to figure out the rest.
Mary Zeman
Rowayton, Conn.
The writer is a curriculum writer and an adviser to Montessori schools and works privately with families and children.
To the Editor:
Re “Biden, Asked if He’s Planning to Debate Trump This Fall, Says ‘I Am’” (news article, April 27):
Yes. By all means, President Biden should take up Donald Trump’s challenge to debate “anywhere, anytime, anyplace” — but with these conditions:
1) No studio audience. Audiences tend to be partisan and are a distraction. The real audience is the millions watching from home.
2) The microphone must be turned off when the speaker’s time has elapsed. This prevents audible side comments that are also a distraction from the issues being debated.
Under these conditions President Biden would do very well.
Ed Gilroy
Queens