The functions of the critic in the theatre and of his or her responsibilities towards the theatre have long been debated and disputed, and are now in a state both of flux and contradiction – flux, because of the rapidly changing state of the media in which criticism is published and the new forms which ‘publication’ can now take; contradiction, because of the dual perception of criticism as at once an ‘offensive’ art and an ‘art of solidarity’. Especially for the critic of theatre, the dilemma has always been heightened not only by the ephemerality of the art to which the review gives a vicarious and subjectified after-life, but also by the shifting sands between the journalistic and the academic landmarks of the craft. Rather than attempting impossible solutions, Josette Féral offers illuminating definitions and suggests helpful boundaries – aesthetic, cultural, social, and historical. Josette Féral is full professor in the Drama Department of the Université du Québec à Montréal. She has published several books, including Mise en scène et jeu de I'acteur, (two volumes, 1997, 1999), dealing with many European as well as North American directors, Rencontres avec Ariane Mnouchkine (1995) and Trajectoires du Soleil (1999), both on Mnouchkine's work, and La Culture contre I'art: essai d'économie politique du théâtre (1990). She has also published several articles on the theory of theatre in Canada, the United States and Europe, in journals such as The Drama Review, Modern Drama, The French Review, Discourse, Theaterschrift, Cahiers de théâtre, and Théâtre Public. She is currently President of the International Federation for Theatre Research.

Stand-up comedy is often distinguished from straight acting by its apparent lack of characterization – the comedian appearing onstage apparently as him or herself. But within gags and routines, comics often briefly take on the voice and posture of the characters they describe. Here Oliver Double contrasts the approach of two comedians of different generations – Ted Ray and Billy Connolly – to this technique of ‘momentary characterization’. He notes the links between Connolly's conversational approach and Brecht's notions of acting, and goes on to examine the broader questions of comic personae, representation of the self, and the changing performance conventions within British stand-up comedy. Oliver Double is an ex-comedian who now lectures at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

Is performing an autopsy on a dead body simply an objective, mutilating act – and a particularly powerful example of subject/object mastery? Demonstrating the intersection between scientific, medico-legal practice, and literary-artistic tropologies, Elizabeth Klaver explores in this essay the epistemological gaze of autopsy and its ironic effect on subjectivity through a variety of dramatic practices: Vesalius's Fabrica, the O. J. Simpson trial, and plays by Samuel Beckett. Elizabeth Klaver is Associate Professor of English at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her book, Performing Television: Contemporary Drama and the Media Culture is forthcoming from the Popular Press, and the present article will form part of her book in progress, Authorized Personnel Only: Sites of Autopsy in Postmodern Literature.

The tendency for ‘performance studies’ to embrace and even supplant ‘theatre studies’ can usefully enlarge our perceptions of the relevance of theatricality to other disciplines and activities – but fully extended into the ‘performativities’ of everyday life can be counterproductive when definitions are so loose as to be redundant. Here, Ian Watson considers the boundary-crossing qualities of two variants on the ‘performance paradigm’ – Eugenio Barba's bridge-building concept of ‘Barter Theatre’ and Augusto Boal's deliberately provocative ‘Invisible Theatre’. He proceeds to relate the characteristics identified to an event no less clearly staged, though less often discussed as such: the set-piece political speech, in this case President Clinton's acceptance of his renomination as Democratic candidate at his party's Chicago convention in 1996. Ian Watson is an Advisory Editor of NTQ who teaches at the Rutgers campus of the State University of New Jersey. The last of his several contributions to the journal was his report on the Ninth International Gathering of Group Theatre in Ayacucho, Peru, in NTQ58 (May 1999).

Though little remembered or honoured today, Mary Kelly (1888–1951) was one of the more enlightened among those who, between the wars, encouraged the then-booming amateur theatre into attempting more than the limp reproduction of West End successes. She had a strong belief in the intrinsically dramatic potential of the country dweller, imbued with generations of traditional lore: but unlike many of her more nostalgic contemporaries, Mary Kelly well recognized the class conflicts and history of deprivation of the rural poor, and blended such elements into the pageants she devised not only for her own village but for other rural communities – and which she encouraged others to emulate through her instructional writings. Mick Wallis, Reader in Performance Studies at Loughborough University, has written on modern-day pageantry in his two-part article on ‘Pageantry and the Popular Front’ in NTQ 38 and 41 (May 1994 and February 1995), and in ‘Delving the Levels of Memory and Dressing-up in the Past’ in Inter-War Theatres, edited by Clive Barker and Maggie Gale, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. His millennium show, In the Twenty-First Century Everyone Will Be Stelarc for Fifteen Minutes (Rehearsal for a Ceremonial Event), with Jan Overfield and Movements in Mayhem, was premiered at Loughborough in December 1999.

In February 1999 Patrick Miles's adaptation of Chekhov's Ivanov as Sara opened at a prestigious London fringe theatre, the Bridewell – to a review from The Times largely devoted to the omission of Chekhov's name from the programme. Here, Miles, relates the circumstances (not all accidental) which led to that omission, the consequences that flowed from it in terms of poor audiences and company disharmony – and how such an apparently random happening is also representative of a typology of the fringe which warrants more sustained investigation. Patrick Miles was Russian literary consultant at the National Theatre from 1977 to 1980, and has translated Turgenev, Chekhov, Gorky, Bulgakov, and Vampilov for various theatre companies. He is editor of Chekhov on the British Stage (Cambridge, 1993) and translator of Anatoly Smeliansky's The Russian Theatre after Stalin (Cambridge, 1999).

Jan Cohen-Cruz argues that in the hyphen separating community theatre from community-based theatre lies a world of difference – of intention as of realization. Where community theatre tends to assemble the more self-confident members of a majority group to emulate successes from the Broadway repertoire, community-based theatre prefers to draw upon minority and deprived groups in an attempt to create original modes of performance that help the participants make sense of and improve their society. Drawing upon her own experiences and those of other community-based theatre practitioners over a period extending back to the heady days of the 'sixties, Jan Cohen-Cruz identifies weaknesses and failures as well as strengths – as also the ambiguous area where the success of the product may carry dangers of compromise or unhappy collaboration. Associate Professor of Drama Jan Cohen-Cruz co-edited Playing Boal: Theatre, Therapy, Activism, and edited Radical Street Performance: an International Anthology. Her articles have appeared in TDR, High Performance, American Theatre, Urban Resources, Women and Performance, The Mime Journal, African Theatre, and the anthology But Is It Art? From 1995 to 1997 Cohen-Cruz co-directed NYU Tisch School of the Arts AmeriCorps project – President Clinton's domestic Peace Corps – focusing on violence reduction through the arts. She has since co-directed Urban Ensemble, through which Tisch School of the Arts students undertake community-based art internships.

The pressures of Thatcherism on theatre funding in the 'eighties were severe, but the early harshness was tempered by several factors. One was the positive influence of the Cork Report, particularly on touring and experimental theatre. Another, the authors believe, was a careful strategy of reallocation of funding to support creativity in English theatre, notably through the touring franchise scheme. Here, they analyze in detail the ways in which the English Arts Council operated the scheme in an attempt to revitalize aspects of English theatre from 1986 onwards, trace the change in the values of ‘political’ theatre over that period, and critically examine some received ideas in the light of the available evidence. Ian Brown is Dean of Arts and Professor of Theatre at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, Rob Brannen is a Senior Lecturer in Drama at De Montfort University, Bedford. Douglas Brown is Assistant Director, Scottish Centre for Cultural Management and Policy, at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.

LIKE Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, I find myself wanting to ring up ‘old Baz Kershaw’. The insertion of personal history into an academic text that is to be found in The Radical in Performance, in itself radical, inspires this tactic. It also inspires my determination to refer to ‘Baz’ throughout this response. The available alternatives just don't feel right: ‘Kershaw’ carries reminders of the 1950s grammar school that (mis-) shaped me; ‘Professor Kershaw’ seems curiously over-formal in the context of my enjoyment of this book; ‘Barrie Kershaw’ (yes, I saw him once quoted as such in the THES) is frankly unfamiliar; ‘the author’ a coy statement of the obvious.