After e-mailing with Times critic Jason Zinoman and reading this post on New York’s Vulture blog, I’ve realized that when it comes to the recent Corpus Christi controversy, I haven’t been parsing the difference between a review and a feature.

Here’s what I mean: Clark Hoyt’s suggestion that the Times could have clarified why Corpus Christi would offended Christians is perfectly valid for a feature like the one I wrote. As a news item that deals with the original controversy surrounding McNally’s play, the arguments in my piece can be  refined by acknowledging why all Christians (and not just Bill Donohue) might have a problem with a play about a gay Jesus.

In referencing possible offenses, there’s an opportunity to make the offended parties feel respected. If they know they’re being heard, people on either side of the debate are more likely to hear each other. And then maybe everyone can discuss the play’s actual purpose, which is less about turning Jesus gay than about welcoming gay people into the great narratives of spiritual life.

But again, all this pertains to a feature.

Looking again at Mr. Hoyt’s piece,  I realize he only made his suggestion to Mr. Zinoman. I was not mentioned until the next paragraph.

I somehow inserted myself into that part of Mr. Hoyt’s column, perhaps because I thought his point pertained to my writing.

But with regard to a review, Mr. Hoyt’s assertions are unfair. Again, since I was writing a news item that included the controversy, it’s reasonable to expect I would approach it from multiple perspectives.

As a critic, however, Mr. Zinoman is under no such obligation. As a critic, he doesn’t need to mention the controversy at all if he doesn’t want to. (Though he did.) A critic is only required to analyze what he/she feels is worth analyzing. Critics deserve that leeway from the their readers, and readers need to remember that no review can address everything. To overburden a review with the responsibilities of a reported story is to deny it the freedom for creative critical thought, especially when a review has about 550 words to play with.

Mr. Hoyt’s column, however, tells Mr. Zinoman how he should have couched his subjective responses. That doesn’t do anyone any good.

Now that I’ve had a few days away from this controversy–and I’ve stopped feeling so worked up about it–I can see how the distinction between feature writing and criticism should have been drawn all along.