Uses this language to establish you his audience is. People who are already familiar with how Broadway functions. Maybe not people actively seeing shows everyday but people who are knowledgeable in this subject. I would also say other theatre critics considering that he references a colleague that does reviews as well and that the overall message is to "not push pop musicals all things considered."

Summary of his own point. The next sentence could be a an Angels in America reference but I'm pretty sure he used "mechanical" as in formulaic.

Going over the traits that people don't like about pop and jukebox musicals and finding a positive. He delivers these summaries of pop musicals and is building his ethos through mentioning that he's seen all of these shows and then telling the audience the good things about it.

Main point of the article. Convincing theatre-goers that jukebox musicals are evolving and that they add to the current season instead of being a negative.

Theatre critique for the NYT since 1996, worked for previous new sites. Has done this kind of writing for Broadway shows in the past. He is going to know tropes and the attitude carried with this topic.

Slander. Terrible. This article sucks now, I can't believe such a mistake could happen.

Is that- is that an actual line? Disappointed but not surprised.

Me. I don't miss it.

Thanks Quentin.

Reader miraculously gets question answered by reading the material a bit further down.

White male privilege is out of fashion these days. Yet we are awash in nostalgia for it.

If there is anyone in the world who loves talking about representation in media, its me. It will be me, it is me, it's me. And I can say right now that unless your white male character is part of a discriminated group, I don't want to see it. It frustrates me so much that we stand stagnate at this. At these weird "new" depictions of morally gray men because good at heart men are unrealistic and evil ones "trigger" (ew) audiences. This quote probably had nothing to do with movies but that's what I connected to.

First of all, skimmed through this and it was quite funny, second of all THAT'S SO GOOD THANK YOU FOR POINTING IT OUT.

One of my gripes with being patriotic in America. That blind faith. Glad to know I'm not the only one who knows it/ sees it.

I don't even need to read the article to know this is going to be fantastic.

HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED.

Her comedy is sarcastic but comes through clear as day. I aspire.

It does feel like that doesn't it? That they have yet to be quenched. You could impeach Trump and get him out of office, but... who would go in place? Would we hold early elections? Follow the all mighty constitution and put Pence in office? I don't think that a homophobe is better than a racist, personally.

I truly don't believe that anyone wanted that it just so happens a businessman is good at convincing groups of people.

Connection back to the beginning of the article. Satisfying pacing.

When it comes to this argument; whether Democrats are trying to do the right thing with impeachment, I agree with Dowd. Before and after reading this article. Recently every single thing: posts, retweets, @'s, etc... concerning the current Democratic opinion is extremely emotional. Maybe that's the point of the Democratic party but more than a year or two ago. I understand what she means in this section of the column because I've read about it.

"How do you do fellow kids?"

Basically how I feel in the most laymen of terms.

I'm pretty sure someone who can say "yo" when refering to the proletariat is either really stupid or knows what they're talking about. I'm pretty sure Maureen Dowd is the latter.

Reminded me of Trump's "they're animals" comments in regards to undocumented immigrants.

Weird to point out but Dowd's titles are always creative. She's had to have written a book or series. I refuse someone this good at titles only writes for the Times.

He's literally blocking Lincoln's memory.

Very funny she chose to reference Hamlet when I was going to note how her writing sounds like her own soliloquies. Which is a good thing! Her voice really comes through. Like I'm watching her 500+ word monologue.

Never does she state that Abe is a perfect example of what Republicanism is but rather Abe is a foil to Donald. She's able to draw comparison to show Trump's flaws.

Using this as her main reference, not her thesis or main idea per say, but her theme sets up the mood throughout the article. The allusion to Lincoln is perfect for the feeling and message she's trying to make me get.

I've never such a truth universally acknowledge when it comes to what to do in the midst of American politics.

Pfffffft. Can you tell I find her funny yet?

I thought this was funny but! Somehow an effective way to open this discussion.

These are two adults talking to each other and that is hilarious to me.

Something I've been wondering is what is Dowd's current political stance? Does she define as cleanly as Democratic and Republican? Does it matter to her? I just want to meet this woman.

Something I notice with Dowd is that she brings up bigger points. She moves past only talking about A.O.C and starts questioning Democratic attitude in general. This as well as what congress if for. It's deeply rooted in the subject and it never feels out of place.

This line is the set up to hoe Dowd refers to A.O.C throughout the article. She characterize's these people respectfully, but still enough to make these jokes and to have changing tone.

Her anecdote here is comedic, but it also does the effective job of having the reader "why?" I'm interested in hearing how on Earth a quote from a cyclist relates to an up and coming representative.

I like how her writing ebbs and flows. She's so skilled with paragraph/ argument transitions. She starts by stating her previous opinions about A.O.C and Pelosi being a good team, goes into how A.O.C has made accusations against Pelosi and now stating that she believes these accusations are false (or shaky at best.) Really good reference of editorial structure, wish I could've read her writing last year. Would've helped immensely.

hahahaha

I know I'm not supposed to have one word responses but

Wow. Please keep speaking Ms. Dowd.

in·ter·ne·cine /ˌin(t)ərˈˌneˌsēn,in(t)ərˈnēsīn/

adjective destructive to both sides in a conflict.

Really good word. Not my most eloquent note, but yeah, good word.

Her personality aside, she uses a lot of credibility in her writing and if her charm wasn't enough, I'm convinced with the amount of evidence she is using.

As someone who constantly struggles with conclusions this is so amazing and I truly, honestly, could never.

I enjoy the empowerment that is attached to this line. Drawing from the rest of the article, I would assume this is intentional.

She has a sense of humor which I really enjoy. Contrasts very well against the topic she's writing about.

I sense a lot of self awareness when it comes to her writing. Very witty and grounded but she still comes back in and gives you a final statement to show you what she meant.

Dowd uses repetition in her writing and it was something I caught in my first read. She comes off as smart, and for the topic that she's writing for, that's a good trait to have,

Future reference of how to include sources and quotes in persuasive pieces.

Dowd has a specific way of framing a persuasive argument. I've learned the way that standard testing expects of me but Dowd does it almost dismissively? She's so confident in her facts that this isn't opinion to her. Not entitled but determined to show you the absolutes of her argument. Hook, line, and sinker.

Dowd out the gate mentions other issues and controversies. Personally, I don't keep up with American politics (or any other politics for that matter) but her hook after this paragraph makes me interested in the character of this young reporter and the man that this article concerns. Long way of saying I don't know politics but her writing is interesting enough to keep me reading.

Known word. I've never seen it used in this form or context though.