2 0 0 7 , ▁reported ly ▁did ▁not ▁tam per ▁with ▁this ▁aspect ▁of ▁the ▁text ▁and ▁was ▁comm ended ▁by ▁a ▁rev iewer ▁for ▁" the ▁courage ▁to ▁face ▁the ▁script ' s ▁uns av ory ▁side ." ▁ ▁Another ▁criticism ▁that ▁has ▁been ▁made ▁of ▁the ▁play ▁involves ▁the ▁character isation . ▁A ▁writer ▁in ▁the ▁ 1 9 th ▁century ▁period ical ▁App let ons ' ▁Journal ▁states ▁that ▁ ▁The ▁style ▁of ▁the ▁play ▁has ▁also ▁made ▁it ▁at ▁times ▁a ▁problem atic ▁work ▁to ▁make ▁effective ▁in ▁today ' s ▁theatre . ▁In ▁app ra ising ▁a ▁ 1 9 9 9 ▁st aging ▁of ▁Sher idan ' s ▁comedy ▁at ▁the ▁Gut hr ie ▁Theater ▁in ▁Min ne apolis , ▁Minnesota , ▁one ▁critic ▁found ▁the ▁" sta unch ly ▁orth odox ▁production " ▁to ▁be ▁lack ing , ▁comment ing ▁that ▁ ▁Another ▁rev iewer ▁in ▁Vari ety ▁noted ▁of ▁a ▁ 1 9 9 5 ▁production ▁st arring ▁Tony ▁Rand all ▁as ▁Sir ▁Peter ▁Te az le ▁that ▁Sher idan ' s ▁play ▁was ▁" such ▁a ▁super b ly ▁craft ed ▁laugh ▁machine , ▁and ▁so ▁tim eless ▁in ▁deliver ing ▁de lect able ▁come upp ance ▁to ▁a ▁vi per ' s ▁nest ▁of ▁idle - rich ▁g oss ip m ong ers , ▁that ▁you ' d ▁pract ically ▁have ▁to ▁club ▁it ▁to ▁death ▁to ▁st if le ▁its ▁amaz ing ▁ple asures " ▁– ▁before ▁claim ing ▁that ▁this