A review is intended as a private, priviliged communication between writer and public. If the writer is an architecture critic, the architect(ure) discussed is merely the subject – spoken of, but not addressed. Reading a review of one’s own work is like overhearing an intimate conversation: vagueley illegal, slightly obscene, horribly fascinating. As you eavesdrop on outlandish speculations on your motives, character, history, values, weaknesses, ambition, there is no recourse – contradiction invites ridicule...[+]