How to write a review?
This article is intended for amateurs. You should not look for the secrets of literary criticism and the subtleties of critical analysis of the work in it. Only practice, pure practice for people who like to write reviews and want to do it better, and ideally - to acquire readers and a platform for publications. So, sharpen your pens, connect your tablets, move your keyboards closer – let's get started.
What is a review?
A review is a review of a certain work (book, game, film), designed to form an impression of it among the target audience. This is a short text (standard volume of 1800-3600 characters, one or two pages of A4 format), containing a review, analysis and analysis of the work. Today we will talk mainly about book reviews, although much of what has been said can be projected onto films, games, music CDs, etc. It is written strictly in a clerical manner, in compliance with all the norms of etiquette, neutral or restrained and laudatory.Functional – to form an impression of the book in the light of specific tasks and goals: how suitable the work is for a particular publishing house and series, how successfully it can be sold, whether it covers any specific issues. It is written clearly and intelligibly, the content is more important than the form. It is written simply, you can add a pinch of beauty and a drop of analysis, it is recommended to crown with a couple of more characteristic quotes. The more beautiful and mysterious the writing, the better, the flight of the reviewer's thoughts is limited only by their presence. It is written brightly, harshly, bitingly, always controversially - so that more copies are broken during the discussion.Critical - the work (and often the author) is dissected, dissected and disassembled by letters: what he said, what he wanted to say, what the readers thought, which of them made a mistake where and how good it is that the clever reviewer noticed all this. The main requirements are to follow the logic, not to stoop to simple throwing droppings, to argue your position. And also to make sure that there are no mistakes in the text of the review: a critic who knows the material worse than the criticized one is a pitiful sight. When writing, it is important not to overdo it with tar or syrup, otherwise even the customer will vomit, and he will not pay. A professional reviewer always knows for what target audience he writes, why he chose this particular work and this particular format of presentation, what goal he wants to achieve and in what way. And, of course, those who do not read the book before writing a review deserve shame and desecration. I emphasize that he reads, and does not look diagonally and steals other people's thoughts from other people's reviews.
Anatomy of the review
A review has a head, neck, body, and tail. The head is the name of the text: clear, catchy and at the same time related to the topic of the book. The neck is the so-called lead, two or three dense introductory lines that set the tone and outline the subject of the conversation. The body is the actual text of the review. Tail – the reviewer's conclusions, his summary. Without a tail, the review looks orphaned and scarce, do not offend the poor thing!
What should be written in the review? Be sure to indicate the authorship, the title of the book, for published works - imprint. We write whether it is a novelty or a reprint, whether the book has won any significant awards. We designate a genre by form (novel, novella, play...) and by content (science fiction, fantasy, alternative history...). We describe the main storyline (but without spoilers!), list the main characters, locations, key moments of the book. We try to understand and convey to readers the main ideas of the work (not necessarily, but not bad). Several approaches can be used when working: observation from the outside, non-judgmental analysis, critical analysis, polemics with the author.A review of 1800 characters or less is intended only for discussing the book. No thoughts, feelings and philosophizing will simply fit there. Short sentences, a minimum of adjectives and adverbial phrases, a clear meaning and an unambiguous conclusion.A review of up to a maximum of 5400 characters is an ideal format for a calm and thorough discussion of one work. You can talk about the place of the book in the author's work, draw parallels, add your impressions and conclusions, analyze in detail the advantages and disadvantages of the text — and at the same time not tire the reader. We weave in the literary process and trends of the genre, compare it with similar works, analyze the author's work in general, actively quote and add our thoughts — you simply can't do without them in a large text.
Expert opinion
To become a reviewer of the World of Science Fiction, you need to remember: a review is written for the readers of the magazine. There is no need to engage in narcissism – "wow, how many clever words I know!" or "I read this and that, and I read that about what no one knows, I read it too!". A review in MF is not a way of self-expression, but a purely utilitarian thing, written to orient readers in the ocean of books. And the right to a review-essay must be earned - the opinion of very few reviewers is interesting to readers in itself.
How to write?
I repeat – the reviewer must know the material at least as well as the author of the book. In order not to get into an idiotic situation, be sure to check all literary, scientific, technical and other terms - both how they are written and what they mean. In order not to confuse correlation with copulation, for example. We make sure that by criticizing other people's factual mistakes, we do not sculpt our own. It is enough to call the hero Yatutkenzhensirhiv instead of Yaturkenzhirhiv – and the author has the right to say: "He didn't read the book at all!" Colloquial speech and jargon are inappropriate in a review that goes to a literary magazine, a publishing house or a bookstore. Professional terms are unlikely to be suitable for material in a glamorous magazine, but they will not interfere with an internal review and are absolutely necessary for a specialized publication. The office is required only for official notes. The essay will not do without filigree work on the language. A blog post, on the contrary, can be rude, vulgar, deliberately full of mistakes - if only readers come to scratch their tongues, discussing these thorns. And no trembling fallow deer paired with horses — we do not interfere with different styles within the boundaries of one text.The smaller the volume of the review, the more concise and simpler the sentences should be. Avoid eloquent participles, unnecessary epithets, and complex structured constructions. We follow the train of thought, try to fit one thought into one small paragraph. Carefully and accurately build the reasoning. If the style of the review does not imply a pronounced subjective position of the reviewer, we sacrifice our feelings and thoughts in favor of pure information. A book can be objectively good, but boring for you personally, and vice versa – objectively flawed, but subjectively charming. If everyone around says that the book is brilliant, we do not have to agree, however, we do not have to object either. Even the most respected critic should not pretend to be the supreme judge, the prophet in the literary homeland and the ultimate truth. His opinion is his personal, honest opinion. And yes, it is possible to write a knowingly laudatory or abusive review for material or intangible benefits. But it's not worth the money.
Expert opinion
A professional reviewer should always be aware of who he writes for, for what audience. A corporate website, a glossy magazine, a specialized magazine, a daily newspaper, a socio-political magazine, a "fat man" are publications for different audiences. In a weekly socio-political magazine, I was asked to focus on socially significant books, and in Home Computer I was asked to focus on those that are relevant to the prominent, but a beginner can get into a mess. Vasily Vladimirsky, literary critic
Don't you like criticism?
Most writers are not enthusiastic about critical reviews. At first glance, it may seem that these are their problems, but a quarrel with a couple of serious masters can greatly spoil the life of a reviewer, reducing to zero his prospects for acquiring a list of regalia and publications in the fantastic field. We are still far from those heights from which you can shamelessly express your attitude to the head of any writer who comes up without looking back at ranks and regalia - the niche of malicious critics is densely occupied by hardened titans of the spirit. And the position is not sweet: an ordinary reviewer lives much calmer. Therefore, remember how not to quarrel with the authors.
Rule one: do not get personal. When reviewing and criticizing a work, we do not criticize the author and even more so do not interfere in his personal life, religious and political views, bad habits, illnesses and weaknesses. If we do not have an exact quote from the interview with the author, we can only assume and speculate "what the author wanted to say", "what the author meant". We use an elementary psychological technique – "I-position" or "he-position", speaking on behalf of ourselves or an abstract reader: "I saw such and such a meaning in the text", "the reader will consider the author's position provocative because of this and that" – and the wolves are full, and the writer is not offended, and there is not much to complain about. We do not call the author an idiot and mediocrity, and his grandiose opuses are graphomania and trash (even if this is true). "Ftopka" and "kg\am" are no longer fashionable. You can always use the wording "the book occupies a worthy place in a wide range of modern popular literature." "Good" or "bad", "strong" or "weak" and especially "talented" or "talentless" are often subjective concepts. We emphasize controversial and unsuccessful, in our opinion, moments, clear dubious details and plot twists, giving the reader the right to draw his own conclusions, and the author to enjoy the sweetened pill. From the moment the text becomes a book, it begins to live its own life, acquire its own myths and acquire its own interpretations. Often, readers find in it not at all what the author wanted to put in.And, finally, remember the main thing: you need to be friends with the author. The keyboard will not fall off to tap a letter, thank you for the book, ask for advice on incomprehensible points of the text, honestly say what you liked (flattery is harmful!) and what caused doubts. If we did not want to quarrel, but, nevertheless, the author found something to be offended by, no one prevents him from trying to find mutual understanding after a while. If the author refuses our apologies and is sure that he has found his worst enemy for all eternity, then he is right. Alas, when the number of offended authors exceeds a critical mass, it begins to work against the reviewer and spoil his professional reputation. The fame of a quarrelsome or boor devalues the opinion of the reviewer, and it is much more difficult to restore the position than to rise.Expert opinion
What we now have in the near-science fiction press can hardly be attributed to the genre of review. It turned into an advertising annotation. And yet, even with the small volume that is allocated to it, it is necessary not only to acquaint the reader with the plot of the work, but also to try to find a place for reasoning about the ideological and thematic content of the book, its composition, and the author's linguistic means. And, of course, to give a brief assessment of the text, noting what its originality is and what is its place in the work of the author himself. Igor Cherny, literary critic
I wrote a review. And now what?
The last important question that preoccupies novice reviewers is how to turn their abilities into money and fame. The answer is almost none. Only a few people feed on the profession of literary critics, their bread is bitter and scarce. Peer review is a side hustle, sometimes not bad, for a journalist, editor, student or science fiction fan. The easiest way is to publish reviews on your own blog. A fair part of authors have a habit of monitoring the Internet for who and what writes about them, sooner or later they will start contacting you and expressing their opinion about your reviews. Readers will follow the writers — it is important not to disappoint them, regularly post updates, and organize a small scandal at least once every couple of months. The competition here is high: it is not enough to publish a review, you also need to defend your opinion, and ideally, crush someone else's with your feet. But here the reputation of a critic is established and professional skills are honed. The next stage is all kinds of review competitions. They are useful in two aspects: we learn to write quickly and to the point, and we learn to write about the main thing without spreading ourselves too thin. And some money can fall, or even a useful person will take a closer look. And a useful person can bring us to the editorial office of a magazine — from the glamorous Cosmo to the specialized World of Fantasy. Finally, in most publishing houses there are "readers" — people who look through manuscripts and write reviews. Not too monetary, but quite paid and in demand work. The last tip: do not review more than 4-5 books a month, so as not to "burn out" and not lose the taste for reading. And we don't write about those books that make you sick or don't have the opportunity to express yourself sincerely – for personal reasons or out of friendship. The rest depends on you and me: on our talent, tact, grip, patience, intuition, sense of word, text and measure. The reputation of a critic is created over the years, you need to work hard and regularly for it. Writing reviews isn't as easy as it sounds, but it's also not as difficult as tying your shoelaces, as Valentine Michael Smith from Stranger in a Strange Land would say.
Expert opinion
Writing novels is a form of loss of creative freedom. In turn, peer review is even more hard work and even less rewarding. About the writer, we can at least say that he forced himself by choosing a plot. The position of the critic is worse: the reviewer is chained to the subject of the review, like a convict to a wheelbarrow. A writer loses freedom in his book, a critic in someone else's. Stanislaw Lem, from the book "Absolute Emptiness"
🌟 Subscribe to Our Blog! 🌟
Join us for rewards, prizes, and updates on the latest topics! 🎁✨
Subscribe Now! 🎉Your browsing is secure!
Reading Time: 0 seconds
No comments:
Post a Comment