these reviews that i have read all seem to be composed in similar fashions. they almost always introduce the characters right away and then define the setting and plot. it basically seems like an informal guide of what to expect when reading this book, almost like bullet notes composed in a more stylish manner. these reviews seem to have a sense of blankness, almost like they were just composed after spot reading the book. but in the other hand, they seem to pay enough attention to the subject to give the readers an understanding of what is to come. i had read the reviews for The Hobbit, The Hunger Games, and The Davinci Code. they all seemed to be about the same genre, which probably didn't help differentiate the reviews much, but they were good. they seemed to be the definition that i have laid out. their information about the settings or plots were abrupt but very useful, and same with the introductions of characters. for both of these they only briefly described, if not at all, the characters with details. it basically always seemed to just be a summarized version of the book.
personally, i believe that a review should be somewhat like these ones that i have read. it needs to be informal but not too long, good set up and understanding of the material that the review covers, and shouldn't really have any inferences so it keeps its respect as a review, not so much a critique. it should end up looking something like the reading blogs we've been keeping, just leaving out the inferences.
No comments:
Post a Comment