Post History
Distinguish between a review and a critique. A review is meant for people who haven't read the book, and is largely intended to help them form their opinion of it; a critique is a discussion of th...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2647 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2647 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
- Distinguish between a review and a critique. A review is meant for people who haven't read the book, and is largely intended to help them form their opinion of it; a critique is a discussion of the book which assumes the reader is familiar with the book (or, at least, is willing to read significant spoilers, because he's interested in the critique). - If it's a review, a major component should be introducing the piece to the reader. Let him know what it's about (no spoilers!), tone, theme, why it might (or might not) be interesting. I usually make an effort to leave the introduction largely unbiased in either direction - I think that helps readers be able to judge both the book and my review in proper context and on their own merit. It also helps ground them - if they don't know what I'm talking about, it'll be hard for them to understand my opinion and comments! - Back up what you're saying whenever you can. Don't hesitate to quote passages that demonstrate the parts you adored, hated, or found problematic. Look for passages that you feel will give an accurate representation of the piece. Give details - not "Character A is a complete airhead," but rather, "Character A is portrayed as being obsessed with clothing and cars, and he shows no empathy when Character B is in trouble - coming across like a complete airhead." - Consider what the author was trying to achieve. If the author was aiming for a blockbuster thriller, then complaining that the characters were dull and superficial is legitimate criticism, but might be missing the point. It's fine to mention faults that the author might have accepted willingly - but do devote some attention to the goals the author was actually aiming for. Again, this also helps readers with different tastes than you figure out where their tastes diverge from your own. Hope this is helpful :)