Review on How to Write a Review

Written by NiNeNiNeS

Thursday, 09 October 2008 19:49

Since this site is going to become a review site of sorts, I thought it would be appropriate that I talk about what goes into reviewing things. A quick online search brings up a few basic guidelines to writing a review. So for this case, I will apply their review tips as best as I can to review their ability to explain how to write a review.

Here are some sources I pulled up to see what I can learn from them, and what I can dissect from their comments.

Source 1: http://www.schrag.info/teaching/review.html
Source 2: http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/how-to-write-a-movie-review.aspx
Source 3: http://www.possi.org/extended_attributes/2000/11/bitstream
Source 4: http://www.selfstartersweeklytips.com/archives/061405.htm

To save time, I've marked them as source numbers.

So, the first thing that I did, which is probably the most obvious thing to do, was to familiarize myself with what's being reviewed, in terms of what it is about or what it does. It's an obvious requirement for that matter. I can't review something with any sense of merit if I don't know what the heck I'm reviewing. So I read all four examples. And in this case, this review is about how to write a review.

Let's get on to the reviewing part.

So besides the above point, Source 1 tells me to first describe the work and the topic, followed by the description of the work itself. Upon multiple reads, I found this rather confusing, because 1) I am to describe the work and the topic, and then 2) I need to describe the work, again?! So I'll just ignore this and play along. At this point, I've already covered this initial step, as I'm explaining that I'm reviewing basic guidelines and suggestions on how to write a review. This in turn, is my justification that I have taken a moment to actually find out what it is about reviews and why it could be important, how I can show bias and indifference together, and communicate to my readers. Which leads to the next point: Audience.

As the sources point out, it's all about attitude. I'm not writing this review for my own glory and admiration. I need to keep in mind that I'm writing for the person that the review means most to; the reader! And if you've read up to this point, I commend you, and thank you for your time. What I've learned in the past is that without a certain voice, everything sounds monotone and boring. If I had that kind of ability, I would be getting paid for that kind of talent. Unfortunately, you'll just have to bear with my struggle to become a better writer and opinionater-giver...er. Jokes aside, on to the next point: the Actual Review!

Again, after reading the source material a few times, they all do point to the idea of conveying to the reader what the reviewed item promises to do, what it can fully do, and what I have figured out from it. With that, I can see that these tutorials do have a basic structure. They give examples. Fairly common examples, anyway, that best cover a majority of what people really are looking for. So that's not bad.

Some of the sources lacked some meat, and tried to stay as general as possible, such as Source 2, which gives a very slim, direct outline on how to review a movie. It made a lot of sense, but I think the guide lacked in really covering everything that could be covered, and really created a catch-all to cover anything that wasn't clearly outlined as an option or requirement. Source 3 doesn't "beat around the bush" as Source 2 does, by directly instructing one to give the hard facts about what's being revealed, while avoiding mundane explanations by ignoring the obvious or generally available information. It goes on to say that you want to impose your opinion to your audience, because you are doing a service for them by taking the time to review the item to save them their time and money, and helping them come to a particular conclusion. That's what I got out of this, and the conclusion is, formulate and articulate my point of view, stand by it, explain why, and offer to the reader what conclusions I have arrived to, and allowing them to make the decision on whether I made enough sense for them to agree with me, or if I completely failed to convince them either by lack of data, a difference of opinion, or a lack of providing something that they didn't already know about.

Speaking of conclusions, it is time for the conclusions. Here is what I found from all four sources:

Source 1:
This article's approach was mainly to talk about the theory behind reviews and gave many examples to force the reader (me) to think about the reasons behind why something was created and how my review is to get deep in there to bring out the core of things. It's the idea of don't just give the surface layer, provide history, detail, the inner workings, and the sequence of events that led to the thing that I'm reviewing. And in the end, identify whether or not what I'm reviewing achieved its goal. For me, I think it did. It explained to me that, in short, it's a case of what does the item do, what is its purpose, and was it successful. So, in regards to myself, yes I understood this article's purpose and reason, but it is far from being successful. Too many examples, not enough clear directions.

Source 2:
Although it lacked in any detailed explanations, it clearly gave an outline for anyone to easily become a cookie cutter review writer. It gave me steps on how to proceed and topics I should consider covering. A little more detail could have helped though. In conclusion, very straightforward and easy to understand, and covers the basics.

Source 3:
A hefty read in my opinion. Half of the article explained that you must immerse yourself into what you are reviewing, which makes sense. The main theme of this article highlights the idea that as a reviewer, I have to make sure that I understand everything as a whole, and at the same time, focus on certain essentials of what I'm reviewing, which is agreed by the other sources: What is the goal of the item, is it successful, and what are my conclusions to the item. In terms of this article, it is very detailed in its purpose and goal, and thus is very successful in reinforcing on me what I should be writing about. I also like how it mentions a few common mistakes, which I probably am guilty of and not even aware of. Oh well. It's a learning process right? Anyway, great article, despite the long read.

Source 4:
The general theme I found from this article is that a review should be very balanced in terms of opinion. Point out everything you like about what you just reviewed, but also point out the things that you did not like, and ultimately, try not to overwhelm the review with too much praise or insult. The path to take, as this article points out, is to show the facts and come to a fair conclusion as to how the conclusion was arrived at.

And in conclusion, all four articles, do know what they are talking about. And it's a good thing too, as they are some of the top articles that came out as results during my search. It's, however, a matter of what I am trying to review that dictates the kind of review I am going to write.

If it's a product review, then it should really be a review with price comparisons, results, value, safety, and overall goodness when it comes to making the decision of "I need this product" or "this product isn't for me".

If it's some kind of movie/entertainment review, then it's about how well the presentation was put together and how well the piece communicated to me as a viewer. Did I become emotionally attached to the characters, or was this another recycling of a common story? Or better yet, how many loopholes were there? Or were there any scenes considered "too convenient" to be natural or likely?

Now that I'm equipped with this knowledge, and practiced some of the instructions the guides provided, I'm ready to proceed with reviewing things on this site. Oh yeah, thanks for reading.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 09 October 2008 21:33 )