Quote:
Originally Posted by Giggleton
I've been considering about how to go about writing book reviews myself. Should I be hypercritical or extremely gushy?
On the other hand, what with free samples, reviews are essentially meaningless. Just click to send to device and read at your leisure.
Is the true purpose of a review to get the browser to click the button? Or to get the browser to not click the button? That is the question.
 |
I don't think you should be hypercritical nor gushing. In both cases you'll put off the reader. Just be honest. Tell your reader what you liked and what you would change. Generally, readers get their reviews from people who have the same tastes as they, so it would be advisable to share some details about your own tastes and preferances. The key is that the reader must be able to trust and connect with you; they must believe that you would not recommend a game or book that you yourself would not be willingly to play.
I like Rogert Eberts review system. When he reviews a movie, he tries to think of who the movie was made for and what it is trying to accomplish. Thus, he doesn't apply the standards of one genre to another. Generally, one star means that a movie has no redeeming value,two stars means it will probably appeal to hardcore fans, three stars means it will appeal to general fans of the genre, and four stars means it's a masterpiece. He is far from perfect in his reviews, but overall I think it is a good system.
Nevertheless, no matter how much you like the product you are reviewing, you should always try to find ways it can be improved, or at least point out aspects of the work that you readership may dislike. This will add credibility to your review, and it will force you to think more deeply about it. This does not mean, however that you should make up flaws or nitpick. If you genuinely cannot find anything wrong with a work then say so.
Conversely, no matter how bad you feel a work is you should still try to find some redeeming qualities about it. No work is all bad, and you lose credibility if you just completely trash a work.
I disagree with your assertion that samples make reviews obsolete. A review gives a reader an overrall impression of the work. Additionally, a reviewer can moderate the readers expectations, or in other words, warn the reader what he can and cannot expect from a work. It can be as simple as "if you go into the book expecting a fun, albeitly slighted convoluted plot, you might be able to enjoy this work. If you want deep and complex characters, you might want to look elsewhere." Specifics are nice, but you don't want to give the whole thing away. A sample cannot give an overrall impression of a work. There are lots of books that start off slow and then get great. Again, you should moderate expectations. If a book is a slow starter, warn your audience and tell them that if they slog through the slow beginning they will be rewarded later on. Conversely, some books start off great and get worse and worse.
To restate my first point, a reviewer needs to know himself. You are really just talking to yourself, articulating what you liked and what you disliked. This requires that you know what you like in a book, and you should let your readers now what you like as well. You really cannot review for someone with different tastes. The best thing you can do is be honest with yourself and your readers; otherwise, they will cease to trust you. The point is not to encourage to click or not to click, but to provide the reader with what he needs to know to make an informed decision.