|
In some cases, a review says as much about the critic as it does of the work. There are some periodicals to which I used to go in order to find out about new films, books, &tc. Some of them I simply glanced at because actually reading the reviews made me sick.
If a reviewer makes someone reading an alternative weekly break out wikipedia or a hipster dictionary, they're not worth my time. Alternatively, some critics need to consult thesauri more often.
I would welcome our new reviewer overlords.
My interests are mostly non-fiction, like history, some sociology, and technical things, but sadly a bulk of digitally available is self-help and polemical tripe. So having a dedicated thread, or strand, of reviews of available texts would be nice.
|