![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgFirst off, if you want more details on what I'm about to talk about - go get the book I'm going to talk about. Because the point of this exercise? Is a review. Not a critique. You don't know the difference? I'm not surprised. Here, come over here and I'll give it to you the way I got it back in the ollllld days.
See, back when there was no internet for you to find yourpr0n fan fiction to read?
It took about 1.5 - 5 years, about five grand of your own money and as many good friends who could write, draw or otherwise flunky for you to have something to read. And then? Maybe there would be 200 copies or so - that you'd have to sell to make back your five grand - and that was it. Oh, and that fanzine of yours? Might have ten stories in it. (BTW, do the math. Add $$ for shipping. OW.)
So, about two years, a buncha money, hope you knew about it (maybe even wrote something for it) and you got ten stories to read. Maybe you'd even like a couple of them.
That's it.
You might imagine what the Yuletide archives look like to me. *cue 2001 overture*
But one of the side effects of that kind of output? You didn't write more stories to outline your opinion of this or that to prove your point - flames? Bah. Carefully banked coals, more like it.
You wrote a critique. Maybe you were stupid enough to call it a review, but then you'd get the likes of Paula Smith, Jan Lindner, Signe Landon, Connie Faddis, Marian Kelly, Teri White and Melanie Rawn down on your ass bitchslapping you into coherence, explaining quite plainly what a review IS and IS NOT.
Now, most of us welcomed critques - but it was expected that you would take such treatment as a means to improve, because as fan fiction writers...that was what we were here for, after all. It's nice to play, but we're doing this to get better and be Real Writers ourselves someday. (Two of those people who lavished much abuse on me back in the day for my own good actually made it. D'ya know who? I still have my zines they wrote. Yes, I do.)
So when somebody asks me to review, even casually - I take it very seriously that there are some things I'm not going to do.
1. A review is not intended to provide feedback for improvement. You don't take something out of the work, turn it over in your hands and go 'yanno, this color blue doesn't match the drapes - it might need some work.'
2. You might discuss the entire plot in a critique. It is verboten in a review. Subject matter, sure. Who, what, when, why and how - as briefly as possible, and don't give anything away.
3. A review is designed to provide the reader with information that will entice them to read the entire work on their own. A critique is for the author's primary use as a means to correct, enhance or go 'hmmm' a lot. So be aware of your focus and your intended audience. (People who write critiques in forums calling them 'reviews' being just plain passive-agressive whiny-weenies get the special hell - and lots of raw egg shampooes. *pulls eyelid in their general direction*)
4. A review is nearly transparent as far as style is concerned. If I write a review, you shouldn't notice me. A review is impersonal space and really? An opinion is not required. It's expected that you would rate a review these days - but in my experience and training? Is not expected and is considered an intrusion of your opinion into a place where it doesn't belong. You want to tell the author what you think? You tell the author, if you've gotten persmission to do a critque - oh, and make sure you can back that opinion up, bucko.
So now that I've said that, I can start saying other things. Be right back.
See, back when there was no internet for you to find your
It took about 1.5 - 5 years, about five grand of your own money and as many good friends who could write, draw or otherwise flunky for you to have something to read. And then? Maybe there would be 200 copies or so - that you'd have to sell to make back your five grand - and that was it. Oh, and that fanzine of yours? Might have ten stories in it. (BTW, do the math. Add $$ for shipping. OW.)
So, about two years, a buncha money, hope you knew about it (maybe even wrote something for it) and you got ten stories to read. Maybe you'd even like a couple of them.
That's it.
You might imagine what the Yuletide archives look like to me. *cue 2001 overture*
But one of the side effects of that kind of output? You didn't write more stories to outline your opinion of this or that to prove your point - flames? Bah. Carefully banked coals, more like it.
You wrote a critique. Maybe you were stupid enough to call it a review, but then you'd get the likes of Paula Smith, Jan Lindner, Signe Landon, Connie Faddis, Marian Kelly, Teri White and Melanie Rawn down on your ass bitchslapping you into coherence, explaining quite plainly what a review IS and IS NOT.
Now, most of us welcomed critques - but it was expected that you would take such treatment as a means to improve, because as fan fiction writers...that was what we were here for, after all. It's nice to play, but we're doing this to get better and be Real Writers ourselves someday. (Two of those people who lavished much abuse on me back in the day for my own good actually made it. D'ya know who? I still have my zines they wrote. Yes, I do.)
So when somebody asks me to review, even casually - I take it very seriously that there are some things I'm not going to do.
1. A review is not intended to provide feedback for improvement. You don't take something out of the work, turn it over in your hands and go 'yanno, this color blue doesn't match the drapes - it might need some work.'
2. You might discuss the entire plot in a critique. It is verboten in a review. Subject matter, sure. Who, what, when, why and how - as briefly as possible, and don't give anything away.
3. A review is designed to provide the reader with information that will entice them to read the entire work on their own. A critique is for the author's primary use as a means to correct, enhance or go 'hmmm' a lot. So be aware of your focus and your intended audience. (People who write critiques in forums calling them 'reviews' being just plain passive-agressive whiny-weenies get the special hell - and lots of raw egg shampooes. *pulls eyelid in their general direction*)
4. A review is nearly transparent as far as style is concerned. If I write a review, you shouldn't notice me. A review is impersonal space and really? An opinion is not required. It's expected that you would rate a review these days - but in my experience and training? Is not expected and is considered an intrusion of your opinion into a place where it doesn't belong. You want to tell the author what you think? You tell the author, if you've gotten persmission to do a critque - oh, and make sure you can back that opinion up, bucko.
So now that I've said that, I can start saying other things. Be right back.
