|
Resources
for Newspaper Students
|
|
|
|
Reviewing The first rule of reviewing is that there are no rules. But these observations about the different kinds of reviewing and different kinds of writing and thinking that go into reviews may be helpful to you. Some reviewers use one particular approach, characteristically, if not always, but most reviewers are eclectic and make us of several in the same review. Length and depth Capsule review. E.g., Roger Ebert’s One-Minute Reviews. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=oneminute Daily newspaper reviewing: what they include
The essay review Found in weeklies, monthlies, quarterlies, these can sometimes be an introduction to a subject matter. So, a review of books on Rembrandt in the New York Review of Books will typically be an introduction to understanding Rembrandt, perhaps in the context of art history, social history, biography, the way art historians have understood Rembrandt and his work, or a combination. Specialty magazines: art magazines, film magazines, literary magazines, political weeklies/monthlies
Description One of the most common elements of reviewing is description. The work(s) must be described clearly. At best, description gives the reader an idea of what it is like to be there looking at the art, watching the movie or play, listenting to the music, or reading the book. Description goes farther than evaluation in helping the reader decide whether he/she will like the work. Bad descriptive writing can have accurate observation and still be bad reviewing. Hierarchy is important. Does the description pick out the most characteristic, significant, interesting, new or newsworthy aspect of the piece? Does it treat every details as important, or subordinate the less to the more important? Use of detail. Good descriptive writing combines generalization with evocative detail. For every generalization, give one or more examples. Narrative If the work is narrative (movie, TV, play, book), the review should avoid lengthy retelling of the story. Amateurish reviews retell the story; professionals use story details to illustrate their ideas and support their points. Some narration is important as a part of the description of the work, to give the reader an idea of what the experience is like. But this is different from chronological retelling of the work from start to finish, which is often found in student writing. The skilled reviewer analyzes the narration to pick out the details that are most characteristic of the work; narration is in the service of description and interpretation. Interpretation The most interesting and ambitious reviewing focuses on ideas (and in short reviews, one good idea is enough and can be used to structure the review). Aesthetic commentary What does the work tell us about the state of the art, what is the place of the work in contemporary artistic practice, what is the contribution of the artists to the medium or genre, what characterizes the work, what other works is it like or unlike. Historical/biographical commentary Does the reviewer discuss the period in which it was created and how it reflects that time and place? Does the reviewer discuss the life of the artist, or the circumstances of the artist when he/she created this work? Does this context help the reader understand the work, or is it presented as intresting in itself but not explanatory? Sociological How does the work reflect or comment on our culture, values, thinking? What does it reveal about how people live? Does it place story elements or characters in a social situation—in particular, a social situation that reveals major themes in the patterns of a society, among a certain kind of people, in a certain time and place? Political. A subset of the sociological. What is the ideological content of the work; does it support or resist dominant values, ideas or institutions; does it comment on contemporary cultural, social or political issues and if so, from what point of view? Does the work express a perspective of or take a stand for an oppressed group or for humanity? Does the work express is simple or complex and even conflicted perspective on any of these aspects of political content? Evaluation Some people think reviewing is just giving personal opinions and rating the work. This makes the review about the reviewer, not about the work, and it assumes the reviewer is interesting and important to the reader. Why should the reader care what you like and dislike? Every evaluation should be supported with a clear reason, often in the form of descriptive detail. The "Laundry List" Approach Some reviews, not the interesting ones, go through a laundry list of comments on aspects of the production. If it's a movie, this would include the acting, the directing, the cinematography, the set design, the screenplay ... Don't mention any of these things unless you have something interesting to say about them and avoid the "list" structure. It's more interesting to structure your review around one or more ideas. The issue approach Are there any controversial or interesting issues raised by the work? I like reviews which are issue-oriented. When you're writing for a monthly, such as F Newsmagazine, you need to think about whether your review will seem dated by the time it is published. That is a reason to focus on issues rather than a show; if the issue is interesting, its interest will outlast the showtimes. Checklist
Some trite tropes
Preparing to write a review If you are not familiar with the work of the artist, learn about it. Use the web—search engines, wikipedia.com, on-line databases such as Academic Search Premier or Lexis Nexis, JStor, Grove’s Encyclopedia of Art, image databases. |