Classics for Beginners discussion
Classics Questions and Debates
>
How Do I Review Classics?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nicolle
(last edited Jan 03, 2012 06:06AM)
(new)
Jan 03, 2012 06:08AM
In this topic (suggested to me by Desiree) we can discuss what makes a classic review great and how/if they differ from other genres.
reply
|
flag
I'm very interested to see what this discussion yeilds. There are a lot of people in this group with more better reviewing skills (and grammar skills) than me. Is there an established procedure? (Like Scientific Procedure for approaching an experiment?)
If it comes down to personal taste, then what tastes best?
I'm sure there's a reference that sort of listes things, like a Harbrace or Styles manuel. I just have no idea what applies to reviews and how strict it's expected to be followed? (nothing's really that strict once you get out of school.)
I reckon that a main difference is that you delve deeper into the plot and all the messages and themes behind the novel/poem/play. I too like you Hugh, feel that my writing skills are not up to par for writing about classics, and the classics I have reviewed I have generally just said whether I liked it or not. It may be because I am still at college doing english, but writing a large review which gets into thie ins and outs of the language and dramatic devices used makes me feel like I am in class. I hope when I leave college this summer, I won't feel this expectation for writing a classic review and will just write one for fun.
Nicolle wrote: "I reckon that a main difference is that you delve deeper into the plot and all the messages and themes behind the novel/poem/play. I too like you Hugh, feel that my writing skills are not up to..."
Goodreads doesn't discriminate about who writes, what they write and why they write when it comes to reviews. I may never write reviews for anything but fun and socalizing on Goodreads, but I'd sure like to be able to look and sound intelligent, given the broad spectrum of people on Goodreads who might see it.
Me too, I think it depends on what books I'm reviewing for the writing style I use. I tend to be more colloquial for YA books that I review, whereas I feel the need to be more conservative and scholarly when I review more esteemed books. I am relatively new to reviewing too and don't tend to write reems and reems. The more classics or just well written books I read (including non fiction), I have noticed the better my own writing style has become, but also my speech. I have what I call a 'common northener' accent and dialect which has recently changed into a more refined and articulate voice. This is a great positive to me :)
With classics, or books that I believe have some important message, I like to get down in the weeds and ferret it out (as best I can). With other books, if it's a good read, I tend to be more of a cheerleader (You know, Rah-Rah-Rah, this book good, sis-boom-bah.) I could easily have grown up with the same accent as "Fred Ward" or worse, but, fortunately for me, I have educated parents who speak reasonably accent free. The more I read, the better I write. Which is good for me. (Of course, my father (being from Texas) did beg to differ with the pronunciation of Doggie when we lived in Johnstown Pensylvania. They thought it was Daggy, my father thought it was daawgie.)
Haha, I think the pronunciation of the word Doggie is of utter importance! Your cheerleading is good ;)
My daughter (6) is on a cheer team. (Took first place in their last competition. She's rubbing off on me.
I wonder if tossing out a review and asking "how do we make this better?" would be valuable?
Awww, your daughter is a fab teacher!Hugh (A.K.A. Hermit the Curmudgeon) wrote: "I wonder if tossing out a review and asking "how do we make this better?" would be valuable?"
That is a fantastic suggestion, are you offering or shall we find someone else to steal a review from?
I write a review of every book I read. They all follow the same format. A rating (1-5 stars ... with occasional "0" star for a real stinker)
A synopsis (no spoilers)
What I liked or did not like about it (i.e. I explain WHY I gave it the rating I gave it.
I don't view my reviews as scholarly or academic dissections of the work, but a way to express my opinion about a particular book. If it helps others, great. But I mostly write them for myself.
I enjoy reading your reviews of books, I think they are fair and very helpful. :)
Hi, I've just written my review for Frankenstein and wondered whether one of u would mind having a look. Please.http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Snoozie Suzie wrote: "Hi, I've just written my review for Frankenstein and wondered whether one of u would mind having a look. Please.http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..."
Very good review!
Oh, why thank you. I'm surprised! Any pointers?
Maybe you could talk more about language and themes but only if that is the kind of review you want. Your is fab as it is I would say. I think some people may scold you on abbreviations such as tbh, but I don't mind, it seems like a person is reviewing the book rather than an academic.
Mod
Me either, unless it was something ridiculous like if someone saw the theme of space invasion of aliens in Jane Eyre...I certainly would have to disagree!
I agree, who am I to criticize a master writer? What, I'm going to tell everyone what Mark Twain could have done to make Tom Sawyer a better book, and what he did right? I have an ego, for sure, but it's not that big (at least I "hope" not).The books I identify with are ripe with sombolism and allegories. Some of those writers actually succeeded in writing a meaning that resonates with life in regardless of era (yes, borrowed from a different thread). I like "hearing" the author's "voice" as it "resonates" through his work, then trying to isolate that single clear tone that links it with humanity in some way.
Sometimes I find a tone that only me and other dogs can hear, or one that is probably not intended by the author and therefore transferred from my psyche onto his work. Still, it's the work that brings it out of me.
So that's what I like to look for in a classic. Sometimes I think I get it pretty clearly (if not uniquely) sometimes I'm with the dogs out in left field walking to the beat of a very different drummer that is very distant and far away from what everyone else sees in a great story and even more distant than what the author intended. Still, I don't think I'd come up with some of these things without something to read that strikes a cord in me. I try to share that note, as crazy as it may sound.
I've yet to write a full review for a classics nonfiction on Goodreads - most of my reviews are for the nonfiction variety. Nonfiction book reviews are much easier for me to write, mostly because it's less a case for critiquing the literary devices than a case for critiquing the arguments and information presented. I dislike reading descriptive reviews for fiction books as I usually avoid spoilers. Naturally, I don't write descriptive reviews either. Literary reviews remind me a little too much of English classes at school and since I read fiction now for enjoyment rather than academics, I don't really take the time now to form cohesive literary dissertations on the classics I read. Yes, I still pick up on the symbolisms, allegories, motifs and themes etc. etc. but I don't go out of my way to find them and so imo my literary reviews would have been quite incomplete. That doesn't mean that whenever I read classics, I do not form an opinion about them - there will often be aspects of the book that I like or dislike. But generally speaking, my opinion (and my rating) stems from intuitive, general overall impressions. Informal discussions and dialogue in book groups like these work much better for me :)
Fallensnow wrote: "I've yet to write a full review for a classics nonfiction on Goodreads - most of my reviews are for the nonfiction variety. Nonfiction book reviews are much easier for me to write, mostly because i..."Well, you have a point. I look for and like to figure/weasel out the allegorical details. That doesn't mean I always explain the allegory in a "review."
I would say I do tend to do that for a book that's a "group read." I like discussing symbolism and allegory and such with others who have read and like a book. So, 1984, Frankenstien,...yeah, I'll get all up into the allegory and I enjoy it.
If it's not a group read, though I certainly will "get into it," I don't always feel that a review needs that kind of detail, which is more like a spoiler.
I'd also say that some "Classics" aren't necessarily alegorical. There are other ways of having a message without making things all symbolic and allegorical. Sometimes a painting that hangs in the Louvre (Sp) is just a painting and the message is more straight foreward and less artistic. "Tom Sawyer" For example. Though we can imply some symbolism (and trust me, if it can be implied, I will) but it's more likley that it's just astory about boy growing up in 19th century rural america, or, at best a story of comming age, rites of passage etc, themes that are generally non-specific to a story or universal in some way no allegory necessary.
The long winded analysis of classic stories that I've done, has been aimed more for group discussion to give us something to talk about, (or argue about, since I sometimes find myself out on a wild tangent).
and... if the story is allegorical, it may not be necessary to explore it to enjoy the book but, if it's there and you leave it unexplored what's the point?
(and I'd also say, that just because a book has some sybmolic characters, references or themes, that isn't necessarily Allegorical. If that makes sense.)
Maybe not, but, apparently I ramble on. I'll let someone else post now. thanks for letting me share.
A little anecdote ... I went to an author event and the author spoke about having had a previous novel selected to be an Oprah Book Club read. She talked about the secrecy surrounding that announcement; she was not allowed to tell ANYONE (except her husband, and ONLY if she absolutely knew he could keep the secret) before the official announcement. Anyway ... it can be months from the time Oprah's producers notify the author of the book selection and taping of the show. Additionally, the book was already in paperback so the author was almost a year into working on a second book. In any case ... One day Oprah herself calls to chat aobut the book, wanting to get some facts / issues straight before taping. They talk about characters, motivation, setting, etc. Then Oprah asks: "Did the white cat symbolize purity or was there something else you had in mind?"
The author responds - "There was a cat in my book?!"
Sometimes it's just a cat.
I tend to review all books in a similar way. I don't have a set scheme or plan because I've never been someone who likes to write to a plan. I just like to allow creativity and my thoughts room to explore. But I still break down my review into analytical thoughts about each book. I'll tend to explain whether I enjoyed it, defend my case and explore details such as: was the book well written and if it was does this add to my overall feeling toward the book. Then if the book wasn't well written I will argue whether other elements countered that or not. If they didn't I might simply turn my review into a humorous, scathing rant. Simply because I love books too much to see someone write a horrifying one.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
That's probably my best example of how I've written reviews. But each is different and unique. I can never write the same thing for each and only some really capture the truth of what I'm trying to say.
I think, that if we were writing a "how too" list it would have a section something like this. "Determine the purpose of your review. Is it?
A. A review for a group read, where discussion of the book with other reviewers is the main thrust behind your review.
B. Is this a book you read for fun where a review is more of an advertisement and/or general recommendation to help others find a book to enjoy.
C. Is this a critical review to provide feed back for the author?
D. Is this review expected to be a mini-case study of the book where the finer details are anylized and explaiened.
E. Some combination of two or more of the above?
I'm sure in there is the difference between a "Literary Review" and other types of review, but, as the Grumpy, ugly, under educated, blue collar American," I'm ignorant of such terms.
But I have been known to write a kickin' technical procedure.
Hugh The Curmudgeon wrote: "I think, that if we were writing a "how too" list it would have a section something like this. "Determine the purpose of your review. Is it?
A. A review for a group read, where discussion o..."
I'm an E. I try and throw in everything to do with the book that I can think of...
Actually, I was sugguesting identifying what the purpose of the review is then writing it with a goal (A-E) in mind, not as a way to catagorize ourselves as reviewers. Meaning, that any of us can write a review with any of those goals in mind. But, if we write the same review for each of those situations, with no changes or differences, then it would only be a good review for one of them. That would be 4 missing the mark and one hitting the nail on the head. Grade wise 20% meeting the needs of the situation. (E should be rewritten to indicate that this is a known combination of situatins A-D, not a catch-all to get away with whatever we write.)
having said that. Since none of us are writing these reviews for a college, graduat or undergraduate or High School class, and most of us (myself included) are not getting paid to write a review professionally, then there is no penalty for writing it like you want to.
I'm just suggesting if you want write reviews that are seen as "better" then it would help to first establish what needs, situation or purpose needs to be met before writing it. Then write with that purpose in mind.
Which leads to one of the problems with writing reviews for Goodreads. Few groups ever establish a need or situation or purpose to write a review. At best, the post guidlines to think about.
So, we make up our own phantom rules for writing reviews, like mine. I write reviews for group reads more antalitically like a book report because I believe it's more conducive to discussion. From what I've seen, I may be the only person who sees it that way.
I write reviews on most books as a way of letting out a Whoop of satisfaction about how much I enjoy it. that often tells little about the book and winds up being more of an advertisement for it. I'm okay advocating for a book that I like.
I like looking for the message or symolism or allegory in a story, because that's what I like doing and sometimes, when I find a powerful spiritual or human message, I write about that in my review.
Again, no where is there any evidence that I'm doing it any more right or wrong than the next guy.
The next layer of my point is that there should be some kind of handshake between the reviewer and the community it will be broadcast to if you want it to have more value.
It's like the old story about the difference between heaven and hell...
Everybody's soul comes to the same banquet and every body has a spoon that's longer than their arms. They can have all they want to eat, but the have to use their spoon.
The people in Hell are the one's who struggle to get that huge spoon in their own mouths. The food spills on them and stains their faces and clothes, while they get very little inside them.
The people in Heaven are the ones who use their spoon to put food in someone elses mouth, trusting (faith) that someone will feed them as well. They are able to eat all they want and they don't look like pigs and gluttons doing it.
If we're going to write reviews, without an idea of what is desired, then we are just writing them for ourselves. There is a place for those reviews. Goodreads exists on reviews like that. But if we really want to make it better, then we need to have some understanding of what the other side wants, and do our best to answer those questions.
At best this is, and should be a hazy nebulous thing. However, improving the quality of your writing (Grammar, spelling, word choice, neat pictures and tricks, etc.) does not automatically increase the value of your review to the community we write it in.
Goodreads would not be a "Social" website, if there was not a sense of community here.
So it's the age old contradiction that plagues so many marriages.. one partner knows that their spouse is unhappy and keeps asking "what do you want me to do?" and the spouse refuses to say it in a straight forward manner because the spouse want's most of all for their partner to want the same thing they do. They believe that if they both wanted the same thing, then the other would automatically know what needs to be done. So, neither is happy, both are right and both are wrong. No handshake, no nurturing (the heaven-hell story above) and nothing that is valuable to either happens.
If one could make the other do what they wanted, and they did it because they were forced to do it and stayed unhappy, what has the other gained?
So it is the same with reviews. We do need an idea of why we are writing a review and what's expected. we don't want a heavy hand to dictate how we are going to enjoy writing it or expressing it and what we are supposed to like or not like. A handshake-something more like a covenant.
So most of us wonder if what we are doing is valued by those whom we do it for amd only have direct feedback (and far to little of it) to help them decide if their labor of love has any value to anyone but them.
I'm saying one way to make sure what is being done has more value, is to establish what would be valuable in a review for this place, these people at this time. Then having people willing to give them something of value.
Decide why and what things we want to hear about then write the review.
I appologize for rambling on. The crazy old man is going back to his cave and being grumpy agian.
Hugh The Curmudgeon wrote: "I appologize for rambling on. The crazy old man is going back to his cave and being grumpy agian. "
No you have some intriguing things to say.
I appologize. I'm getting verbose in my old age.
Mod
This thread has been helpful. I often want to write reviews but I feel like a kid trying to learn how to ride a bike. I'm riding along, but it doesn't look pretty.
Melissa wrote: "This thread has been helpful. I often want to write reviews but I feel like a kid trying to learn how to ride a bike. I'm riding along, but it doesn't look pretty."I feel just like you do. Guessing at what's write or wanted without any real idea.
Mod
Lady Danielle, this thread has convinced me to start trying to write reviews, even if they're clumsy. And Hugh, I think you're on the right track. I'm definitely going to consider your points about audience and goals as I ride that bike. :)
Mod
Just a thought I had on the topic of reviews. What are your thoughts on spoilers? I know for me personally I'll often read them because I can forget them easily enough but I know a lot of people hate them...
Mod
For me, it depends on what I'm doing. If it's a group read, then, the idea, as I understand it, is to read the book then discuss it, or share those things we liked or didn't like. I believe in those cases, liberal use of a spoiler tag is called for, but, yes, spoilers in. This is a targeted discussion right? I have also decided on at least one other group read that I'd use the "writing" area on Good reads and link to that for book discussion so I'm not posting a huge spoiler on a file that can be read by anyone and everyone on goodreads. Or just post it on the discussion thread (though, as you can tell, 15000 characters or less is a challenge for me). .
If I'm writing and just reporting in a group that I'm a member of, it's like telling friends at work about a cool book. Why spoil it for them? I will write more about it because this is a dedicated group, and I want to help them find reads that are fun and entertaining from me.
If I'm just posting a review on a book that I read, that isn't a particular interest for any group that I'm a member of, I prefer no spoilers, because I'll basically be advocating books I think are good, endorsing them. The review will read more like an advertisement anyway. I'm not a good negative politician.
But that's me. Overall the rule of thumb is that I hesitate when I think I might be spoiling a good read for someone else by revealing something integral to the plot. Surprise and shock is part of the fun of reading.
Again, this is me, and, in keeping with my earlier post of biblical lengthy and something less than biblical importance, I think the group should have a role in deciding what they want to read for group reads and for reviews on books in their sphere of interest, if the intent of the review is to share with those in the club.
It should be known what people in this group or that group want, not guessed.
When it comes to posting for, just anybody, it's my choice (though some idea what people like might help me write something that they can value instead of just of value to me).
The problem is, that most group members of most groups are either afraid to say what they like in a post and those that do say are seen as ego-maniacs (sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly).
That's why I see this group (and this thread) as a higher form of Goodreads life so far. You know, not just a tadpole, a tadpole with hind legs).
If the thread is specifically for discussion of a book, then the reader should expect that there may be spoilers. It's the same as going to a F2F book club discussion when you haven't read the book. The rest of the members are not going to stop discussing the final denouement just because you haven't read it. Other than in a specific discussion of a book, I try to avoid spoilers in my reviews. If I feel I simply MUST include a spoiler (because I must comment on it), then I set it apart by using several spaces and a BOLD statement such as ... *** SPOILER ALERT *** ... before continuing with my review.
A late entry in this discussion. Will incorporate the tips and suggestion I read. I write reviews just to express what I felt about a book in a couple of sentences and they are more of a summary but I do not give away the story. Now when I look back and read my earlier reviews there seemed to be a lack of purpose then and choice of words or sentences seem absolutely disagreeable to me at present. But now, I believe, I have found a definitive style.
Couldn't agree more with Lady Danielle, "The more reviews you write, the more naturally the process unfolds."
When I write reviews, I write how I experienced the book and whether it provoked any ideas in me.
I must confess, I'm not comfortable writing long reviews for any literature. I'm much more comfortable reviewing non-fiction because I've read it for years. Because of that I tend to just give a rating and maybe write a sentence or two about why I liked it. Over time, with more experience with classics, maybe I can expand that.
Susan wrote: "I must confess, I'm not comfortable writing long reviews for any literature. I'm much more comfortable reviewing non-fiction because I've read it for years. Because of that I tend to just give a ra..."Susan, I think that's the most useful kind of review. If I'm deciding whether to read a book, I look for the reviews that have no summary and just say whether or not they liked it.
I sometimes appreciate qualifications about the reviewer him or herself. For example, "I have read everything by Thomas Pynchon, and I think..." or "This is the first detective novel I've read, so..."
