How to write a review and review?

Review - This is a written analysis of the scientific text (articles, coursewa or thesis, manuscript, dissertation). Review plan includes:

1) the subject of analysis (the topic, the genre of peer-reviewed work);

2) the relevance of the topic of the course or thesis, thesis, articles, manuscripts;

3) a summary of the peer-reviewed work, its main provisions;

4) the overall assessment of the review of the reviewer;

5) disadvantages, shortcomings of work;

6) conclusions of the reviewer.

Review It gives only a general description of the work without detailed analysis, but contains practical recommendations: the analyzed text can be accepted for work in the publisher or degree.


Typical Plan for writing Reviews and Reviews

Relevance of the topic. ( The work is devoted to the urgent topic ... The relevance of the topic is due to ... The relevance of the topic does not require additional evidence (no doubt is quite obvious ...).

The wording of the main thesis. ( The central issue of work, where the author has achieved the most significant (noticeable, tangible ...) results, is ... The article is justified to the fore, the question of ...).

Total assessment. ( Evaluating the work as a whole ... Summing the results of individual chapters ... Thus, the work under consideration ... The author showed the ability to understand ... Systematized the material and summarized it ... an unconditional merit of the author is a new methodical approach (the proposed classification, some Clarifications of existing concepts ...) The author, of course, deepens our idea of \u200b\u200bthe studied phenomenon, reveals the new features ... Work, undoubtedly, opens ...).

Disadvantages, shortcomings. ( At the same time, there is doubt the thesis about that ... to disadvantages (shortcomings) of work should be attributed to the author ... (Insufficient clarity in presentation ...), the work is essential, it would be necessary to reduce ... (provide recommendations), There is a significant drawback of work ... The noted disadvantages are purely local nature and do not affect the final results of the work ... marked shortcomings of work do not reduce its high levels, they can rather be considered wishes for the author's future work ... The mentioned disadvantages are not so much ... how much...).

The perception of a person of any film or literary work is quite subjective. Each of us has its own opinion relatively viewed by movie or read book, but this does not mean that we are not interested in someone else's point of view.

On the contrary, the argued and objective opinion of other people is always in demand and reading. This is explained by the emergence of such a concept as "criticism", and one of his varieties - reviews. What is a review? What are her features and how is she written?

What does the word "review" mean?

Term "review" Has Latin roots. The concept comes from the word recentsio. (Consideration) and is actively used since that time when literary criticism appeared in the world.

In Russia, the reviews began to write in the middle of the XVIII century. The first author became Nikolai Karamzin, who preferred to be the so-called monographic reviews. Among other famous reviewers, Pushkin, Chukovsky, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov can be mentioned.

What is a review?

The review is a genre of literary criticism and is a brief written analysis of the work, which contains an analysis of the criticized work and its assessment by a competent person.


The main task of the reviewer is to identify the merits and disadvantages of criticized labor and submit an objective opinion on the court. This does not mean that the critic is deprived of the opportunity to express their own position. He may well express his point of view, but it must be impartial and fair.

What are the reviews?

If earlier the reviews were written only on, now there are their wide classification on the object, subject (author), the volume and number of works in the same text.

Depending on the criticized object of the review, the films, books, performances and various types of products are compiled. The author may be an expert in a particular area, directly consumer of the product or a journalist who writes reviews on the order of the creator.

By volume distinguish between the Grand and mini-reviews. The first is a detailed text that allows you to most fully illuminate the studied theme. Such reviews typically write famous critics with great authority in the eyes of the public. Mini-review is a short essay that allows the author to transfer his impressions of what seen or read.


If we talk about the number of criticized works, work can be divided into monorcerations, mentioning one material, and polyurecenes, in which the analysis of several works in the form of their comparison between themselves.

What is the review different from the recall?

One of the main features of the review is the reflection of the existing reality, that is, a written work disassembled in the text. The review pursues about the same goals, however, has some differences. If the review is an official analysis of working with its objective expert assessment, the feedback is a simple opinion, transmitting personality sensations.

The key concept here is the analysis. The review gives only the overall characteristic of the work and often contains emotional judgments, supplemented by advice on the correction of any shortcomings. The review also includes analytics, while the author must be removed from his attitude towards the criticized work at the maximum.

How to write a review?

To properly write a review, first you need to make her plan, which includes a bibliographic description, directly critical analysis of the work and the subsequent assessment.


In the review, it is necessary to consider the quality of the work done - the interest of the plot, the correspondence of the style (speech) of the author of the declared genre. Dismissal tone all over criticism should be homogeneous. The reviews can be indicated on the author's grammatical errors, if any, and mention its previous achievements.

The text of the reviewer cannot contain elements of slang, abnormative vocabulary or to be overloaded secondary details.

Review

Review

Review is one of the common critical genres. R. Make up in thick magazines so called. "Bibliographic" department. R. is a critical analysis of the work - a literary and artistic, scientific, journalistic nature, etc., which gives information about this work and evaluation of it in such limits that a short review does not develop into a critical etude (see criticism). In the future, we will concern only the reviews on the works of fiction.
R. disintegrates into three parts:
1. Bibliographically accurate designation of a peer-reviewed book. The surname, the name of the author and the name of the book, volume or part, if the book is divided into such, publisher, place and year of publication, number of pages in the book, circulation and price.
2. The presentation of the book content. For information about the artistic work, it is necessary to retell Fabul, for scientific work - a brief retelling of the content on the chapters or departments of the book.
3. Score book. The last part is the most significant in R., it detends in it the nature of R. as one of the genres of lit-th criticism (see).
The nature of R., its ideological level is due to the class worldview of the author, his literary training, its critical skill. In the most advanced magazines of the past R. always played the role of a combat shotger in the fight against backward and class-alien works. In Russian literature, editors - revolutionary democrats of the 60s. - Present R. The importance of ideological and political assessment of literature. According to Dobrolyubov, "the magazine must take only such writings for the bibliography, which or disagree or agree with its direction; In the first case, he has the opportunity to refute hostile thoughts, undermine, ridicule, destroy them, in the second case, he is given a pretext to repeat his own thoughts, remind of them, clarify, confirm or strengthen them. The compositions of the same indifferent in the sense of direction, at least serious and interesting themselves, should not fall into the bibliography of the general journal "(see Memories of M. Antonovich, in Sat." Sixties ", ed." Academia ", 1933, page . 139).
Modern Marxist River must be strictly scientific and at the same time relevant-journalistic. Giving information about the release of the book and the assessment of it, the reviewer should produce a scientific analysis of the material and highlight the results of its research from the point of view of the political tasks of the working class. The assessment should not be brought from the outside, but to flow organically from the fact, from its nature, which determines the value of the work for socialist construction. The reviewer should be able to show the author's achievements or errors, criticize the latter; He must be able to give social characteristics not only ideas, but also all other elements of the work. Abstract definitions in R. It seems such as "wide design, the original and sharp plot, an interesting form", etc., do not give a reader's reader to evaluate either an artistic ideological side of the work. From the side of the R. requires the author of brevity, reducing to formulate their thoughts in an exact, compressed and distinct form.
R. does not require expanded argument, it should avoid any deviations from the immediate task, historical, philosophical and other excursions. Otherwise, R. turns into a critical article. In the history of criticism we find another special kind of R. - Autoressentia. They usually appear when, in the conditions of a litthic struggle, the opponents resort to the silence of certain books. An example of authenthenevia can serve as the autoressentia N. G. Chernyshevsky on his book "Aesthetic attitudes of art to reality." Bibliography:
Meunier E. F., Die Entwicklung Des Feuilletons der Grossen Presse, DISS., HDLB., 1914; Lempicki S., V., Uber Literarische Kritik U. Die Probleme Ihrer Erforschung, "Euphorion", XXV, 1924, S. 501 FF.; Eckardt F., Das Besprechungswesen, LPZ., 1927; Matsuev N. I., Fiction Russian and translation. 1917-1925, indicator of articles and reviews, M. - Odessa, 1926; Somov N. M., Critical Bibliography. (Sketch of newspaper and magazine bibliography), M., 1928, p. 50 and syl.; Matsuev N. I., fiction in the assessment of periodical press, "Literary critic", 1933, №№ 4, 5 and 7; His, criticism and literary criticism (bibliographic pointer), ibid, 1934, №№ 2 and 3 (the last work is a continuation of the previous one; both register reviews and articles on criticism and literary criticism from April 1932 to August 1933); Chronicle of reviews for 1934, edited by Ya. N. Beltetsky, V. I. Solovyova, E. I. Shamurin, ed. State Central Book Chamber, M., 1935.

Literary encyclopedia. - at 11 tons; M.: Publishing House of the Communist Academy, Soviet Encyclopedia, Fiction. Edited by V. M. Friece, A. V. Lunacharsky. 1929-1939 .

Review

(Lat. Recentsio - Consideration), Critical article or note containing a review on literary, musical, theatrical, cinematic work. The reviews are given a parsing and assessment of the work, and when necessary and brief content. A review that estimates several works combined by any sign is called review. Book review - part of its history and key to her understanding (for example, Reviews V. G. Belinsky On the works of writers of the first floor. 19th century).

Literature and language. Modern illustrated encyclopedia. - M.: Rosman. Edited by prof. Gorkina A.P. 2006 .

Review

REVIEW (Recentsio - viewing, calibration, analysis) - a small critical article or note, for the most part of a monographic nature, about a book that has just been published. R-II is placed in general and special organs of periodic press (newspapers, magazines). With all the increasing growth of publishing and the colossal filling of the book market, the role of the district, with the least spent time of the reader with the general course of the literature that interests its most prominent phenomena, allowing not even reading the book itself, to judge its character, The content, advantages and disadvantages, finally warning from the waste paper, is becoming more and more significant. Therefore, in addition to the general printing bodies, in which the R-AIs are usually on the last page of the newspaper or at the end of the magazine and play a relatively minor role, recently in the West and we have numerous publications that affect the special purpose of the systematic description in a number of X, composed reviewers-specialists, all regions of current literature. Accordingly, P-Iia is put forward here on a predominantly honorable place, often the whole magazine is nothing more than a solid meeting r-Iy. These are magazines: " Printing and revolution"(The best of this kind of publications)," Book and revolution», « Literature and Life Bulletins», « A new book"And ne. Dr.

Large composite p-ia, covering a whole series of books, combined in a chronological or other internal sign (for example, "Seven Years of Russian Poetry", "Western Aviation Literature during the war years" etc.) is called overview.

D. Good. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: in 2 tons / edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunina, V. Lviv-Rogachevsky, M. Rosanova, V. Cheshikhina-Windrinsky. - m.; L.: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925

Watch what is a "review" in other dictionaries:

Review of the genre of journalism, as well as scientific and artistic criticism. The review informs about the new product, it contains a brief analysis and evaluation. Translated from Latin "Recentsio" means "view, message, evaluation, review ... ... Wikipedia

- (Etyol. See before. Sl.). Analysis, assessment of essay. A dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. Review [LAT. Recentsio inspection, examination] 1) lit. The article, the purpose of which is the critical analysis of some ... ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Cm … Synonym dictionary

Review, Reviews, Women. (from Lat. Recentsio Revision). 1. Critical feedback on the play, concert, scientific or literary work. 2. The same as the editors in 2 meanings. (Philol.). New review of Cicero. Explanatory dictionary of Ushakov. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 ... ... Explanatory Dictionary Ushakov

Reviewers have the right not only to tell people in the eyes that they are fools, but even prove it. Georg Lichtenberg Writing Review takes so much time that there is no time to read the book itself. Gracho Marx Reviewer rarely like books, ... ... Summary encyclopedia of aphorisms

review - Review, review Responsible / withdraw, owls. Release, review / discerning ... Dictionary of Tezaurus Synonyms of Russian Speech

review - Review, and otherwise the critical analysis is written on any work and never about any work. Suggestions like: The newspaper has printed a review of a new film (need to new film) are incorrect ... Russian language error dictionary

- (from Lat. Recentsio Consideration) 1) Newspaper Journal Genre; Critical analysis and evaluation of a new artistic or scientific work.2) Feedback on scientific work or literary artwork before their publication, protection, etc. Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Review, and, wives. Critical review of what n. Writing, play, film. R. on a book or about the book. Load an article on the review. Negative, positive p. | arr. Reviewer, Aya, OE. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Swedov ... ... ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

This article is intended for amateurs. Do not look for in it the secrets of literary work and the subtleties of the critical work of the work. Only practice, clean practice for people who like to write reviews and want to do it better, and ideally - to acquire readers and a platform for publications. So, turn your feathers, connect the tablets, wear the keyboard closer - proceed.

What is a review?

The review is a review for a kind of work (book, game, film), designed to draw up the impression of it from the target audience. This is a small text (standard volume of 1800-3600 characters, one or two pages of A4 format), containing a review, analysis and analysis of the work. Today we will speak mainly about book reviews, although much of what has been said can be promoted on films, games, music discs, etc.

The review happens:

Official- Printed in a government or departmental publication on the occasion of the publication of the book of state importance. It is written strictly by the office, in compliance with all the rules of etiquette, neutral or restrained-hook.

Functional- To compile the impression of the book in the light of specific tasks and goals: how much the work is suitable for a particular publisher and series, how successfully it can be sold, whether it covers any specific questions. It is written clearly and intelligibly, the content is more important than the form.

Informative- For potential readers and buyers, in order to help make a decision - it is worth reading or not. It is simpsed simply, you can add a pinch of beautifulness and a drop of analysis, it is recommended to crush a couple of quotes in a quote.

Essay on the topic of - The reasoning about the trust of all things using the book as a starting point. The more beautiful and mysterious it is written, the better, the flight of the thinking thoughts is limited only by their presence.

Critical- The work (and often the author) anatomy, dismantled and disassembled: what he said that he wanted to say that readers thought, which of them were wrong and how good that the clever reviewer did notice all this. The basic requirements are to follow the logic, not to descend to the easiest of the mowing, argue its position. And also ensure that there are no errors in the text of the review: a critic who owns the material worse than criticized, is a pathetic sight.

Posted- obviously laudatory or unworful feedback about the book. When writing, it is important not to overdo it with trigteen or syrup, otherwise even the customer is finished, and it will not pay.

Private feedback - A subjective impression of the book, without attempts to objective criticism or analysis. He is written by a living spoken language, jargonisms and slang are admissible (in all other types of reviews, they are not welcome).

A professional reviewer always knows for which target audience he writes why this particular product chose and it is this format of filing, which goal wants to achieve and what kind of way. And, of course, the shame and the rules deserve those who do not read the book before writing a review. I emphasize - reads, and does not break through the diagonal and stealing other people's thoughts from other people's reviews.

Anatomy of review

Reviews have a head, neck, body and tail. The head is the name of the text: intelligible, catchy and with the relationship with the topic of the book. Neck - the so-called lid.Two or three dense introductory lines that specify the tone and outlining the subject of the conversation. The body is actually the text of the review. Tail - conclusions of the reviewer, its resume. Without a tail, the review looks a lonely and Kutya, do not hurt the poor man!

What should be written in reviews? Be sure to indicate authorship, the name of the book, for published works - output. We write, a novelty is or reprint, whether the book was noted with some significant prizes. We indicate the genre in shape (novel, story, play ...) and in content (fiction, fantasy, an alternative story ...). Describe the main storyline (but without spoilers!), We list the main characters, the place of action, the key points of the book. We try to realize and convey to readers the main thoughts of the work (not necessarily, but not bad). During work, you can use several approaches: observation by the side, cashless analysis, critical analysis, controversy with the author.

The review of 1800 characters is less intended only for the discussion of the book. No thoughts, feelings and philosophies just do not fit there. Short proposals, minimum of adjectives and height turns, clear meaning and unambiguous conclusion.

The review of the maximum size of up to 5,400 characters is the perfect format for a quiet and thorough reasoning about one product. You can talk about the place of the book in the art's work, to hold parallels, add your impressions and conclusions, to disassemble the advantages and disadvantages of the text in detail - and at the same time not to tire the reader.

The review of more than 5,400 characters is simply obliged to not close on the problem of one book (if it is, of course, the Lord of the Rings "). We train the literary process and the trends of the genre, compare with similar works, analyze the creativity of the author in general, actively quoting and regulate your thoughts - without them in the big text it's just not to do.

Criteria for evaluation

What can be taken into account, evaluating and analyzing the work?

General impression of the book - One-piece, scattered, powerful, weak, pleasant, miserable.

Plot - How logical it is reduced, are there any moments, do not work on it, do not providing lines? The narration is dynamic, slow, tightened, drunk, torn. How much the dynamics of the narrative corresponds to the genre and tasks set in the book? Isn't the author try to "steer the plot", the deflection of the logic of events in favor of the intent?

Heroes - How detailed and reliably they are described whether their psychology is natural enough, could they come in such a given circumstances? Are these heroes cute to the reader, do the empathy or disgust cause?

Language and stylistics - In general, and in the context of the task. As an example: "Flower Cross" E. The Bagger deserved the "Booker" exactly one parameter - excellent working with the language in the framework of the narrative. Remove from there the squirrels and church Slavonic turnover - and the book will turn into a banal pathetic ladies. And her tongue saved her.

Reliability In general, in detail. Does the laws of nature and science are not violated in the book whether such uniforms were carried at the specified time, did they speak French in the salons, the text of the prayer sounds correctly? I always bring an example of my own story, who at the seminar was solemnly poked Oldi, - the hero was standing in the guard in the rain and his hooks were wetted on shoes. Hooks. Metal. Wet.

Fantage - What exactly concludes how correctly it is designed and how much is necessary? Is it possible without prejudice to the book to remove the princesses from there with dragons or starships with plasmagans?

Psychology of relationship - Does the characters have internal motivations for actions and whether them are enough, whether they behave diverse or toughly follow the standard reactions, does not feel behind the spins of the puppets of the heroes of the author-duck?

The main thought of the text - How ethical is it, intelligent, original? What does the book teach the reader, what does he want to tell him?

Originality - How banal is the idea, from where the author that borrowed, whom quotes, paroding, rephrases? If it seems that the book opens a new genre or direction - we definitely mention it.

Errors and Lyapi - Fishing Bloch and present them to society. Of course, if we are confident that the author is mistaken, and not deliberately distorts events and realities. And it still happens that the unprofessional editor has worked - their pearls are comparable to the masterpieces of the writers themselves.

Public significance - Suddenly in the text the moments, useful, let's say, for patriotic education or national self-consciousness are designated, complex ethical moments and options are described.
Extratentive advantages - for example, historical, ethnographic or social significance. A mediocrely written book can be interesting as a source of information, for example, about the life and nuts of fighter pilot or the court letters of Catherine Great.

Establishment - whether the raised topic is relevant, whether it is interesting to society, which audience is designed for.

Place book in the literary process - As a specific work correlates with others in its genre, what kind of trend indicates, develops or completes.

His feelings - I liked it or not, what feelings and thoughts caused whether I wanted to buy or leave in the home library.

It is not necessary to analyze all items, choose those that are important for us at the moment.

Opinion expert

Boris Nevsky, magazine editor and website MIF

To become a review of the "World of Fiction", it is necessary to remember: the review is written for the readers of the magazine. No need to engage in self-examination - "Wow, how I know a lot of smart words!" Or "I read, and I read it, and about the fact that no one knows, I read too!". Review in MF is not a way of self-expression, and the thing is a purely utilitarian, written to orient readers in the ocean of book products. And the right to review-essay needs to be deserved - the opinion of very few reviewers is interesting to readers in itself.

How to write?

I repeat - the reviewer is obliged to own the material at least not worse than the author of the book. About grammatical, stylistic and other errors are better not even to talk.

In order not to get to the idiotic position, we definitely check all literary, scientific, technical and other terms - and how they are written, and what they mean. In order not to confuse the correlation with copulation, for example. We are convinced that, criticizing other people's actual mistakes, we do not scratch their own.

Carefully read the names of the heroes, the names of the places, items. It is enough to call the hero of YatutcenzhenSirchevish instead of YaturCenzhenSirchev - and the author has the right to declare: "Yes, he did not read the book at all!" Trust in the review will be undermined.

Watch out the stylistics. Spoken speech and jargon are inappropriate in the reviews going to the literary magazine to the site of the publisher or bookstore. Professional terms are hardly suitable for material in a glamorous magazine, but do not interfere with the inner review and are absolutely necessary for the profile publication. Office is required only for official notes. Essay will not cost without filigue work on tongue. A note on a blog, on the contrary, may be rude, vulgar, deliberately flush errors - if only readers came to scratch languages, discussing these spines. And no trembling lanes in a pair with horses - do not interfere with different styles within the boundaries of one text.

The smaller the volume of the review, the laconic and easier should be suggestions. We avoid well-walked particle revolutions, unnecessary epithets, complex structures. Follow the course of thought, we try to put one thought into one small paragraph. Carefully and gently build reasoning. If the style of the review does not imply a pronounced subjective position of the reviewer, sacrifice with its feelings and thoughts in favor of net information.

We divide your position and objective criteria. The book can be objectively good, but it is boring for you personally, and vice versa - objectively focusing, but subjectively charming. If everyone around says that the book is genius - we are not obliged to agree, however, object too. Even the most respected criticism should not be depicted from himself the Most High Sudie, the Prophet in the Literary Fatherland and the Truth in the Last Instance. His opinion is his personal, honest opinion. No more, but not less.

And yes, to write obviously laudatory or crucial review for material or intangible benefits - you can. But not worth the money received.

Opinion expert

A professional reviewer should always make a report for whom he writes for which audience. Corporate website, "gloss", profile magazine, daily newspaper, socio-political magazine, "fat man" - publication for a different audience. In a weekly social and political journal, I was asked to record attention on socially significant books, and in the "home computer" - on those that are related to a visible, but a beginner can also come to get.

Vasily Vladimirsky, literary critic

Do you like criticism?

Most writers perceives critical reviews without proper enthusiasm. At first glance, it may seem that these are their problems, but a quarrel with a couple of serious Matrov can strongly spoil the life of the reviewer, bringing to zero of his prospects to acquire the list of regalia and publications on a fantastic field. Until those heights from which it is possible without a revelation of conscience to express a relation to the head to anyone who turned up to the writer without regard to the ranks and regalia, we are still far away - a niche of evil critics is tightly occupied by the Matti Titans of the Spirit. Yes, and the post is disadvantaged: the usual reviewer lives much calmer. Therefore, I remember how not to quarrel with the authors.

Rule first: do not go to the person. Reviewing and criticizing the work, do not criticize the author and even more so I do not climb into his personal life, religious and political views, bad habits, diseases and weaknesses. If we do not have accurate quotes from an interview with the author, we can only assume and advise, "that the author wanted to say", "that the author meant." We use an elementary psychological reception - "I-position" or "ON-POSITION", coming on behalf of himself or an abstract reader: "I saw such a meaning in the text," "The reader will consider the position of the author provocative because it is because - And the wolves are full, and the writer is not offended, and it is not very particularly for what.

Rule Second: if you do not need to go into a fight or provoke a person on rudeness - not Hamim. We do not call the author as an idiot and vowiness, and its grandiose opts - graphomania and trash (even if it is true). "FTopku" and "kg \\ am" is no longer fashionable. You can always use the wording "The book takes a worthy place in a wide range of modern popular literature."

Third rule: avoid evaluation judgments. "Good" or "bad", "strongly" or "weakly" and in particular "talented" or "meditative" - \u200b\u200boften the concepts of the subjective. We focus the controversial and unsuccessful, in our opinion, moments, we calculate the dubious details and turns of the plot, giving the reader the right to draw conclusions yourself, and the author is to enjoy sweetened pills.

Rule fourth: we share the author and work. From the moment the text becomes a book, he begins to live his life, turn his myths and gain his interpretation. Often readers find in it by no means what the author wanted to invest.

And finally, remember the main thing: with the author you need to be friends. The keyboard will not fall off the letter to sign, thank for the book, ask the Council regarding the incomprehensible moments of the text, to be honest, that I liked it (flattery is harmful!) And what caused doubts. And the author is pleased to get feedback on the book, and it is useful for you.

If we did not want to quarrel, but, nevertheless, the author found that he was offended, no one interferes after a while trying to try to find mutual understanding. If the author from our apologies refuses and I am sure that I found my worst enemy for ever, the right. Alas, when the number of offended authors exceeds the critical mass, it begins to work against the reviewer and spoil him a professional reputation. The glory of the church or Ham depreciates the opinion of the reviewer, and it is much more difficult to restore the position than to climb.

Posted by review. and what now?

The last important question occupying novice reviewers is how to draw your abilities in money and glory. The answer is practically in any way. The profession of literary critics feed the units, the bread of their row and zuda. Reviews are a hostility, sometimes not bad, for a journalist, editor, a student or fans of fiction. It is not worth counting on it as the main source of income.
The easiest way to publish reviews in your own blog. The fair part of the authors has the habit of monitoring the Internet on the subject who and what writes about them, sooner or later they will begin to go out and express their opinions about your reviews. Following the writers, readers will catch up - it is important not to disappoint them, regularly hang up the updates and at least once in a couple of months to organize a small scandal.

Option requiring time resources - publications in thematic communities, on publishing houses and book networks, on thematic portals like Fantlab. Competition is high here: a little publish a review, it is also necessary to defend your opinion, but ideally, to press someone else's legs. But here is the reputation of the criticism and the professional skill is honed.

Next stage - all kinds of reviews. Useful in two aspects - learn to write quickly and essentially, and write about the main thing, without spraying. Yes, and any money may fall, and then the useful person looks like. And a useful person can lead us to the editorial board of the magazine - from glamorous "Cosmo" to the specialized "world of fiction".

Finally, most publishers exist "Kitchiki" - people who browse manuscripts and write reviews. Not too much money, but quite paid and in demand work.

Last advice: Do not review more than 4-5 books per month, so as not to "burn out" and not lose the taste of reading. And do not write about the books, from whom the soul grown or not the opportunity to speak out sincerely - for personal reasons or from friendship.

The rest depends on us with you: from our talent, tact, grip, patience, intuition, feelings of the word, text and measures. Criticism's reputation is created for years, it is necessary to work on it hard and regularly. Writing reviews is not as simple as it seems, but it is not so difficult, how to tie the laces on shoes, as Valentine said Michael Smith from the "strangers in a foreign country".

Enjoy your reading, colleagues!

Opinion expert

Scripture Romanov is a form of loss of freedom of creativity. In turn, reviewing - labor is even more reliable and even less grateful. You can at least say about the writer that he his own himself - by choosing the plot. Criticism position Worse: The reviewer is chained to the review of the review, as a carriage to a wheelbarrow. The writer loses freedom in his book, critic - in someone else's.
Stanislav Lem, from the book "Absolute Void"

Review- This is a critical writing, a written analysis, which contains a brief analysis and assessment of the literary work by a competent person (reviewer).

The task of the reviewer is to evaluate the work, its advantages and disadvantages, which necessitates high demands for the reference of the review. Large importance is the objectivity of the review, the validity of the assessment of its subject. This does not mean that the reviewer is deprived of the right to its position in relation to the work under consideration, it is deprived of the rights only to one-sidedness, on obvious bias in the assessment.

The desire to objectivity of the review determines the features of its style. He is contraindicated with excessive emotionality, the use of acute vocabulary, coarse comparisons, etc. The objectivity of the review is ensured by its evidence. The reference to the review is necessary to justify its attitude to its subject, and here the arguments serve as the facts - quotes from the literary work, indication of the style, form, vocabulary, rhyme, etc.

Views of reviews

1) the detailed abstract - it discloses the content of the work, features of the composition;

2) a small critical or journalistic article (often a polemical nature) - in it the work under consideration is a reason for discussing current public or literary problems;

3) essay - more lyrical reflection by the author of the review, inspired by reading the work than his interpretation;

5) Review (Review) - Review, which includes several artistic works, combined on the thematic, plot, chronological or other attribute.

Review levels:

1. Review of one work out of connection with the work of the writer;
2. Review of the work in the context of writer's creativity;
3. Review of the work in the context of the literary process of the Epoch.

Review of the first level It makes it possible to assess the peculiarity of a particular literary work, to identify its advantages and disadvantages.
Review of the second leveli allows you to trace the growth of the mastery of the writer, changing his artistic manner, to comprehend creative quest at a certain stage of his literary activities.
Review of the third level Allows you to see the identity of the writer in mastering and resolving topical topics and problems of the era, to identify the traditional and innovative in his work, to appreciate the writer's place in the literary process.

Review planning plan

Review of the literary product may include the following components:
1. Bibliographic description of the work (author, name, year of release) and a brief (in one-two sentences) retelling its content;
2. The direct response to the work of literature (review-impression);
3. Critical analysis or integrated text analysis:
- meaning of the name;
- analysis of its shape and content;
- features of the composition;
- the author's skill in the image of heroes;
- Individual style of a writer.
4. Argued Evaluation of Work and Personal Reflections by the author of the review:
- the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe review;
- The relevance of the subject of the work.

Tips how to write a review

The review should consider the quality of writing artistic work - the incidence of the plot, the compliance of the author's speech and the heroes of the work genre;
On all over, the tone of the presentation of the author's speech must be homogeneous - it can be assessed, informative, cheerful;
In the review, it is necessary to note all grammatical errors - it will benefit the author;
It should be noted by good luck and artistic finds of the author - this stimulates the author to work on new works;
In the review, it is possible to reflect the feelings of the reviewer caused by reading the work;
Say out in detail and justified. Review is not a comment where you can write: "I love!", "This is five", "excellent!" etc.;
The review should not contain an abnormative vocabulary, call on violence, straighten.

Typical errors in writing a review

Substitution of the analysis and interpretation of the work of retelling;
Reception of the review Comment or review;
Lack of argument;
The familiar naming of the author of the work by name-patronymic;
"Original" to the detriment of the maintenance and logic of work;
Ambiguity of the position of the reviewer;
The overload of the review of secondary details (in particular, biographical and historical information, which do not become supporting points of the analysis of the work);
The predominance of the analysis of the ideological and thematic characteristics of the text to the detriment of attention to its aesthetic side;
Illiterate or formal use of the concepts of the theory of literature, literary terms.