Review of the writing rule. How to write a review

For those who get lost at the word "review" and do not know how to write it exactly.

Review- This is a review of a certain work (book, game, film), designed to make an impression about it among the target audience. This is a small text (standard size 1800-3600 characters, one or two A4 pages) containing an overview, analysis and analysis of the work.

Attention: in our competition the minimum review volume 2000 characters with spaces.

The review consists of:

2. A short introduction that sets the tone and outlines the subject of the conversation.

3. Main text

We designate the genre in form (novel, story, play ...) and in content (science fiction, fantasy, alternative history ...). We describe the main storyline (but without spoilers!), We list the main characters, locations, key moments of the book. We try to understand and convey to the readers the main ideas of the work (not necessarily, but not bad). When working, you can use several approaches: observation from the outside, non-judgmental analysis, critical analysis, polemics with the author.

Criteria for evaluation

It is not necessary to analyze all points.

1. Overall impression of the book- whole, scattered, powerful, weak, pleasant, miserable.

2. The plot- how logically is it brought together, are there any moments that do not work for him, do the lines sag?

3. Narration- dynamic, unhurried, drawn-out, driven, ragged. To what extent does the dynamics of the narrative correspond to the genre and tasks set in the book? Isn't the author trying to "steer the plot", bending the logic of events to please the plan?

4. Heroes- how detailed and reliably they are described, is their psychology natural enough, could they do just that in the given circumstances? Are these characters attractive to the reader, do they evoke empathy or disgust?

5. Language and style- in general and in the context of the task at hand.

6. Credibility in general and in detail. Does the book violate the laws of nature and science, did they wear such uniforms at the specified time, did they speak French in the salons, does the text of the prayer sound right?

7. Fantadmission- what exactly is it, how competently it is designed and how necessary? Is it possible, without prejudice to the book, to remove princesses with dragons or starships with plasma guns from there?

8. Psychology of relationships- do the characters have intrinsic motivations for actions and do they have enough of them, do they behave diversely or rigidly follow standard reactions, do you not feel behind the backs of the puppets-heroes the rigid hand of the author-puppeteer?

9. The main idea of ​​the text- how ethical, smart, original is she? What does the book teach the reader, what does it want to tell him?

11. Originality- how banal is the idea, where did the author borrow what, whom does he quote, parody, paraphrase? If it seems that the book opens up a new genre or direction, we will certainly mention it.

12. Errors and bloopers- we catch fleas and present them to society. Of course, if we are sure that the author is mistaken, and not deliberately distorting events and realities.

13. Public significance- all of a sudden, the text identifies moments that are useful, say, for patriotic education or national self-awareness, describes complex ethical moments and options for choice.

14. Extra-literary merits- for example, historical, ethnographic or social significance. A mediocre book can be interesting as a source of information, for example, about the life and customs of fighter pilots or courtiers of Catherine the Great.

15. Demand- whether the topic raised is relevant, whether it is interesting to society, what audience the book is intended for.

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

Courtesy rules

We share our position and objective criteria... The book may be objectively good, but boring for you personally, and vice versa - objectively faulty, but subjectively charming. If everyone around says that the book is brilliant - we are not obliged to agree, however, to object too. Even the most respected critic should not pretend to be the supreme judge, the prophet in the literary homeland and the ultimate truth. His opinion is his personal, honest opinion. No more, but no less.

Rule one: don't get personal. When reviewing and criticizing the work, we do not criticize the author, and even more so we do not meddle in his personal life, religious and political views, bad habits, illnesses and weaknesses. If we do not have an exact quote from an interview with the author, we can only assume and conjecture “what the author wanted to say”, “what the author had in mind”. We use an elementary psychological technique - “I-position” or “he-position”, speaking on behalf of myself or an abstract reader: “I saw such and such a meaning in the text”, “the reader will find the author’s position provocative because of this and because of that” - and the wolves are fed, and the writer is not offended, and there is nothing to complain about.

Rule two: do not be rude. We do not call the author an idiot and mediocrity, and his grandiose opuses - graphomania and rubbish (even if this is true).

Rule three: avoid value judgments."Good" or "bad", "strong" or "weak" and especially "talented" or "mediocre" are often subjective concepts. We accentuate controversial and unsuccessful, in our opinion, moments, clear out questionable details and plot twists, giving the reader the right to draw conclusions himself, and the author - to enjoy a sweetened pill.

Rule four: we separate the author and the work. From the moment a text becomes a book, it begins to live its own life, acquire its own myths and acquire its own interpretations. Often, readers will find in it not at all what the author wanted to put in.

Do not forget that the reviewers will be evaluated by the authors.

Good luck to everyone in writing reviews and winning!

Review (from Lat. Recensio "consideration") - a review, analysis and assessment of a new artistic, scientific or popular science work; genre of criticism, literary, newspaper and magazine publication.
The review is characterized by a small volume and brevity.

In the classics, the reviewer discovers, first of all, the possibility of its actual, cutting-edge reading. Any work must be considered in the context of modern life and the modern literary process: to evaluate it precisely as a new phenomenon. Such topicality is an indispensable sign of a review.

Reviews are creative works, for example:

• a small literary-critical or journalistic article (often of a polemical nature), in which the work in question is an occasion for discussing topical social or literary problems;
• an essay that is more lyrical thinking of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, than its interpretation;
• a detailed annotation, which reveals the content of the work, the features of the composition and at the same time contains its assessment.

A rough outline of a review of a literary work

Bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of issue) and a short (in one or two sentences) retelling of its content.
Direct response to a work of literature (feedback-impression).

Critical analysis or complex analysis of the text:

• meaning of the name
• analysis of its form and content
• composition features
• the author's skill in portraying heroes
• individual style of the writer

Reasoned assessment of the work and personal reflections of the author of the review:

• main idea of ​​the review
• relevance of the subject of the work

The review does not necessarily contain all of the above components, the main thing is that the review is interesting and competent.

Peer review principles.
The impulse for creating a review is always the need to express your attitude to what you read, this is an attempt to understand your impressions caused by the work, but on the basis of elementary knowledge in the theory of literature, a detailed analysis of the work.

The reader can say “like it or not like it” about a book or a movie they have watched without proof. And the reviewer must carefully substantiate his opinion with a deep and well-reasoned analysis. The relationship between the reviewer and the author is a creative dialogue with an equal position of the parties. The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools that combine the functions of naming and evaluation, book and colloquial words and constructions. A detailed retelling reduces the value of the review: firstly, it will not be interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered the substitution of analysis and interpretation of the text by its retelling.

Every book begins with a title, which in the process of reading you somehow interpret and unravel. The name of a good work is always ambiguous, it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor. Composition analysis can provide a lot for understanding and interpreting the text. Reflections on what compositional techniques (antithesis, circular construction, etc.) are used in the work will help the reviewer to penetrate the author's intention. What parts can the text be divided into? How are they located?

It is important to evaluate the style, originality of the writer, to disassemble the images, artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and to think about what his individual, unique style is, how this author differs from others. The reviewer analyzes the "how it was done" text. A school review should be written as if no one on the examination committee is familiar with the work under review. It is necessary to assume what questions this person may ask, and try to prepare in advance the answers to them in the text.

REVIEW.

Definitions.

Review- This is a written analysis of an artistic (literary, theatrical, musical, cinematic, etc.), scientific or popular science work, containing its critical assessment.

Feedback- a written judgment, an opinion containing an assessment of an artistic, scientific or popular science work.

A review, in contrast to a review, gives the most general characteristic, the most general assessment of what was listened to, read, viewed without detailed analysis.

Table No. 1.

Description of reviews and reviews.

REVIEW PRINCIPLES:

1. The reader can say about the analyzed work or watched film, performance “like it or not like it” without proof. And in the review, the author must carefully substantiate his opinion with a deep and reasoned analysis, reference to the content, form of the work, its idea and main idea (thoughts).

2. The quality of the analysis depends on the theoretical and professional training of the reviewer, his depth of understanding of the subject, the ability to analyze objectively.

3. The reviewer must see and approve the creative individuality of the author, the color of the reviewed work.

4. The relationship between the reviewer and the author is a creative dialogue with an equal position of the parties. The author's advantage is detailed knowledge of the work. The advantages of a reviewer are a high level of theoretical training, the skill of an analyst, and language culture. Experience and the agility of the pen of knowledge do not replace.

5. The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools that combine the functions of naming and evaluation, book and colloquial words and constructions.

TYPICAL PLAN FOR WRITING A REVIEW

Table No. 2.

TIPS FOR WRITING A REVIEW

1. Don't stick to a standard plan. The review may not reflect all, but only some of the points outlined in the plan, and, conversely, it may include questions that are absent in the scheme.
2. You should not cliché the written speech of "writing" students. The cliché is used in cases where students do not know how to review at all.
3. You should not get carried away by supporting structures. Remember that these are semantically empty turns of speech, ligaments - and nothing else.
4. If cliché is used in teaching methods, then at the same time it is necessary to acquaint students with works that do not use memorized clichés. In this case, the students realize that one hundred creative work presupposes, first of all, knowledge of the subject of analysis and a strong command of the language.

(From my notes).