Friday, April 9, 2010

Different Reviewing Style

I always come away from Jenre's Well Read blog with a story that I have to read. Here is a reviewer in the more classical model, who recaps the story a bit, but not ad nauseum, and then dives into the analysis. She really thinks about what she's reading, and can accurately explain what makes the story tick thematically and in a way that doesn't spoil the read. She has character analysis, motivation analysis, and action analysis, all of which make her reviews a pretty good indicator of the book being worth the time, or not.

Jenre's rankings are of the Excellent, Very Good, Good, Poor, and Terrible, variety, which tells me something useful, allowing for some differences in tastes. She's only trotted out the Poor and Terrible a few times, but she can articulate exactly what about the story earned that designation. I really appreciate that about Jenre, and that's what makes her one of my favorite reviewers. She's also had the guts to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes on, when reviewing some big names. That's earned her some hate from the twufans but only respect from me.

Her reviews frequently cross-post to Jessewave's, where they get a different ranking, since that site assigns a numerical rating.

Not sure about the wisdom of not naming the reviewer/authors/stories if I don't much like it. I don't want to harsh on anyone, and my mama did teach me about saying something nice or nothing at all, but this may not be the time and place for it. Thoughts?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Tell us what you really think.