![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I need to go to bed. But been having digestive issues and my belly doesn't want to go to bed yet.
After reading a lot of film and book reviews, mainly about the same books or films. I've begun to wonder what the point of reviews is, exactly. I mean, they are clearly subjective. No one really agrees. Everyone brings their own baggage to the experience. So...if I read your review of a television show or film or book that I'm interested in -- what does it tell me really? Outside of whether you love or hate or more often than not, ambivalent about it? Does it tell whether I'll like it? Not always. You can't always tell with a review.
Someone made that point about the Batman vs. Superman reviews...that it depends on how you like your superheroes. If you prefer a dark Batman flick, something similar to Nolan's films or say Daredevil, then your reaction to a review that states the film is grim, is whoa, this looks cool, I'll go see it.
Which is true. I have that reaction to book reviews all the time -- often a bad review will interest me in a book.
I honestly think the analytical review, which often does include spoilers, is the most effective. It gives you enough information to determine if the film/book/show is up your alley. While the review that states: "This was the worst movie ever!" or "The best book ever!" Tells you absolutely nothing.
We need to know why it didn't work, to better understand whether it just didn't work for you, the reviewer, as opposed to whether it might work for us, the general public reading the review.
But even analytical reviews...some of which are beautifully written by the way...can fall short of the mark. More often than not, I walk away knowing more about the reviewers tastes than anything else. The question mark is do I share the reviewers' tastes?
I like writing and reading reviews -- I find them fascinating. And love discussing films, books, television shows in a critical manner. But...what is the point? Does there have to be one? Most likely not? Maybe it's just sharing of experiences...seeing different angles to the same work.
A work of art comes alive when you read the reviews...because you see how each person related to that work through their words and discussion of it. How they interacted with it.
But, alas, it's really hard reading reviews of your own work. Or so I've found at any rate. There's this stomach turning anticipation...did they hate, did they love it...and the hate is impossible to digest. It always is.
Still...I don't think reviews are an effective means of determining whether or not I'll want to read, watch or experience something. I have to look at it through the filter of another's point of view...to determine if it appeals to me. And, well, how does that work, exactly? No, I think reviews are only effective -- if you are curious about what others like or got out of something, how they reacted to it.
After reading a lot of film and book reviews, mainly about the same books or films. I've begun to wonder what the point of reviews is, exactly. I mean, they are clearly subjective. No one really agrees. Everyone brings their own baggage to the experience. So...if I read your review of a television show or film or book that I'm interested in -- what does it tell me really? Outside of whether you love or hate or more often than not, ambivalent about it? Does it tell whether I'll like it? Not always. You can't always tell with a review.
Someone made that point about the Batman vs. Superman reviews...that it depends on how you like your superheroes. If you prefer a dark Batman flick, something similar to Nolan's films or say Daredevil, then your reaction to a review that states the film is grim, is whoa, this looks cool, I'll go see it.
Which is true. I have that reaction to book reviews all the time -- often a bad review will interest me in a book.
I honestly think the analytical review, which often does include spoilers, is the most effective. It gives you enough information to determine if the film/book/show is up your alley. While the review that states: "This was the worst movie ever!" or "The best book ever!" Tells you absolutely nothing.
We need to know why it didn't work, to better understand whether it just didn't work for you, the reviewer, as opposed to whether it might work for us, the general public reading the review.
But even analytical reviews...some of which are beautifully written by the way...can fall short of the mark. More often than not, I walk away knowing more about the reviewers tastes than anything else. The question mark is do I share the reviewers' tastes?
I like writing and reading reviews -- I find them fascinating. And love discussing films, books, television shows in a critical manner. But...what is the point? Does there have to be one? Most likely not? Maybe it's just sharing of experiences...seeing different angles to the same work.
A work of art comes alive when you read the reviews...because you see how each person related to that work through their words and discussion of it. How they interacted with it.
But, alas, it's really hard reading reviews of your own work. Or so I've found at any rate. There's this stomach turning anticipation...did they hate, did they love it...and the hate is impossible to digest. It always is.
Still...I don't think reviews are an effective means of determining whether or not I'll want to read, watch or experience something. I have to look at it through the filter of another's point of view...to determine if it appeals to me. And, well, how does that work, exactly? No, I think reviews are only effective -- if you are curious about what others like or got out of something, how they reacted to it.