What do you look for in reviews? · 12:42pm Feb 27th, 2015
In the past two days, two people have asked me for advice on two different subjects.
The first wanted to know where to start with fic reading. That was easy. I've done a lot of thinking on the subject, and people like Goombasa and DeftFunk have released excellent videos meant to steer beginners in the right direction.
The second asked me about how to review fics. You'd think that would be easy, given how much I do it, but the fact is, I've not put a lot of thought into it, and when I have, it's been in the context of what I'm doing and nothing generalized.
I think what I told him was something along the lines of "Be honest, be clear, don't attack the author, I dunno". It was lame. :/
So that begs the question: What makes a reviewer someone you want to follow? I know I usually look for stories that I've reviewed, to see if their views line up with mine or, if not, are articulated well enough to be convincing. (If they're praising crappy stories, I ain't havin' that shit.)
But yeah, I definitely want to hear from others, reviewer or not. Obviously I need to be considering this more!
Either in-depth reviews, or a lot of reviews. Sounds like it has nothing to do with it, but if you want to be seen as a reviewer, you need to have some kind of schedule. Chris is seen as the go-to reviewer because he updates on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Always. On the other side of the coin, Soge's schedule is as random as it can be, but he either reviews many stories at once (following a theme) or gives a pretty in-depth look at anything he sees, so he also looks professional.
Now, when it comes to the actual review? Point out both good things and bad things. Read a lot, try to understand what makes a story work. Don't merely enjoy the story, look for the technical side of it.
Once you write the review, make sure to be as concise as possible. Too many words are bad, so go straight to the point (and if you are a funny person, add some humor). Don't be afraid of rambling now and then, but don't let it become your habit. Make sure your review has a point. Be honest about it, but never attack the author -- understand that everybody here is learning how to write.
Also, make sure you can express your ideas with ease. Basic grammar and structure senses are a must. If you want to become sort of an authority (and that's what a reviewer is), you need to look the part.
I need say nothing.
Anyway, I've recently joined up with the Pleasant Commentator and Review Group to do some reviewing and it raises an interesting extra element to the matter. There, the reviews are actually for the sake of the author as much as (if not more than) anyone else watching, so my first review came to about 4k words. Soge's first review was pretty long, too. You know me; I like to get technical, whether it's characterisations, storycraft, or precision prose. Yet, it sounds like one of my main reasons for reading other people's reviews is to see how our opinions line up – or don't, as is usually the case.
The devil is usually in the details, so I tend to look for detail in reviews.
I've always been drawn more to doing the constructive type of review; the kind that a writer requests and gives you a few specific areas they are worried about. It takes more time and gets requests from lots of new writers, but I feel more accomplished and helpful in the end.
For me, it's most important to look at any new story based on its completeness. What does it establish and where does it go? Any complete story is just like an essay: thesis, body, and conclusion all complimenting one another. If the writer has no focused intent for the story, then there won't be many improvements made and little point in a review.
You can then look at their expectation to execution in writing. How they get across what they want the reader to feel. I enjoy understanding the reader's intent and helping them get across the desired result. It helps them a lot if you explain clearly how you felt at your favorite or least favorite parts. Overall, just show them the very best bits of their story, but be direct and specific about what is consistently bad. Give specific improvements and your explanations behind them.
I have rarely written quick reviews meant to attract readers. I just try to leave good comments on things I like. I like talking about the mechanics behind my favorite parts and feel like I will spoil things for new readers. Come to think of it, I haven't ever reviewed a favorite story of mine just for the sake of promotion and my own enjoyment. I think I would really like to do that sometime. Maybe I can draw more attention to some of those less known favorites.
It's hard to say. I've begun reviewing stories regularly myself, and sometimes when I finish I look back and think "that was a crummy review." Other times I'll look back and say "not bad." On the one hand, I think that reviews should be helpful to the author, but at the same time there needs to be considered the general readers, some of whom want to be entertained and others who just want to know if the story is worth their time. Balancing all these aspects and still appearing professional is a bit of a tightrope act that I feel I regularly fail at, and many reviewers choose to ignore one or two of those standards.
There's nothing really wrong with that, I suppose – Luna knows I've been highly amused by some comically harsh reviews in the past that undoubtedly offended the author, and I've enjoyed those more 'straight laced' reviews that just give a simple 'yes' or 'no' prognosis and move on. I suppose it comes down to what the author intends to do with the review and who the audience is. Personally, I prefer my reviews a bit more in-depth.
2835016
On that same note, I can't help but feel some reviewers get so caught up in reviewing things that they don't ever enjoy anything. Gotta have balance, yo.
The way I like to do it is asking myself how do I feel like the story ended. Did it leave any questions open? And if it did, how important were those questions? I like reviews to tell me what I'm doing wrong, especially if they're giving me a downvote. I can't tell you how annoying it is to see a downvote and then no comment about it. I write to get better at writing and I appreciate any reviews that help me in any way. Reviews help me realize where the reader is being led, and if I want them to go that way. I've started rewrites of stories that I was unhappy with because of reviews.
All in all, I prefer reviews that help me as a writer, pointing out loopholes, questions left unanswered (though at times I mean to leave them like that, for stories with sequels planned), basic things that make stories bad. I don't appreciate reviews where it's like 'I don't like this shipping', or such like that.
A reviewer is most useful when they are a consistent measuring stick for a reader. I read tons of reviews in order to get a sense of what I may or may not enjoy, and many of those reviews are from people that I wildly disagree with regularly. However, since they are a known quantity, I can effectively use their review to judge how likely it is that I'll like something.
So that's what I'm generally after: consistency. I like for a reviewer to break down what did and did not work for a story, and I want to see that over time their views don't vacillate all that much. Tastes change, of course, but if the reviewer is a stickler for character authenticity last week, but lets a terrible Rainbow Dash characterization slip by this week with a "Well, it was funny, so whatever", then I'm probably not going to find them to be a good resource for me.
I'm also looking for reviewers that acknowledge the brilliance of my work. I haven't found any yet, but I keep searching...
Pictures of SonataEvery reviewer has an audience and a goal. Take RCL for instance. That's aiming to highlight quality fanfics, 100% consensus of opinions from all curators (a static threshold), updates regularly yet also relatively infrequently at two fics per month in order to be more selective and to not flood the readers, broadcast to all Fimfic users but realistically targeted for specific subsection(s) of readers. The review is generally a few paragraphs long, amalgamating the opinions of all the curators into a cohesive argument for why the fic belongs in the RCL archives, and what its particular strengths are.
Now compare to your own personal reviews. No set schedule but frequent (5 in the past month), shotgun approach (anywhere from 5 to 13 fics per review post, 37 fics total for the month), generally one paragraph per story, much more casual and informal compared to RCL's Harshwhinnean Professionalism, story selection is random assortment of what potentially interests you / what's recommended to you / friends and colleagues / fic readings that you find online, fics are decidedly not universally accepted but rather you have your H/R/C/V/N rating scale, the C's especially give insight on things that may only work for certain readers.
Neither system is superior. It's like asking if plungers or wrenches are better. They're different tools for different jobs, or in this case, different review types for different audiences. An RCL recommendation I see as a bit of a mark of quality. The particular fic may or may not be my cup of tea, but I can rest assured it's a great fic in its own right, and that I should keep my eye on that author. So this I'd summarize as "By its mere presence here, we assert this is a good fic. Here's a defense of what makes the fic so exemplary."
A PP review comes with a final score (and while I haven't read a fraction of what you have, I don't recall ever strongly disagreeing with one of your assessments, so our personal tastes seem to line up. Because fic enjoyment is, in part, a matter of taste, it's important for a reader to find a reviewer whose tastes tend to align with their own!) A PP review also is a bit more emotion based. "I engaged with this part, liked this part, got disgusted by this part and went on a bookshelf purge." So this I'd summarize as "I read this fic and I loved/hated it for these aspects. I'll also qualify all my supporting arguments, so that if you the reader feels more strongly or less strongly about particular points, you can still make your own informed decision based on my review."
Switching these two—having RCL adopt your personal format, and having your personal blogs adopt RCL format—would be pretty disastrous. It's a mismatch of target audience and review format.
So to the question behind the question, what advice for new reviewers, it's to figure out your target audience and intended style. If you're going for more general reader reviews, then a good start would be emulating the format of PP or Singularity or You Might Like This or etc. More in-depth analysis, maybe Amit. Something novel, don't be afraid to break the mold. (Don't forget: when Chris was a young filly of a reviewer, he was starting out by selecting only EQD 6-star fics, which at the time were the only indication of an exemplary fic, and started dissecting those, three per week. Such a thing was unheard of at the time in this community, yet now he's a household name in reviewing circles.)
I like to see the review(s) be the main point of the post. I'm more than happy to have some surrounding rambling -- that makes the reviewer seem more like a person and less like a machine -- but there are limits. If a reviewer/group spends ages doing what borders on an extended roleplay session, I'm likely to look elsewhere. (This is the main reason I don't consistently read Seattle's Angels, even though I generally enjoy their actual reviews.)
I'm strongly drawn to those reviewers who actually engage with their readers. (Mind you, that goes for authors, too.) As a reviewer, you're expressing your opinion on what authors have written; give them a chance to have their say on what you've written in return. I don't like reviewers who swear more than very occasionally, though that's mere personal prejudice. I also like reviewers to use all their scoring range, if they have one: a 0-10 scale on which you never use 0 or 10 is more honestly described as a 1-9 scale.
I couldn't really give a sensible answer as to why my reviews have ended up the way they have. I started Ponyfic Roundup as a bit of a self-indulgent gimmick. Which it still is, I hasten to add. But I kept on posting them each week and after a while people started reading them. Their funeral, I suppose. I knew from the start that I'd rather do 5-6 one-paragraph reviews than one in-depth one (well, most of the time), and that I didn't only want to review the same stories everyone else did. (That's why I review so many old fics: it's a deliberate policy.)
For me, xjuggernaughtx hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
But that doesn't mean a good reviewer is one who has tastes that align perfectly with mine.* What I'm looking for in a review is a good sense of how much I will enjoy a story, no matter what they thought of it. A reviewer who clues me into a story I would like, even if their review was a generally negative one, is always appreciated.
Conversely, a five-star review that nevertheless lets me know the fic is grim, depressing, and gory, is also very valuable as a negative recommendation.
So, I guess what I'm looking for in a reviewer is someone who will accurately give me the "feel" of the story. You and Chris usually do a great job at that.
----------
* I've never encountered such a beast, though there was once a film critic who consistently wrote excoriating reviews of movies I loved. He was a great guide to finding enjoyable (for me) indie movies.
2835454
What you said
I could really go on and write a lot on the subject, but honestly it boils down to four things that are very simple:
1. Transparency
- The ability to distinguish between personal opinion and real facts, and the professionalism to admit it when necessary.
2. Intelligence
- The knowledge of the basics of storytelling to actually know why and how things are wrong.
3. Politeness
- The ability to say negative things without coming across as a self-righteous asshole.
And why are these things the most important? Because it shows that the reviewer treats a story with respect. And respect is tantamount to the essence of reviewing. This is why a bad review by a good reviewer is always more weighty than a good review by a bad reviewer. It also helps others respect one as a person beyond their job as a reviewer, and sometimes that bit of comfort helps as well when it comes to taking words at face value.
Even though I might not agree with a reviewer, or have my opinion lined up with them, I don't believe this is a very powerful or necessary factor because ultimately, a different viewpoint can always open me up to new interpretation, and sometimes that can be exciting and fun as well. It's much more important to me if I am even willing to treat this source as a font of gleaning information or a puddle of wasted effort. This is, for example, why I consider Titanium Dragon a reviewer worth following even though my tastes and his don't match up at all. I find him challenging, and he is harsh but usually fair and transparent.
There is also a forth criteria.
4. Loyalty and recognition of Princess Fartsock, the Holy Ordained of the Commode Commodity.
And this, obviously, is the reason why I follow you.
I've tried following a few other reviewers, but it seems like all the others have the same problem, which is an absolute deal-breaker for me: none of them are Present Perfect.
While I tend to use reviewers as a way to find new stories, I don't really care if their opinion matches mine. In fact, I really like to read reviews after reading/watching something.
I believe that a good reviewer should not only act as a gatekeeper of good stories, but also should give the reader a new appreciation for the stories he is reviewing, whether he likes them or not. This is why I tend to avoid people who are only interested in tearing stories down – luckily, those aren't really common in the fandom.
2835016 The funny thing is that I started reviewing in an effort to post things with regularity.
Huh, it's been so long since I just sat down to read reviews without any distractions. Hard to say anything useful, since what I want in reviews these days is wildly different from what anyone else wants. Ease of adding them to the master list.
2835016
Hey, one out of two isn't bad.
2835423
Beep. The humans have fallen for our trickery. Boop.
2835762
Not until I've finished The Device.
What I don't want is a reviewer who tells me whether he liked a story, its plot, its characters, but nothing else. That doesn't necessarily make for a short review, though. There are ones that go on at length about not liking the prose because it didn't work for him, and it didn't connect him to the character, and he didn't like the conflict, and he just rambles about generalities.
If you can tell me why you didn't like it, then that helps. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll use the feedback, because I might not agree, but I can still understand it. Even if the "why" is "it simply didn't suit my tastes," it's still important to say so. Chris is good about that one. He's very up-front about things he doesn't like that he thinks won't necessarily be a problem for other readers.
A reviewer needs to boil it down to what exactly he considers faults in a story. If they're pretty recognizable qualities, from some nuance of characterization to basic spelling, if he has something concrete, it's a legitimate criticism. If he doesn't, then it might not be something that needs fixing. Of course, it might not anyway, and everything, even down to basic spelling, is an opinion. It may be the author misspelled it on purpose, and then it becomes a question of whether it was effective. Usually, determining how intentional a mistake is doesn't take much thought, and it really shouldn't either, because if I can't tell it was intentional, then the effect is lost on me.
I'll add one last thing, but it depends on the audience to a degree. It's important to say what you liked about a story as well, if you're making recommendations to potential readers. No matter the story, someone somewhere likes it, and this is another thing Chris does well: he identifies who he thinks would enjoy the story, no matter how low he rated it. Now, if your audience is the author, then it's less important to say what you liked. It's still nice, and it is a good thing to reinforce habits that worked, but there is an implication that if you didn't complain about something, then it was done at least reasonably well. If you point out problems with the plot but don't mention the grammar, then the grammar was probably fine.
2835292
I'm sensing a logical disconnect.
2835423
I skip SA's intro stuff, too. :B I hope people don't do that with my reviews, because I usually put important stuff ahead of the jump, but that's also why I try to keep the news to a minimum if I can.
2835762
Pshaw. :V
2836381
I understand why you'd say that, but I'd argue not necessarily. As many commenters here point out, there is value in a reviewer who very clearly articulates the "why" parts of why they liked or disliked the story. If you have a hypothetical follower who thinks that Sonata is worst pony, that doesn't particularly matter since you clearly indicate your bias toward her. The Sonata-hater can still get a lot of value from your review and can use it to determine if they'd hate this like every Sonata fic, or if this might be the one fic to change their mind. And to one extent, finding negative reviews and/or reviews that disagree with my own personal beliefs can potentially give me a more well-rounded understanding of the fic overall.
All that said, if my reviewer and I share similar tastes, as a rough heuristic I can skip the middle man. I could just pop open your spreadsheet, grab all the Highly Recommendeds without even reading a word of your review, and personally I would have an overall positive experience. Sometimes I may be in the mood to do a lot of research and find a 70k fic that several people have reviewed and which sounds like contains themes that appeal to me personally. Other times I just wanna say, "Hey, what's a good fic?" and get back a URL. The fact that I can turn to your recommendations for either purpose makes them doubly valuable.
2835423
In fairness, it's a bit of a momentum situation. The intros have become a staple of the reviews, and a number of people look forward to them, so we'd get backlash if we dropped them altogether. Still, they're unquestionably self-indulgent and a few of them run a bit long, so I take no offense from anyone who skips them. I'd much rather people skip the intro and read the reviews, than vice versa.
2836381
2836518
Actually I don't read the reviews either anymore, I just RIL the fics. c.c
2836539
Did you just prove my point?
Everyone makes good points here, but 2835292 is probably closest to what I would have come up with on my own. There's lots of different and sometimes conflicting elements in good reviews, just the same as there are lots of different and conflicting elements in good stories. I think the fundamental attribute of good reviewing, though, is (as 2836321 says) dissecting what they felt worked and what didn't.
You have a knack for writing reviews which do that in a very economical amount of space, and you augment that with your N/V/C/R/H system, which has always struck me as both gentler and more useful than a 1-5 star scale (which it is numerically equivalent to). I feel like I'm getting an exposure to a much broader look at the fanfic ecosystem just by following you, and it's always great to follow a link to one of your Rs or HRs that sounds intriguing, and discover a diamond in the rough.
2839702
Much as I wish I had a D rating to separate the "meh" N's from the "DON'T FUCKING DO IT" N's, giving myself the C option was probably the best thing I did when setting up the reviews. Because you're right, the ratings are analogous to 1-5 (with H: Top 15 sufficing for a 6), but they aren't, and conditional recommendations are my most powerful tool for really communicating how I felt about a story, and who would want to read it. Sometimes they're in the middle, sometimes they're higher than an R, sometimes they're lower than a V.