CRITICISM WRITING Criticism is the examination of literary, artistic, or media texts (novels, poetry, films, television programs, etc.

) in terms of their aesthetic worth, their social import, their style, their genre characteristics, and so on. Traditionally, criticism revolved around issues such as the authors intent, the structure used to make the work, etc. In the early twentieth century, the New Criticism movement proposed the study of works aside from historical context or authorship. By mid-century, several other trends emerged: psychoanalytic criticism focuses on the unconscious aspects of the work (archetypes, dreams, myths, etc.); semiotic (or structuralist) criticism focuses on the meanings of texts in sign-based terms; hermeneutic criticism looks at the language with which, and cultural context in which, a work is created; Marxist criticism interprets works in terms of ideological factors and forces at work in its production; feminist criticism investigates the role and representation of women in works; and deconstructivist criticism looks at a work in terms of the meanings it creates by itself, rather than through some external channel. People who write criticism are called critics if they are academics while those working in journalism are called reviewers. Review is the critical assessment of a movie, television series, book, or other media product in a newspaper, in a magazine, on a radio or television program, or on a blog. Reviews in print media are feature articles or by-line columns written by journalists or critics. The main purpose of any review is to provide the readers with sufficient information so they decide for themselves. Your opinion is important and will only be valued if it is supported by facts and information. Write objectively and do not allow your opinion to impact the portion of the review that must be a dispassionate discourse. Feel free to state your opinion outright, but this should be done only once or twice. Your point of view can be more subtly suggested as you write the piece by using side remarks while presenting objective information about the subject. An opinion is just that an opinion and not a statement of fact. The thing about opinions is that there will be other opinions in opposition to the one you hold and none of them are true. Consequently, as a reviewer, be respectful when presenting your viewpoint. The reviewer needs the following essential attributes when writing a review. i. Knowledge of the field being written about. Make sure you have the background information so you are familiar with the subject and terminology ii. A passion to know and experience more. Learn everything you can about the subject of your review. Read the work of accomplished and respected reviewers and analyze what they do and learn from them. iii. a desire to share your passion and knowledge with readers iv. the ability to judge perceptively v. the courage to stand by convictions against pressures to please those with other premises vi. the writing skill to communicate vividly and entertainingly the writing skill to make the assessment clear to the readers vii. A reviewer should keep the target audience in mind and know them. Know the audience who will be reading your review and write with those readers in mind, considering their interests and demographics. viii. Project an aura of professionalism, because for your opinion to be taken seriously. Your review should contain information, facts, and well-thought-out insights. Provide enough background information.

ix.
x.

xi.

When reviewing anything with a story such as a novel, movie, or play, lay out the plot but do not give away the ending. Be sure to express your opinion but make sure you have supported your position with facts and logic. Be certain the tone and style of your review fits in with the publication for which you are writing.

Ethics of Reviewers Reviewing can attract liability for committing libel or violating the right to privacy. Journalists are bound to a code of conduct. Those reviewers who are journalists are consequently obliged to adhere to these principles. Below are some standards to be followed: i. Do not allow any preconceived bias to affect your appraisal of the subject. ii. Be objective when presenting the facts and information such as describing the plot of a movie, the substance of a book, or the experience of the actors in a play. iii. Divulge any personal association you have with anyone involved in the subject of your review. iv. You should make a full disclosure if you do not complete the book or make an early exit from an exhibit, movie, or play, or not finish the meal in a restaurant. v. Other than a complimentary copy of the book or passes to the show, etc., you cannot accept any remuneration for writing the review. THE REVIEWERS TASKS A reviewer is expected to do some research on the subject under review which includes reading up on the subject and having the time to prepare well for whats coming up. Reviewers should at least have key up-to-date reference books and previous works of the artist. Previous experience and reviews of the artists work will help. Reviewers have to decide on the level of knowledge the readers of their publications are likely to have, and whether or not they may have read, seen or heard the work. Play and film reviews are normally the result of attending previews in studios so generally assume readers havent seen the works. Last nights TV reviews (or last weeks) must take into account that some readers have seen the programmes and some havent. Reporting Reporting is the basis of reviewing. The disciplines of reporting are reflected in the kinds of questions to answer. For example: i. What is it called? ii. Whats the genre? (Literary novel or thriller, tragedy or comedy, art house film or blockbuster?) iii. What is it about? What does it mean? What does it represent? iv. What is it like? v. Who created it? vi. Who produced/directed it? vii. Where is it showing? Where can you buy it? viii. When and where does the action take place? ix. Why was it written/painted/composed? x. How much is it? Assessing Your opinion must be informed and you must show it to be informed, by indicating the evidence for your statements and arguments. The evidence will be in the form of facts,

examples, and quotes. Its good to have strong opinions but readers must feel they are being helped to make up their own minds and that they can disagree while still valuing your piece. Some important questions are: i. What are the works merits/defects? ii. Is it worth your time and money? iii. Did I like it? iv. Will you like it? v. What sort of people will like it? vi. Is it informative/inspiring/interesting/entertaining? vii. What are the significant elements and how do they compare generally with other works in the genre (plot or characters, well-made play or postmodern experiment, message or slice of life, melody or in the raw?) viii. How does it compare with other works by this creator, producer, director, etc.? ix. With contemporaries work? x. With work of a similar kind in the past? xi. How far does the creator (or creators) succeed in achieving what they set out to do? xii. How well has the work been served by the interpreters involved actors, directors, set designers, musicians, etc.? xiii. If known (e.g. last nights theatre), how did the audience react to the work? Setting standards A reviewer should not give his/her opinion in a way that shows that you think you are right. Give your opinion about whether a work is good or bad and guide your readers to agree with your opinion. Get to know where you stand on various aspects and your readers can be guided by and interested in your piece even when they disagree on various points. When reacting to the work, analyse your reaction, make your assessment and communicate it honestly, taking your readers likely reaction into account. Refuse to let your judgement be swayed by outside pressures. Your readers feel they can trust you to tell the truth as you see it. TYPES OF REVIEWS Book Reviews Many books are published that can be essential to a reviewer. Choose wisely the books that will form informative, entertaining and readable columns for those who dont read much and who are highly unlikely to read the ones youre reviewing, as well as for those who do read a lot and are regularly persuaded by you to acquire them. To review books you need to read widely. You should know something about other books by the author being reviewed: read one or two of their earlier books. Read or find out about similar books by contemporaries for the sake of comparison. Look for references in books of literary criticism. Read published reviews of earlier works and interviews with the author. You need to have some experience or familiarity with the subject and ability to write well and know what is required in this genre. Have credentials as a fiction writer to review a fiction book. Novels are regularly reviewed by published novelists; short-story collections may be reviewed by short-story writers; and published plays might be reviewed by playwrights. Reviews of Nonfiction Books Unlike most reviews where the reader reads the review to help make an informed decision to buy the novel or attend the performance or dine at the restaurant, readers of reviews of nonfiction books often read the review in instead of the book. Consequently, your review

should convey the general idea of the book without holding anything back. The task for the reviewer of a nonfiction book is to inform the reader. Feel free to refer to other material, facts, and books that complement or contrast the book under review. You can go beyond the book to provide additional information to make the review even more informative. A review can evolve into a review/essay that takes the book as the starting point and then continues as an essay discussing the subject in more depth. Sometimes if the subject matter is similar, you can write one review for two or more books. This frequently occurs when two or more biographies are released about the same person or a timely topic might spawn several books, such as a recent presidential election. At other times, the connection between two books is less explicit. Reviews of Fiction Books The main elements that fiction reviewers may have to deal with: i. The story is what happens; the plot is the structure of what happens with the causality indicated. ii. The setting the place, the ambience, the atmosphere needs special attention when its unusual: for example, if its a little known or exotic place, such as an imaginary planet in a science fiction work. iii. The period or periods. Is it about today, or 20 years ago, or a century ago? In reviewing a historical novel you would pick up any anachronisms that damage the illusion. iv. The theme, or message behind the story, may have to be carefully distinguished from the story itself. The immorality of characters has to be distinguished from the morality of the work. v. Narrative technique may need comment. How does the author use time? Is the sequence clear or confusing? Are flashbacks used and are they effective? vi. Characters may be caricatures as in Dickens; or true-to-life as in George Eliot or Jane Austen; or symbolic, representing ideas, as to some extent in Henry James and D. H. Lawrence. Or what?, as in Martin Amis. vii. Style. It may be so straightforward as to be hardly noticeable: this may be a case of art concealing art, or it may simply be that an unobtrusive style is more effective for what the author wants to do. The style might, on the other hand, be nearly the whole point, as in James Joyce: his universe is in his language. A straightforward, clearly constructed review is required when the narrative is the thing, especially when its a historical novel. Movie/Theatre Reviews Unlike book reviews especially those of nonfiction books where the primary purpose is to inform and an opinion is consigned a secondary role, reviews of movies and theatre focus more on the critique. Readers of these reviews want to know what the critic thinks of the production and they take this into account when considering whether to attend. This means two things if you want to write movie or theatre reviews. First, you must be someone whose opinion matters to the readers and therefore you ought to have some authority or expertise. Second, unlike book reviews, while you must provide a plot synopsis without disclosing the ending, be free to appraise the storyline, the actors, the set, cinematography and so on. Since movie and theatre reviews are frequently, you have to work hard to summarize the storyline. While you cannot discuss every subplot and character description in your review, make certain you convey the main plot and discuss the major characters. Music Reviews

Reviewing music and art has to know how to interpret in words what is non-verbal. The verbal content of opera doesnt help much, nor does the fact that in representational art, the subject is obvious. You can give something of the plot, referring to the performances of the leading singers and to the fun to be had by all. But reviewing concerts or discs of rock, jazz or classical music needs knowledge and appreciation of what the sounds mean, and skill in translating that appreciation into informative and entertaining. Reviewing discs of classical music often need comparisons with other artists efforts, whether benchmark or just different Reviewing opera requires attention to all the usual elements of theatrical production, including set design, costumes and machinery as well as matters of acoustics, and acting as well as the singing and the music playing and conducting. The overall assessment is difficult to get balanced. Art Reviews Reviewing art exhibitions requires assured descriptive powers. For example; Painted with a freedom strangely prophetic of Francis Bacon, the sightless singer opens his mouth in a grotesque, gap-toothed smile, caught in the spotlight of Goyas scrutiny. Art reviewers need the courage of their convictions more than other reviewers; such is the volatility of the visual arts Theatre Reviews Plays and films, like operas, need reviewers skilled at juggling. They share many of the concerns of the fiction reviewer. Genres are many, with different terms (or different connotations) from those used for novels: tragedy, comedy, straight play, farce, and more. The various contributions to the staging and to the production, as with opera, have to be noted. The play reviewer is concerned almost entirely with how well the production is served in a particular performance, so allowances may be made if reporting an early performance and there are signs that it might get better. Almost entirely because the reviewer might want to discuss whether or not justice was done to the text, and will often read the text as preliminary research. Skill at compression is especially required in reviews of plays and films since you have to juggle assessments of various aspects of the work. Meaningful modifiers are most often used in reviews to let you see the characters (inside as well as outside). Nouns have to be meaningful too. The language of reviews must get across the atmosphere of the product and the reviewers place in the world described to tells what the playwright is doing with the characters and that the reviewer approves. The structure of a review normally needs careful planning so that the evidence is clear that backs up the opinions. The structure should have an Intro: the theme is broached, Body: the characters and how their relationships make the story, Conclusion: The directors and actors contributions are followed by a summing up of the effect of the whole. Its a short review, so peripheral matters are excluded. Minimal mention of settings can be a creative contribution. Film Reviews If reviewing regularly, obtain publicity material from film distributors. This normally gives full cast details, potted biographies of actors, details of the production, etc. It is given out at previews. Reviewers of films and TV plays should have some knowledge of the medium, of the technology and of the production techniques used inside and outside the studio, of the

difference between the montage of numerous short scenes and the slow build-up in the scenes of a play. Television Reviews How to review feature films apply to a large extent to TV plays. Many films are now made with on condition that they will have plenty of TV as well as cinema outlets. There are differences in the way film-makers approach work for cinema and TV. TV works better for domestic kinds of drama (it is watched in domestic surroundings), cinema better for epic westerns or similar works. The TV documentary may be compared to the well-researched feature article and a series of documentaries to a non-fiction book. The film-maker can manipulate viewers feelings and thoughts by careful selection of images. TV documentary makers use a wide range of research material, and the reviewers job is to indicate how well or badly this is used, and how it all contributes to the total effect. Interviews inside and outside the studio, photographs, drawings, paintings, maps, charts, old newsreels, current newsreels, reconstructions by actors of real-life incidents are among the devices used. Reviewing a documentary generally means asking these general questions: i. Is it part of a series? If so, what contribution is it making to the series, and what is to follow? ii. What knowledge did the viewer need to bring to the documentary? How clear was the background to a viewer who did not know much about the subject? iii. Was the programmes judgement fair, was the argument convincing? As balanced as it should have been? iv. How did the programme compare with similar earlier documentaries that may have been seen? (Keeping in mind of that the readers may not have seen either.) For preliminary research before reviewing, try the stations Press Office or the office of the programmes producer. The variety of TV output requires variety of approaches to the reviewing task. There is a vast variety of programmes that the approach of reviewers vastly varies to match. Restaurant Reviews Like reviews of movies and the theatre, people read dining reviews to help them decide whether or not to patronize a particular establishment. While the opinion of the reviewer is important, the reader wants to know not only the quality of the food but the type of food; the cost; whether reservations are necessary; the efficiency of the servers; and the ambience. Unlike most nonfiction genres, to write movie, theatre, and food reviews, you are not required to have a degree or vocational experience to validate your authority rather your reputation comes with experience. But despite the need to provide information, reviews are by nature a balance between subjectivity and objectivity, and one negative experience may impact the review. Is this appropriate? Is it ethical? That would depend upon whether or not the nature of the affront reflects upon the quality of the establishment.