Sinatra
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
A schmaltzy voice about 'The Voice'
Frank Sinatra makes good copy. Just ask Kitty Kelley, Pete Hamill and a host of other biographers who have charted the transformation of the small-fry singing sensation from Hoboken, N.J., into an international star. Excuse the hackneyed phrasing, but the style of James Kaplan's ambitious yet pedestrian tome is infectious.
What is accomplished in the first sentence is the subject and his ability to be an interesting person to learn more about. The second sentence establishes the writers credibility and wealth of knowledge on the subject and the ability to have read multiply biographies on Frank Sinatra.
The first sentence serves as an introduction to the review. Its brevity and content is written in a way such that readers immediately know that the review will be about Frank Sinatra. Additionally, its sentiment introduces the notion that the biography is merely one of many, rather than a book with its own distinctive and meaningful insight.
The second sentence further indicates the topic and content of the biography as well as its subsequent review. The list of authors mentioned serves to establish the writer of the review’s credentials regarding Sinatra biographies, as well as creating a further image of the “tome” in question as being “pedestrian” and not very special.
There is a lot accomplished in the first two sentences. We can obviously see that you have a positive point of view of Frank Sinatra. The first sentence sets up the tone and gives the reader a good idea of how the rest of this piece of work will turn out. The second sentence shows that other respected biographers share the same view. This was a great way to support the main idea in the first sentence.
From the first two sentences you get a clear understanding of what the article will entail. The insight on Frank Sinatra’s background and rise to stardom, along with the multiple platforms in which the writer chose to gather details still making it clear to focus on one topic and one article in particular
The first two sentences serve to introduce the topic, while grabbing the reader’s attention. The opening statement as well as the following sentences develop interest and credibility into the topic being reviewed. The use of adjectives such as small-fry and pedestrian give insight into your personal perspective on the topic and author.
The first two sentences begin the theme of the review, the qualifications of the author, and their outlook on the writing.
The initial sentence is an introduction to the review. Readers instantly know that the review will be about Frank Sinatra. Additionally, It shows that the biography is just one of several, The second sentence adds to the topic and structure of the biography as well as the actual review.
Rollyson accomplishes two things: first, he introduces the subject, saying that Sinatra is an artist that many biographers write about (“makes good copy”); and second, he establishes his credentials and expertise in the subject by acknowledging some biographers who have written about Sinatra.
The first couple of sentences lets the audience know the author is well informed on the topic and is credible enough to write a review worth reading.
Rollyson mocks Kaplan’s style by imitating it in his own review (in the last 2 sentences of his first paragraph). The reviewer is sarcastic, and uses cliches such as “small-fry” to show his readers that the biographer’s style is not as innovative and original as he would like. The biography does not add anything new or amazing that we don’t know of.
Rollyson describes Kaplans style as pedestrian, or in other words, mediocre. Yet, he claims the style is infectious and even mimics it in his own review to emphasize this point.
A fresh approach this is not. Although he does add some worthy research to the story, Kaplan relies heavily on the previous Sinatra biographies, while indulging in clichés such as describing the young Frankie as a boy who could not "punch his way out of a paper bag."
It is grammatically unconventional, but it works well in a review. It is more interesting to read than “this is not a fresh approach.” It somehow makes the review more conversational.
Kaplan begins his biography with an epigraph from Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, clearly signaling that this is a serious biography along the lines of what Gary Giddons has done for Bing Crosby and Peter Guralnick for Elvis Presley. But Kaplan cannot write with either writer's grace or critical skills.
By commenting on Kaplan’s epigraph, readers are made to understand how seriously he takes his own writing while recognizing the actual shortcomings of his book.
it is usually a quotation or a short poem at the beginning of a book—sometimes it even replaces the preface. The epigraph is supposed to provide context, set the mood, or establish the theme of a literary piece.
This detail-laden biography, which ends in 1954, is a kind of compendium, when what is needed is a more rigorous rinsing out of stories already familiar to Sinatra fans. And Kaplan enjoys retelling certain stories even when he cannot vouch for them.
By comparing the biography to a compendium, readers are made to think of it as lackluster, as they would hope that biographies would read like a story rather than merely just a stitched-together brick of information.
A compendium is a collection of precise details concerning one particular subject matter, in this case Frank Sinatra.
a compendium is a short but detailed compilation of information about a subject. In this case, the reviewer uses the word to show that Kaplan’s biography is overwhelming, having a lot of information and stories that are not new to Sinatra’s fans
The phrase rinsing out means to filter through the collection of stories that the author has about Sinatra and only include the ones that have an impact. Rather than including the same old collection of facts and stories every other biographer and Sinatra fan constantly mention, carefully pick and choose the ones that will make a difference to the readers.
it means that Kaplan should have filtered the information and stories about Sinatra. He uses too many stories that don’t have a great impact and, consequently, overwhelms the readers.
For those just beginning their seminar on Sinatra, reading Kaplan is a good start. But Sinatra still awaits his best biographer.
The final paragraph closes the review in a critical and honest way. It states how “reading Kaplan is a good start”, but it characterizes the book as not being unique or very simple and not challenging. The last paragraph also establishes the opinion that a good biography on Sinatra is yet to come.
I would characterize the last paragraph as unconvincing in it’s description as a good start. I trust Rollyson’s experience in reading Sintra biographies, so I would trust that Rollyson is correct that Sinatra’s story is still waiting. But after reading the rest of the review, I see no evidence that it is a good start. A “compendium” seems like a terrible way to be introduced to a subject matter. A book written without “grace or critical skills” seems like a waste of time, not a good start.
Rollyson shows his dissatisfaction with the biography throughout the entire review; however, in the last paragraph, he clarifies that this is a mixed review, and that the book might be a good start for those who are not too familiar with the subject: Sinatra . But, he also states that Sinatra’s best biography is still unwritten, lowering the expectations of the biography in question.
As a reader, I would interpret this review as a sort of “read it, but don’t expect anything amazing from it.”
The the beginning of last paragraph makes you believe that Kaplan will give you a good first impression. The last part opens your eyes and tells you that there is room for improvement. There can be a better biographer who covers Sinatra.
The critic summarizes his thoughts on the biography while identifying a group of people that may find it to be a worthwhile read (“those just beginning their seminar on Sinatra”). Those already familiar with the life of Sinatra will likely find this biography too basic or redundant with other Sinatra biographies.
By concluding the review in such a way, the critic summarizes his thoughts while answering the reader’s question of whether or not they should give the biography a read. This is done so concisely that only a small portion of the 200 word review will be dedicated to the conclusion.
The last paragraph gives you an answer to whether or not you should buy the biography. It allows the reader to put him or herself into a category: those beginning their seminar on Sinatra or those who have read biographies on Sinatra and are looking for more from a biography.
General Document Comments 0
Based on this example, and especially if the reviewer has limited space, I believe the basics are 1) introducing the subject; 2)establishing one’s credibility on the subject; 3)setting the tone; 4)providing an overall expectation of the work being reviewed; 5)through examples, supporting why you like the work in question or not; and 6) leaving the reader with a strong takeaway— in this case “But Sinatra still awaits its best biographer.”
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments