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.

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.