Pool 6
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
. . . what we need is the enthusiasm of engagement, not of cheerleading.
Enthusiasm is necessary for a good review. Pool is saying a good reviewer is enthusiastic about the subject matter they review and in that sense they are critical of what they review. A good review isn’t all praise, a reviewer has to be able to judge work with a careful eye.
into cheerleading.
Definitely more promotional. It is one thing to offer praise from a critical standpoint, but “cheerleading” can ruin the credibility of the review and raise questions about the reviewer’s integrity. Enthusiasm should make potential readers excited about the review, whereas cheerleading can make potential readers feel as if they’re being sold to.
A reviewer must have a large comprehension of a topic, which will lead to enthusiasm. Enthusiasm of engagement is a desire for understanding and thought, but should be careful not to emptily praise the topic, this should be done in a cautious way and in an attractive manner since readers do want to be educated and entertained.
In the tech and automotive reviewing worlds, I’ve seen many reviewers lose their audience’s trust after too much cheerleading. And I personally follow a handful of reviewers.
To be fair, I suppose we’re talking about different kinds of reviews here.
General Document Comments 0
I have the most notes on this chapter. I’m so sure what about this chapter sparked my interest. I suspect it is the discussion on objectivity. I buck against required objectivity. It seems attached to the philosophical hierarchy of logic over passion. (I’m putting it very simple…)
I just started reading Jeanne Randolph’s ficto-criticism. She is an art critic, mainly, and a student of psychoanalysis. She toys with the concept that a better review is one given from an obvious bias. To know exactly the attachment that a reviewer has to the work or creator allows for a better review as we might learn things we wouldn’t otherwise have access to through a standard objective review. She proposes that to allow our subjectivity leads to a more engaging and exciting review.
This is an interesting point, but this is also why reviewers must be matched to appropriate books. For example, it would be a waste of time for an extremely successful businessperson to attempt to learn from a book about how to start a business. With that being said, that businessperson could potentially vouch for or refute the information within that book.
To an extent, I agree that reviewing is subjective. Many of the popular books available nowadays are extremely poorly written by almost everyone’s standards (the Twilight series is what first comes to mind). I would never trust a reviewer who didn’t complain about Stephenie Meyer’s prose.
I agree that knowing the reviewer’s relationship to the book/author gives better insight into the tone and opinion of the review. Many well-established reviewers stick to certain subject matters, and readers of their review come to rely on their sense of established commentary towards those subjects. There is comfort in understanding the reviewer’s motives and personal connections.
which are pretty much promotional cheerleaders.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments