Please choose from the list of thinking partners to the left
Remember: Everything the GPT Thinking Partners say is made up!
Edit the AI results before you hit Start Conversation. Revise the message to make it
helpful
(to other readers),
honest
(about any facts) and
harmless
(avoiding biases).
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Resubmission
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Imani McClure(Nov 09 2016 7:27PM):
Cheerleading
more
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.
Braden Carter(Nov 17 2016 9:27PM):
I feel that a reviewer should have an understanding of a topic put in terms of enthusiasm of the topic it is not as necessary. Enthusiasm of engagement is a passion for understanding and reasoning, not praising the topic to a level that turns...
more
Ariel Lerner(Nov 18 2016 10:54AM):
I think this is an important distinction - enthusiasm for engagement itself, not just blind enthusiasm for the topic that is being reviewed.
Gabriel Galindez(Nov 16 2016 11:40PM):
Pool means that the enthusiasm the critic has for the topic being reviewed is more important than being nice. The writer should hold the topic to a higher standard and shouldn't be afraid to critique as such.
Braden Carter(Nov 17 2016 7:12PM):
The idea of cheerleading I feel can go into the promotional aspect that reviews can have. There may be an agenda for a review to really bring a lot of "hype" around a book and this is what Pool is arguing against. Engagement brings honesty and...
more
Jennifer Ortega(Nov 18 2016 9:11AM):
I agree, the cheerleading idea can feel more promotional than honest. Readers look for an honest opinion in reviews and the cheerleading praise aspect of it prevents readers from getting the full scope.
more
Carl Rollyson(Nov 19 2016 6:49AM):
Cheerleading is not so bad in feature articles if the point is to make someone or some book more visible. But not a good idea with reviews, which are mean to be evaluative.
Nora McCarten(Nov 28 2016 12:07PM):
being sold to
more
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.
Dvora Zomberg(Dec 13 2016 11:25PM):
Nicely said, Nora. An overenthusiastic review that promotes a book more than it critiques it would definitely put me off, and I'm sure many others would feel the same.
Carl Rollyson(Dec 14 2016 7:46AM):
Often the best way to promote a book is through feature articles rather than reviews, since features are not required to provide a judgment.
Alex Pitre(Nov 18 2016 7:40AM):
Pool thinks that the typical reviewer tends to just cheer on the writer regardless of the true quality of the work instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue about literature and the literary practice.
Carl Rollyson(Nov 19 2016 6:45AM):
Recently there have been articles saying much the same thing. We do go through a period when hatchet jobs were popular, but now reviews seem to be reverting to the mean.
Ariel Lerner(Nov 18 2016 10:52AM):
Engagement indicates that the review offers the reader an opportunity to analyze and form his own opinion. Cheerleading is just empty encouragement for the sake of bolstering the spirit. It has no substance.
Lena Inglis(Dec 09 2016 6:03PM):
yes, which is why Pool makes reference to Oprah's book club. Oprah never analyzes the books she chooses in depth, but just champions them for the sake of boosting sales of the items she likes.
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.
Jeongwoo Nahm(Dec 01 2016 10:53PM):
Pool's attitude towards reviewing is that of a personal interest rather than a means of business. While the reviewer has to be able to capture the attention of the reader, it is important to give accurate and informative details and critiques.
Nora McCarten(Dec 05 2016 10:45AM):
Yes! The line between a personal review and a more formal "business" review lies in this enthusiasm. however, the accuracy and information you mention needs to be present in all reviews, regardless of the level of enthusiasm.
Dylan Diaz(Dec 08 2016 9:49PM):
For the reviewer to show interest in writing about the work is important, however, the reviewer does not need to praise the work.
Lena Inglis(Dec 09 2016 5:56PM):
pool believes that it is okay to disagree and criticize a book, but in American culture we see criticism as impolite or in bad taste, so what we are left with are reviewers who have nothing but great things to say.
John Martakis(Dec 16 2016 8:41AM):
And this cheerleading hurts the reviewer's reputation. If the same person constantly praises products from the same company in their reviews, it may look like they are paid by the company or they are biased. It just doesn't seem genuine after a while.
Carl Rollyson(Dec 17 2016 7:24AM):
Actually, very few reviewers have a following, which means readers and editors would not even be aware of the phenomenon you are describing.
John Martakis(Dec 18 2016 1:31PM):
Not sure I agree with you on this. Look up David Pierce's 2016 MacBook Pro review for Wired and you'll be greeted by a comment section filled with accusations of Apple fanboyism.
more
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.
Carl Rollyson(Dec 19 2016 6:25AM):
Most reviewers do not have a following. People do not recognize the reviewer's name. You just pointed out an exception to what is generally true.
Alexander Rothenberg(Dec 12 2016 7:06PM):
This phrase is indicative of reviews that say only good or bad things without any actual critique. As far as reviews come. Readers want to be engaged and have substance to the points the reviewer is making rather than just seeing "it's great."
John Martakis(Dec 16 2016 5:27AM):
The purpose of a review is to inform. By over enthusiastically cheerleading, readers won't be informed of any bad aspects. The review will read more like an advertisement as opposed to a critique.
Kenny Yu(Dec 16 2016 2:24PM):
I complete agree with this line. In our society, there is too much cheerleading and blind supporting. Instead people should actually be passionate and not just pretending to everything is amazing.
Alex Pitre(Nov 18 2016 7:55AM):
"...newspapers' focus on news has led American papers in various was to treat books as news, striving for such qualities as objectivity..."
[Edited]more
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.
Ariel Lerner(Nov 18 2016 10:57AM):
Do you think the best reviews come from people who have an inherent interest and foreknowledge in the subject they are reviewing? Isn't it possible that they would also run the risk of being bored by works that cover ground they are already familiar with?
Carl Rollyson(Nov 19 2016 6:48AM):
I don't think the reviewer will be bored because the reviewer finds the subject engaging. The reviewer might be bored if the book seems boring.
Dvora Zomberg(Dec 13 2016 11:33PM):
matching reviewers to books
more
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.
Carl Rollyson(Nov 19 2016 6:47AM):
I think reviewing is subject, and you have to be open about your bias or point of view so the reader can take that into account. But sometimes the reviewer does not really have an opinion or feels it is best to just be descriptive.
Dvora Zomberg(Dec 13 2016 11:38PM):
some things are objective
more
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.
Lena Inglis(Dec 09 2016 6:11PM):
Somehow I think the same can go for those who "cheerlead" a book. Their audiences trust their opinions (perhaps even blindly) and if they suggest a book and place a stamp of approval on it, it flies off the shelves. We live in the era of "influencers"
more
Desktop/Laptop: double-click any text, highlight a section of an image, or add a comment while a video is playing to start a new conversation. Tablet/Phone: single click then click on the "Start One" link (look right or below).
Click "Reply" on a comment to join the conversation.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
into cheerleading.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
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.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
which are pretty much promotional cheerleaders.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment