Most recent public comments by Ignacio Salas https://nowcomment.com/users/23593 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640932 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640932 in some sense, reviewers must be authoritative. After all, they are either recommending a book/movie/show or not. But the problem is that being too authoritative can make readers believe that the reviewer sees him/herself as superior. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:56:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640923 because in the reviewing business, time is of the essence. Reviewers are on tight schedules, and must read a variety of books in a short amount of time. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:38:09 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640921 It is way harder. First of all, you have to make your point in less space. Being concise but precise at the same time is no easy task. Writers need to say the most important things in a limited space, leaving less room for examples and illustrations. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:35:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640917 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640917 Ideally, reviewers should be experts on the topics they are reviewing. If a book is about life in Russia after the Soviet Union's fall, for instance, the reviewer should be on expert on this topic. But this does not occur in the real world, and makes the work for editors even harder. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:12:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640912 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640912 Reviewing is not like any type of writing. Reviewers must be objective, fair, accurate and knowledgeable about the subject their reviewing. In addition to that, they work on tight deadlines. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:38:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640653 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640653 it is important because it is not clear who is a reviewer. It is not even clear the difference between a reviewer and a critic. Is someone who rates a product on eBay or Amazon a reviewer, for instance? Anyone can review something, but not everyone is qualified. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:29:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=640649 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=640649 it means that editors are aware of what is publishable and what's not. They know the publishing business. They know how to edit, and adapt a work, according to a publishing house's expectations Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:12:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640647 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640647 In Prose's book, her diary is considered more than the mere testimony or historical document of the holocaust's most famous victim. If her work is considered art, we might think that Anne actually wrote it as a writer, and not only as the young girl who just wanted to document her experience. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:05:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640646 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640646 Prose's focus on Anne Frank changed the reviewer's view on the subject. Now he is also able to see her as a writer, and not only as a victim of the holocaust. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:56:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640644 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=640644 the first sentence explains why it is still relevant to write about Anne Frank--more specifically, why Prose's view of the subject as a writer is relevant. It answers the previous questions. This sentence introduces Frank as a writer and not only as the "most famous victim of the holocaust." Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:46:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=638168 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=638168 It is appropriate and relevant because Miller was Monroe's husband. But also, "attention must be paid" means that we must closely examine the book because the Marilyn that this book presents is way more than the stereotypical "dumb blonde." To me, that last sentence endorses the book. Wed, 14 Dec 2016 04:38:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=638167 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=638167 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." Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:41:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=636924 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=636924 it means that the historical document has not been edited and transformed by other people. It comes from a direct source (in this case Anne Frank) Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:29:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=636923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=636923 This paragraph keeps the reviewer's opinion as a mystery. The reviewer does not reveal if he likes the book or not; however, his 2 questions establish that there has been plenty of works on Anne Frank's life already. The major issue that these questions raise is that this topic/subject has been extensively covered. We will have to wait and keep reading the review to find out if this Prose has a different approach to Frank's life, or if this book is more of the same. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 01:53:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=636921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=636921 then I should say that the review is about a book that emphasizes Monroe's personal writing. But I still think it is appropriate to end the paragraph with a quote because it shows Monroe's thoughtful writing. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 01:01:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636920 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636920 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. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:47:22 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636919 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636919 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 Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:20:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636918 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636918 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. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:38:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636917 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=636917 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. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:33:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=636916 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=636916 it shows that Monroe was more than a sex symbol and a beautiful actress; she was also a simple woman who enjoyed trifles such as cooking, and more profound activities such as writing. The first paragraph also establishes the reviewer's credibility. Readers can tell that the reviewer knows enough about the subject, since he is able to confirm that this book is accurate. Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:21:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=569785 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=569785 Including "witty" and "dumb" in the same sentence is quite a good antithesis. In order to be witty or funny in general, you need to be bright (or at least have some sort of intelligence--even street-smart works), creative and, most importantly, quick-minded. Then, Rollyson proceeds to explain that in reaction to her whiny teacher, she would provoke him by playing her dumb blonde secretary side. These words say a lot about Monroe. Even if you know nothing about her, which is unlikely, you would still get a sense of her character. In other words, she was pretty smart and, consequently, she could exploit different aspects of her personality. Personally, I think that in order to play dumb, you must be pretty smart. I also interpret that she knew a lot about marketing, and that she definitely knew how to sell herself to the world (figuratively speaking). Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556606 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=556606 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." Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:23:44 -0400