Comments by John Martakis Most recent public comments by John Martakis https://nowcomment.com/users/24002 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. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=641264 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=641264 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. Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:25:28 -0500 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. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=640670 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=640670 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:25:28 -0500 Qualifications are definitely important as they show whether or not the reviewer is reputable. As Pool says, anybody can be a reviewer, no matter how trustworthy they may or may not be. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640654 It is also important to know the preferences of the reviewer. If I find a reviewer who shares similar tastes with me, I'll be more likely to trust their opinion. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:29:52 -0500 You raise a good point. By making such inferences, the biographer is hurting their own credibility. Are they making any other assumptions and stating them as fact? https://nowcomment.com/documents/56410?scroll_to=640652 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56410?scroll_to=640652 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:17:15 -0500 By describing Monroe as two positive characteristics that aren't often emphasized in biographies, it is shown that Monroe has unique qualities that go unnoticed or unappreciated. The author then shows the more human side of Monroe. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=640650 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=640650 The impact of this paragraph is that it shows the reader they still have things to learn about Monroe, and that she's more interesting than she is often made out to be. It makes me want to learn more about who Marilyn was, not who others portray her as. The paragraph also serves to establish the reviewer and his expertise on Monroe. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:12:57 -0500 "The world" going wrong sounds a lot more tragic than a marriage going wrong. Life can continue after marriage ends - the way the sentence is worded makes it seem like everything came to a horrible end for Hughes. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=640645 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=640645 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:49:00 -0500 I'm astonishingly guilty of this one. It's a tough habit to shake. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640630 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640630 Not only can these words be applied to any book, they're also vague and usually unnecessary. I find that my sentences always sound better without them. It can be difficult to express ideas without resorting to these adjectives, but it's part of what makes a good reviewer. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:16:20 -0500 I assumed this as well. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640626 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640626 I would have thought some reviews would require so much editing that most editors would rather just move on to the next one. Also, I figured editors would prefer to edit reviews based on things they're at least somewhat familiar with. Seems like editors don't have the time to be picky - must not be easy. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:10:39 -0500 This has happened to me as well. Sometimes you get sick of something after examining every minute detail. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640625 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640625 Sometimes I'll enjoy a movie and go to write a review on it. When I write the review, I think about what I liked and what I disliked. If nothing stood out to me as a huge negative, I'll have to think about it for a minute... Then I'll come up with a bunch of negatives that never really bothered me during the initial viewing. In any future viewings, these negatives become all I can focus on. I guess sometimes critiquing something can ruin a positive initial impression. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:47:08 -0500 My apologies - for some reason I was thinking of the editors for the book itself, not the book review editors. I answered a question that wasn't asked. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=640624 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=640624 I suppose book review editors are aware of publishing houses in that they know what kind of "flavor" the house may have given to the book that is being reviewed. Knowing this, they may wish to edit the review in some ways. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:39:52 -0500 Yes, every reviewer will find something that catches their eye. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=640623 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=640623 I'm reminded of a review I recently read where one reviewer couldn't get over the fact that the item was now made in China when it wasn't in the past. This one fact seemed to distract them from giving a fair, thorough review, while most other reviewers couldn't be bothered to mention it. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:11:07 -0500 An epigraph sets the tone of the work. The reader should get a feel for what's to come, hence why the epigraph comes first. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=640621 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=640621 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:58:07 -0500 Definitely. I would think that every word that makes it to the publisher is because of the editor - they had the opportunity to delete some words, but they chose to approve what was sent. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=640620 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56405?scroll_to=640620 The editor has the final say in the final product that goes to the publisher, so calling them a connecting point between reviewer and publisher is true. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:28:24 -0500 I like how you brought up culture. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=640619 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=640619 Whether we admit it or not, the culture and society we live in affects how we see things. A southerner born in the 1800's would likely review Uncle Tom's Cabin differently from somebody born in the past few decades. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:45:04 -0500 Exactly. Society constantly progresses and perspectives always change. It can be interesting to see how opinions of the past differ from opinions of today, if at all. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=640618 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56403?scroll_to=640618 Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:37 -0500 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. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=640617 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56402?scroll_to=640617 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:27:34 -0500 Succinct writing is difficult, especially when the reviewer has a lot to say. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640616 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56401?scroll_to=640616 Every word must serve a purpose. Identifying which words are wasted space and getting the point across efficiently while maintaining good style is never easy. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:21:41 -0500 The phrase "must have been" implies that the idea in question is surely factual. Refusing to consider other possibilities is akin to willful ignorance. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56410?scroll_to=640615 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56410?scroll_to=640615 It's important to remain open to newly discovered information that may disprove what "must have been." Before Copernicus, other planets and stars "must have" circled Earth. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:13:37 -0500 It's extremely difficult to be completely unbiased. The Catcher in the Rye is a book with plenty of negative and positive reviews. Some reviewers say they loved it because they were able to relate to Holden, while others thought he was an annoying brat. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640614 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56400?scroll_to=640614 Lived experiences and other biases will most likely affect the way the reviewer looks at a book, and no two authors will have identical biases. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:08:35 -0500 One reason reviewing (and writing in general) is hard to do well is because different courses will have different criteria and standards. What one professor teaches may contradict another professor. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640613 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56359?scroll_to=640613 Developing a good style while being able to judge fairly and thoroughly takes a lot of practice, especially when under the pressure of meeting a deadline. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:33:12 -0500 A woman who uses her irresistible good looks to lure in prey - the men that love her - can be described as a femme fatale. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=639753 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56408?scroll_to=639753 By describing Assia as a femme fatale, she's made out to be the tempting yet dangerous "bad guy," as opposed to the "hag" Sylvia Plath. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 02:13:47 -0500 Pool is saying that review editors must keep the best interests of publishing houses in mind while editing. Editors must cater to the publishing house's tastes in order to present them with a finished product they'd find ideal. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=639750 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56358?scroll_to=639750 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:39:52 -0500 Bad reviews can have verdicts, too. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=639747 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56357?scroll_to=639747 What separates good and bad reviews is how the author arrives to their verdict. Did the author thoroughly test and learn the material they are reviewing, or are they ignorant to certain features or facts? Does the review contain misinformation or an unreasonable amount of bias? Is it made clear who the intended audience is for the item being reviewed? These are important questions to ask regarding the content of the review. Stylistically, a good review is well-written, concise, and engaging. Anybody can say something is good or bad, it's how they validate their opinion that matters. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:12:36 -0500 If a historical document is unmediated, it means the document is from a firsthand source and has not been altered in any way. In other words, after reading Prose’s work, it will be impossible to view Anne Frank’s diary as an unedited, original source. https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=576234 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56406?scroll_to=576234 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:07:34 -0500 In reply to Carl Rollyson https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=571117 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56356?scroll_to=571117 Including "witty" and "dumb" in the same sentence shows Monroe's versatility as an actress. Playing the role of a character with a personality completely different from your own is difficult, but for Monroe this wasn't a challenge. The short example gives good insight into Monroe's character and shows what kind of person she was. She had the wit to think of clever comebacks and the acting skills to go through with them. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:07:34 -0500 Decent biography, but only for a certain type of person https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=563825 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56355?scroll_to=563825 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. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:07:33 -0500