Review Reaction Reflection (Part 1)
[WARNING!
Boring semantic argument hinging on suspect distinction ahead.
Don't say you weren't warned.]
Reflecting on the recent disagreement that erupted between Johanna
Draper Carlson and Laura Gjovaag (see
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and
here,
I think pretty much in that order), James Schee wonders, "
Review
or Commentary?" At issue is whether Johanna's short remarks
regarding
Aquaman #18 constitute an actual review.
Laura thinks they do (and that they form a bad one on top of that);
Johanna thinks they don't. My take is that it all depends on what
you mean by "review." I think the term is generally used in two
ways, narrowly and broadly. In the narrow sense, a review is a
longer, more thorough examination of a work. As
The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition, puts it, a
review is
"a report or essay giving a critical estimate of a work or
performance." Since one paragraph is hardly an essay, Johanna's
comments do not constitute a review in the strict sense.
However, many people use "review" more loosely to refer to any
evaluative commentary. Consider
Christopher
Butcher's description of
my
comments on Nausicaä:
Just this week I read a good review of Nausicaa (amongst
some other great books) by John Jakala at his blog. Go check it out,
it’s a great review and sums up some of the elements I enjoy about the
series.
Going by the strict definition of "review," my short paragraph on
Nausicaä
hardly passes muster: Basically all I did was ramble on about how
I was unable to pinpoint what it was I liked about
Nausicaä,
and when I couldn't figure out how to tie up my digressions, I cheated
and tried to distract everyone with a pretty picture. But in
thanking
Chris for his kind words, I myself referred to my scattered
thoughts as a review. Why? Well, part of it probably stems
from my personal philosophy of reviewing. I think the most
important function of a review is to stimulate discussion about a
work. So in that sense, if my short remarks (or Johanna's)
inspire thought, then they strike me as a review. (I'm not saying
everything that provokes a reaction counts as a review. I see it
as a necessary condition but not sufficient. Hopefully I'll be
able to delineate exactly what I see as the boundaries of a review when
I get around to writing my own
philosophy of
reviewing.) Another part of it is, well, that's just the way
people often seem to use the word.
I've been mindful of the distinction before, even if I've never written
about it explicitly til now. In trying to come up with titles for
entries about my reactions to comics, I often skirt the issue by
avoiding the term altogether. Last week's entry, for example,
only referred to "
Spring
Reading" not "Spring Reviewing." And for posts where I
quickly run down a bunch of books, I usually use some variation of the
title "
Quick
Cuts."
(Earlier this month I slipped with the DC books and used "
DCU
Quick Reviews," mainly because I liked the small rhyme in the
title.) Rigorous reviews take more effort than I'm generally
willing to put into my writing (plus I'm never happy with any one
format for very long) so I usually take the easy way out and write less
formal reactions in whatever style happens to appeal to me at the
moment. I don't mind if anyone refers to such informal writings
as reviews, but I'll also understand if people think of them as hastily
assembled opinions from someone too lazy to do proper reviews.
Next: To What Should That Attribute Be Attributed?
