My query relates to an area of the WW site which many members will not be familiar with, so will not realise there is a problem. It is because I post to several groups that it is so apparent to me.

I am a keen writer of reviews, and film reviews, possibly my favourite writing genre, but they seem to have a semi-pariah status on this site. For a start,I notice the half dozen or so that I've posted don't appear on my WriteWords page in the archive of works. Secondly, there is no facility for 'owner edit', so any revisions appear at the end, which spoils them, or, as I decided recently, have to be treated as a whole new posting. Finally, there is not a separate 'Reviews' group. Do reviews attract 1O points like other work postings? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter except as a parity issue, but I suspect not.

Although reviews can be short - in fact summarising whilst retaining reader interest is part of the writing challenge - a lot of work goes into them. You can't just sit down and make them up, as you can with fiction, for instance. First you have to go to see the film, exhibition, play, etc. A good review depends on the writer's prevous exposure to the genre, but research is needed if the review is to be informative about the author's/director's/actors' previous work and intentions, not to mention audience reception. Besides, a lot of poems are short, and so is flash fiction. It's not a reason to treat reviews differently.

It is a legitimate area of published writing. I'm doing a part-time Journalism course at the moment and I can't wait to get past the new-story and profile writing and onto feature writing. My teacher, with extensive experience as a working journalist, specialises in theatre reviews, which is why I chose her course. I've already joined the Journalism group, but have posted the reviews to the review section of WW, which is where they seem to belong. Perhaps I should also send them to the Journalism group, for more standard conditons, such as having them appear in my archive.

Does anybody have any answers as to why reviews are apparently not considered as legitimate writing, on a par with poetry or short story writing?

Sheila

I feel you, Sheila. I agree that Reviews are highly underrated.

Hi Sheila,
I agree too. I write reviews for myself firstly, but also as a writing exercise. I only respond to review threads if I have seen the film or if I have something to add. I don't tend to read them if the film doesn't interest me.

However, someone reads them - just look at the hit count!

Of course as this is a public forum, we have to be careful what we say about a film or book which can be restrictive.

I think the original idea of the Reviews forum was to bring our attention to a film, book or whatever that might interest us, rather than as a piece of writing.

I remember posting a brief review of a film once and incurring such a vitriolic attack from someone who told me in no uncertain terms they DIDN’T APPROVE OF THAT FILM, I've steered well clear ever since. No-one mentioned what they thought of the review itself.

Perhaps as well as posting reviews on the forum, you should copy them into the Film & TV group archive where they will appear as a piece of uploaded work available for editing and receiving feedback.

Dee

Thanks, Dee. Yes, I think that's what I'm doing at the moment- posting my reviews to the Film &TV forum. They don't appear on my profile page, and I wondered why. My point was that reviewing is a legitimate genre of writing with its own status. Now that you describe its history on this site I see why I misunderstood. I suppose people could recommend or describe films, books, programmes they've seen in the lounge forum, if it's just a matter of exchanging information?

I wonder if the low status is derived from the tendency of bookish people to regard films as an inferior form of storytelling? Yet there is a script and screenwriting group so that kind of contradicts that way of thinking. Besides, I'm referring to writing reviews, and they may just as easily be reviews of art exhibitions or plays or books themselves.

As for disagreement, that's part of the fun, just like disagreeing about books. Film taste is very personal, so it is OK for people to say they don't like a particular film. Provided they are not offensive it is acceptable, but not very edifying unless they attach a reason, and that may not be anything at all to do with the quality of the film. Professional reviwers are people with a lot of experience and knowledge and they hope to enlarge people's appreciation of film , not just say what they themselves like or dislike. They try to point to general principles as well as personal taste. Having said this, people have their preferred reviewers, whose opinions they trust; just as people have writers whose opinions they share.

Sheila



<Added>

'Of course as this is a public forum, we have to be careful what we say about a film or book which can be restrictive.'

e.g. I am not sure what you mean. Could you give me an example?

Sheila, what I meant was that, as well as the Film & TV Forum, there is also a Film & TV Group. If you join that you can upload the same review into the archive, just as you do for a short story or a poem.

Alternatively, if enough members are interested, you could ask DB to form a Reviews Group.

Dee

Oh, sorry, Dee, for the misunderstanding. Yes, I see what you mean. I think I did look at the Film and TV group before and it seems to be devoted to scriptwriting. I'll look again, because I may be wrong, or it may have changed. Perhaps I am just posting things in the wrong way, but it seems quite different from posting, say, a short story. My latest idea was that I could try posting revews to the Journalism group as I am already a member.

There seems to be enough of a core of film reviewers to form a group, but I will check.

How do I get in touch with this DB? I don't think we have ever been introduced. I presume these are his initials, but I have noticed people refer to a David, so maybe he it is he?

Thank you again for your help.

Sheila

Sorry, Sheila. DB is David Bruce, the webmaster. You can either send him a WWmail or you can email him. If you scroll right down to the bottom of the page there’s a Contact Us button. I think it’s admin@writewords.org.uk

He’s very amenable to new ideas and suggestions.

Dee

Cornelia, I missed a comma before the which, maybe that makes more sense?! I just meant that I would be wary about being too damning about a book, bearing in mind the review would come up on google and so the writer, agent, publisher and families could all (in theory) read it!

E.g. - Does the review come up on google? Yet another reason for making reviews as private as other postings.

I sometimes put film reviews on the BBC Collective site. It wouldn't occur to me to say I liked a bad film in case the director or lead actor read the review. This seems a very odd idea, although a very kindly and good-natured approach, I suppose. Film reviews are supposd to be some kind of guide to quality, though. If you kept sending people to 'turkeys' you'd recommended you'd soon lose all credibility as a reviewer After all, there are lots of bad films about. I was quite scathing about 'The Constant Gardener', as I remember, but I doubt if Rachel Weisz is losing any sleep over my comments.

There's also the point that reviews are meant to convey truth, not just praise the works - although that doesn't count for blurbs written for listings, of course. You can hardly expect TV Times to admit they are filling up gaps in the schedules with third-rate B-movies.

One film website I look at is called Rotten Tomatoes, and includes favourable and unfavourable comments on particular films. It would be a strange film-maker, or author, who didn't expect some people not to like his work, and to say so. If we were all too polite, books like 'Mein Kampf' would have no detractors.

Another good site is IMDb (Internet Movie Database) where lots of people post their views - many of them in very bad language, I might add, and some are really more like rants than anything else so I don't usually find them edifying. Still, they are entitled to their views without worrying in case someone connected reads their insults.

Perhaps I misunderstand, as I can't really think you mean to say we should never say anything negative about books and films. It's different if we happen to know the author, of course. Then we can just declare an interest so people can make their own minds up and take account of bias.

Dess, yes, I can see the Contact Us link at the foot of the page, and you must be wondering why I didn't go straight to the top instead of taking up space here!

Sheila

Cornelia,
No, of course I'm not saying to pretend to like things! I'm not really talking about film reviews either - more books and radio stuff. As the forums are public I wouldn't want to be remembered for slagging off a book - I guess it comes out of a sensitivity of having critiqued so many people's work on here, I know the struggle a writer has had to get into print so don't want to put a damper on it all - unless of course it's dire, but in that case I'm embarassed to say I've read it at all!

Oh, I am sorry - sometimes I can't believe how bad a book is until I have read it all through; I like to give it a chance, and besides it's rare that a book is entirely bad. I wasn't really meaning 'slagging off', just explaining why a work wasn't to one's taste, orwhich bits seemed incredible or offensive. No, the film reviews, the subject of my posting, are mainly mainstream works with no connection to anyone here. I agree it is quite different with fellow members seeking constructive criticism. Even then, there is a method of deflecting unwanted remarks, by choosing the right option.

Sheila

Cornelia - thanks for raising an interesting issue. I think Dee is right that we thought of the reviews as conceptually different. If we were to have a reviewers group, the idea would be to comment on the technical approach and qualities of the review, in other words, to develop the skills of the reviewer.

Whilst it's entirely possible to do that if there's a demand, we felt most people are writing reviews to make their own comment on the qualities of the book or the film. So in effect, a review is more like the first comment on a piece of work in the writewords archive, rather than the work itself. Hence the distinction!

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

Hello David, and thank you for a response before I had written to you, as I intended. I am sorry I don't know enough about the history and formation of the WriteWords group to understand the concept formations you may have had at the time.(It would be good if someone could supply a potted history)

I am a bit confused, and will try to explain why.

You write:
'we felt most people are writing reviews to make their own comment on the qualities of the book or the film. '

Yes, I agree that a review is the writer's own comments - opinions backed up by evidence, which is essentially like any other branch of journalism. This is a definition, like 'a story told in extended prose' is a definition of a novel. It seems to be the intervention of personal opinion that seems to be at the root of the objection to reviews as a discrete writing genre. Wouldn't that apply to much of the poetry that is submitted, to take one instance of how the same objection might apply to others?

'So in effect, a review is more like the first comment on a piece of work in the writewords archive, rather than the work itself.'

I hadn't thought of it like this at all. It seems to me there is a great deal of difference between commenting on WriteWord's members' postings and writing a review. The main difference is that a review is written in response to a finished work that is in the public domain, and the second difference is the intended audience.

The postings comments, as the instructions imply, are more to do with encouraging, suggesting changes and even, on occasion, pointing our technical error,( although, as I noticed recently that is not on the list that comes at the beginning of invited comments). Review writing, on the other hand, assumes the author is as good as dead - certainly it assumes the work will not change. It would be foolish to write a review of, say, 'Hamlet', and think a new, improved 'Hamlet' would result. Arguably, writing a review of a particular production might influence future directors, but it seems unlikely, unless one were a Michael Billington.

It has a different audience - not the writer him/herself, but people who might want to read the book, see the film, or just like to read a discussion of something they are interested in. They may be reading the review after they have seem the film. In this respect it is more like a reading group meeting to discuss a book they've all read. I read all the film reviews in 'Sight& Sound', not because I intend to see all the films but just because I like reading reviews. I also read the synopses, which, as someone pointed out to me, must spoil the plot, but that's not my concern.I justlike reading synopses.

To an extent the reviewer has to display credentials in the way that fellow WW members don't - all responses are equally valid and it's up to the writer to decide which are the most useful.A reviewer has to learn a format and show knowledge of other works in the genre, or by the same director, by making comparisons. A knowledge of appropropriate language is essential to discuss aspects of the work.(mise-en-scene, for instance) In the case of foreign films, familiarity with particular culture is useful. Yes, a reviewing group would entail quite a bit of technical discussion, but then so do other groups. The writing needs to be much more crafted and much less personal than merely commenting that one liked a piece because it was about the countryside or animals and that the work might be improved with a bit more description or fewer characters or that the last paragraph might be better if it came first.


Having put forward ( I hope) a spirited argument for regarding reviewing as a discrete genre, although somewhat at odds with the founders' concepts, I am quite happy to accept it as a branch of Journalism. As I said before, I am currently doing a part-time Journalism course. The teacher, Carole Woddis is a very expereinced journalist who specialises in theatre reviews, which I think are classified as 'features'. It would seem more logical to me, if reviewing is not regarded as a separate group, to incorporate it with Journalism, as it would more properly belong there.

I was just querying the review's odd after-thought status, neither one thing or another -the reason why I termed it 'the WriteWords Cinderella'.

Thank you for your explanation.

Sheila