Removed
- Thread starter DeadpanLunatic
- Start date
Part of the problem is this is the feedback he deserves, regardless of how critical it may seem on the outset.Caramel Frappe said:
To begin with, everything DeadpanLunatic said is on-point for various styles of writing. That's not to say his statements are the only way to structure a piece of writing, but they're all very solid ideas that provide the argumentative basis for nearly all pieces of writing pertaining to persuasion.
Secondly, the very nature of a review is that it's a piece of writing for the reader. Even if you disagree with DeadpanLunatic's points, the fact that he is capable of those opinions proves that as a for-the-reader medium, the reviews fail the basic premise of reviewing the material to the satisfaction of the reader. That's not to say that it's a common criticism, or one that has to be corrected, but it is there none the less, and is no more or less deserving of attention than any other opinions. Including yours.
Finally, on the topic...
There are grounds to be more critical of a given review for failing to be relevant. By the very nature of a review, its meant to be for the consumer to be able to make an informed decision about a particular object. If it isn't current, that removes a large viewership for a particular piece. However, if a review fails to be relevant, then the review itself fails its basic premise for the reader.FargoDog said:
Admittedly, I wouldn't say that Marter's reviews aren't relevant, because all of the films are simultaneously accessible (through rental or purchase), but often wide enough so that any given viewer may not have seen the films in question. But there is something to be said for writing not just to a writer's whimsy, but instead, to a reader's.
Wow, I just decided to check this thread on a whim... had no idea I placed second. Yay me and congrats to Blueink, a talented writer whom I have followed since I first joined. To all the other people, most of whom I do not know, congratulations and well done!