Review (from the Latin recensio “consideration”) – recall, analysis and evaluation of a new artistic, scientific work, literary, newspaper and magazine publication. The review is characterized by a small volume and brevity.
In the classics, the reviewer discovers the possibility of its actual, cutting-edge reading. Any work should be considered in the context of modern life and the recent literary process: to evaluate it precisely as a new phenomenon. This topicality is a vital sign of the review.
Reviews are creative works, for example:
- a small literary-critical or publicistic article (often polemical) in which the work in question is an occasion for discussing topical public or literary problems;
- an essay that is mostly a lyrical reflection of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, rather than its interpretation;
- an expanded annotation in which the content of the work, the features of the composition are disclosed, and simultaneously its evaluation is contained.
An approximate plan for reviewing a literary work:
- bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of release) and a brief (in one or two sentences) retelling its content;
- immediate response to the work of literature (recall-impression).
Critical analysis or complex text analysis:
- meaning of the name;
- analysis of its form and content;
- composition features;
- the author’s skill in depicting heroes;
- individual style of the writer.
- the main idea of the review;
- the topicality of the subject of the work.
Is not necessarily the presence of all of the above components, most importantly, that the review was attractive and competent.
Principles of Peer Review
The impetus to creating a review is always the need to express one’s attitude to what has been read, an attempt to understand your impressions caused by the work, but by elementary knowledge in the theory of literature, a detailed analysis of the work.
The reader can say about the book read or the viewed movie “like or dislike” without proof. And the reviewer must thoroughly substantiate his opinion with a deep and well-reasoned analysis. The relationship between the referee and the author is a creative dialogue with an equal position of the parties. The author’s “I” manifests itself openly, to influence the reader rationally, logically and emotionally. Therefore, the reviewer uses language tools that combine the functions of naming and evaluation, book and common words and constructions. A detailed retelling reduces the value of the review: first, it is not interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a weak review is rightly considered substitution of analysis and interpretation of the text by retelling it.
Every book begins with a title that you interpret as you read in the process of reading, you solve it. The name of good work is always multivalued; it is a kind of symbol, a metaphor. A lot to understand and interpret the text can give an analysis of the composition. Reflections on which compositional techniques (antithesis, ring structure, etc.) are used in work will help the referee to penetrate the author’s intention. Which parts can you mark from etire the text? How are they located?
It is essential to assess the style, originality of the writer, to disassemble the images, the artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and to consider what is his individual, unique style than this author differs from others. The reviewer analyzes “how the text is done”. A school review should be written as if no one in the examining board with the reviewed work is familiar. It is necessary to assume what questions this person can ask, and try to prepare in advance the answers to them in the text.