Young Writers Society

This is a record of all the #ReVIEWS answers we got over this month! We had some interesting chats and reflections about reviewing and what it means to write a good review. If I missed out anything, feel free to let me know via PM or here and I'll add it in.


Use 3 words to describe your favourite reviewer's reviewing style.

Liminality : Speculative, earnest, engaging . . .

The favourite reviewer I'm talking about is @MailicedeNamedy!
I love how they articulate their reactions to the plot points and the impressions of the characters in a story. I also enjoy reading their speculations on 'what happens next', as that helps me get a sense of whether any foreshadowing is working or not, or whether what indeed happens next makes sense given the previous scenes.

@Seirre: I don't have a favourite reviewer, so I just picked one of my favourites! The three words are: interactive, thoughtful, and balanced.

The person I have in mind is @Liminality! <3 I love how they always include reactions and interpretations in their reviews, and often leave some questions for the author to consider. They're also very thoughtful, and will read a work multiple times while reviewing, which I think is super important in order to be able to fully understand a work and provide helpful feedback. And lastly, their reviews are really well balanced between big-picture comments and more detail-oriented stuff as well!

What is your aim when you write a review?

@alliyah: My aim is solely to achieve beautiful color coordination between my username and profile by earning special username colors through reviewing during revmo I usually try to understand what the author is saying or what the piece *means* ~ so I usually start off with some sort of interpretation; which may seem a little obvious, but I think sometimes people do skip this step if they get in a cycle of just commenting on 3 different elements over and over again in a formulaic way, and usually I think you can't really comment well on the capitalization, punctuation, flow, or anything else if you don't start with what the meaning is. And then besides trying to give an interpretation, I usually try to identify a skill that I think the author did well with and one area of improvement too, or if not improve at least think more on. And besides that, just whatever comes to my mind! When I review I also usually aim to just enjoy reading whatever the piece is ~ and whenever reviewing starts to take away my enjoyment of reading, I've started to just stop reviewing or just do comments for a while.

Liminality: My aim is generally to interact with the text and the author. I try to record both my first impressions and the thoughts I have on the second read, but also any questions that popped up in my head while I was going through the work. I would like to try directing more questions to the author as well, especially when I notice a recurring theme or interest in their works, as it's always interesting to learn more about the inspirations and ideas behind the writing.

What do you think is the most important part of a review? Is it the interpretations and reactions? The conversations? The enthusiasm? Tell us!

@soundofmind: i like hearin people’s overall impressions and personal interpretations!

@alliyah: Hmm maybe depending on why you wrote the piece. I think I usually love to read Interpretations the best, but sometimes people will react to something or point out an issue and totally change how I initially viewed the poem

I think enthusiasm ~ depends too ~ like vague enthusiasm is sometimes hard to gauge sincerity, but specific enthusiasm is generally appreciated. :]

I never know what to do in prose reviews though so it was helpful reading what you wrote here about character perceptions.

Liminality: For me, the most important part of a review would be the impressions each reviewer gives to the work as a whole. For poetry, it's very useful for me to hear comments like "oh, this feels very horror-like" or "this stanza creeped me out" or "that stanza was really sad", etc. Conveying the 'right' emotion at the 'right' time and depicting the figures in my poems in a specific way is important to my writing, so feedback like this is super helpful.

Meanwhile, for prose, hearing how reviewers perceive the characters is one of the most fun parts of reading a review. It's really interesting to see where their perceptions match up with mine, and where they differ, as I think that says a lot about the text itself. I know I can miss things easily as a writer because the characters are one way in my head, and I can project that onto the text when re-reading my own work, whereas the actual words might be painting a different picture to most readers.

What's the difference for you between a review and a literary comment? How about reviewing compared to giving feedback on WFPs?

Liminality: For me, I have a surprisingly specific ratio:

1 literary comment (approximately) = 1 line comment in a review

So by 'line comment' I mean the part in a review where you go

Here is a line from the work.

^ Here is a specific comment about this specific line.

So usually I use literary comments when I just have one comment about a particular line that I just - have - to get out, even though I don't have the time/ energy to give a full review of the piece. I might include some asides on interpretation in a literary comment, but the core of it will be the impression I got from just that one line, whereas reviews from me always come with full interpretations + several line comments + miscellaneous.

I find WFP feedback to be more similar to giving several literary comments usually, rather than a full-fledged review. When I'm giving someone feedback in a pad, I usually put it in bullet points and not in full paragraphs (unless I have a LOT to say about a particular feature of the work). It's also different than either reviewing or commenting in the sense that it's 'live', so the writer might ask further questions right there and then and it's easier to have a conversation about the work. I also find people are more likely to talk about the work's 'backstory' in a pad than elsewhere.