Proposals in the review should be laconic and simple. Avoid the eloquent adverbial turns, superfluous epithets, complex structures. We follow the course of thought, try to put one thought into one small paragraph. Carefully and accurately we build reasoning. If the style of review does not involve a clearly expressed subjective position of the reviewer, we sacrifice our feelings and thoughts in favor of pure information.
We share our position and objective criteria. The book can be objectively good, but boring for you personally, and vice versa – objectively flawed, but subjectively charming. If everyone around us says that the book is brilliant – we do not have to agree, however, to object too. Even the most respected critic should not be portrayed as the supreme judge, the prophet in the literary fatherland and the ultimate truth. His opinion is his personal, honest opinion. Not more, but no less.
Write a laudatory or abusive review for material or non-material goods – you can. But it’s not worth the money.
Most writers perceive critical reviews without due enthusiasm. At first glance, it may seem that these are their problems, but a quarrel with a couple of serious masters can greatly spoil the life of the referee, reducing his prospects to acquire a list of regalia and publications in a fantastic field. Up to the heights from which you can express yourself without a twinge of conscience on the head of any writer who has turned up without looking back at the ranks and regalia, we are still far away – a niche of evil critics is densely occupied by the motherly titans of the spirit. Yes, and the position is unsweet: the usual referee lives much calmer. Therefore, remember how not to quarrel with the authors.
Reviewing and criticizing the work, we do not criticize the author and the more we do not climb into his personal life, religious and political views, bad habits, illnesses and weaknesses. If we do not have an exact quote from an interview with the author, we can only guess and guess what “the author wanted to say”, “what the author meant”. We use an elementary psychological method – “I-position” or “on-position”, speaking on behalf of myself or the abstract reader: “I saw in the text such and such a sense”, “the reader will find the position of the author provocative because of this and so” – and the wolves are full, and the writer is not offended, and there is nothing to complain about.