psc@lzwi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (08/17/85)
All flaming aside, let me take a crack at what I think these two are,
or should be.
A review should get people interested in a story, and say what people
are likely to enjoy it (or not). This means more than "if you liked..."
I thought Sheffield's latest novel was trash, but I loaned it to
someone who likes ideas. (He refused to accept what I thought was the
premise of the story, because said premise is silly, and thus was less
than impressed by the ideas.) The key word here is "enjoyment". This
is *not* the same as "mindless enjoyment"; I'm sure that, in some
important sense of the word, Davis Tucker "enjoyed" reading Delany's
TITAN. (So did I; I had a heck of a sense of accomplishment when I'd
finished it.) The biggest weakness is losing track of objectivity
("FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH is the SF movie I enjoyed the most, so
I think you'll like it, too.")
Criticism should be an evaluation of the "quality" of a story. (For
a good description of "quality", see ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE
MAINTENANCE. Really.) Over the years, critics have found patterns in
good and bad stories, and can describe new work in terms of those
patterns. Some critics, alas, lose track of the importance of quality,
and try to shoehorn round stories into square descriptions.
Anyone care to criticize (not review) these opinions?
--
-Paul S. R. Chisholm The above opinions are my own,
{pegasus,vax135}!lzwi!psc not necessarily those of any
{mtgzz,ihnp4}!lznv!psc telecommunications company.
(*sigh* ihnp4!lzwi!psc does *NOT* work!!! Use above paths.)
"Of *course* it's the murder weapon. Who would frame someone with a fake?"