Defining the genre
A review is defined as a critical appraisal or formal assessment of something, and used for, or intended, for a specific purpose. Reviews are often highly subjective evaluations of a publication, performance or perhaps a product, service, or event.
Often a sense (or assumption of) shared knowledge will permeate a review. In almost any form, reviews engage with the audience through their treatment of the subject matter as a marker of authority. Many authors of reviews will also allow for sections of the audience that have an interest in the subject (for example of a novel or film) but who have not necessarily read the book or seen the film. ‘Spoiler alerts’ (a warning of a coming revelation for those who wish to know about the item being reviewed without having the plot spoiled for them) are a specific feature of the genre. In this way, the author communicates with the audience to show their level of knowledge of the subject, as well as using it as a discourse marker within the flow of the text.
We need to return to context to engage fully with the texts, and as usual must consider them alongside purpose and audience. Reviews published online as a blog entry, perhaps, or linked to a comments sections (often film reviews) on official and unofficial websites, might at first adhere to those forms and their genre conventions (i.e. the blog’s or webpage’s textual indications of genre), but the review as a distinct text will still retain its own identity – and thus generic conventions – even when seemingly absorbed into the whole.
Another example of this idea might be where reviews form a separate section on an online version of a printed newspaper. The review will often have its own section or subsection (i.e. within a ‘weekend’ or arts and culture tab) as it would in the printed format, but as a webpage is also likely to have areas for the public to make further comment or share their views. The point here is that the review is still a review, but in these forms it becomes a multimodal text, and as such extends into a discussion or further development of points whilst still retaining its original identity. We may argue that this is equally true of other texts when adapted for social media or for viewing on the internet, but with this genre, we could say that the author’s evaluation or opinions as expressed in the text keep the form preserved and undiluted.
Reviews may come in many shapes and guises. Compare, for example, a tabloid’s TV listings pages that offer short, snapshots of a programme (sometimes as a ’pick of the week’-type feature) with a ballet performance review in a broadsheet. However, all reviews are characterised by a central, subjective viewpoint that is presented using an engaging style of language.
Typical generic conventions
Typical generic conventions for reviews include:
Title/headings/subheadings, often with a by-line that may include a short summary of the review. Use of quotation or graphological highlighting of parts of the review and/or the work being reviewed.
A clear structure: often linear with an introduction, development and summary. Sometimes a précis of the plot or an outline of the main structure of the work which may be included in the body of the review.
Intertextual (i.e. of a novel) references, for example links to other works by the same author/writer and how this piece being reviewed might relate to them.
Biographical information about the writer/author, sometimes as background to the review and/or the work being reviewed, or in general references made throughout the piece.
Use of quotation from the work, often embedded within the language of the review and/or as separate sections, sometimes with quotations from other writers or other reviews on which to develop the argument or to support the points made.
A mixture of registers – sometimes formal, sometimes informal, depending on the context of the publication, intended audience, and that in some ways might mirror the register of the text being reviewed.
An attempt (perhaps revealed in the tone) to appear objective, which may serve to mask the subjective viewpoint that is actually being conveyed. Asides or other techniques which support the sense of the author of the review as taking an observer’s stance.
Use of language and literary features that will engage the audience, e.g. humour, narrative elements, and in-jokes or other examples of shared knowledge with the expected audience.
Other rhetorical features to engage the audience, such as a sarcastic tone, rhetorical questions, paraphrasing or mirroring language of the reviewed work.
Commentary on the structure of the work, use of language, economical structures and pre- and post-modified noun phrases. Use of descriptive language and adjectival sentence structuring.
Clear paragraphing, with engaging opening and closing paragraphs.
Points to consider
Reviews share similar features in structure, layout and authorial stance.
How close as genres could you consider reviews to be, in reference to reportage, or feature articles? Does this make it easier to transform a review into, for example, a feature article? Why?
What are the main differences or similarities with online reviews and a blog on a similar subject? Consider aspects of spoken language features, for example.
If a review is written about a service or product that relates to travel, for example about a package holiday, could we consider this a travelogue?
Consider writing a short review of the podcast in the Voices anthology in an online format. Is your text likely to be multi-modal? To what extent might it be a cross-genre piece? What genres might it be crossing over?
